G.R. No. 193388 , July 1, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RODOLFO BOCADI Y APATAN, Accused, ALBERTO BATICOLON Y RAMIREZ, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alberto Baticolon y Ramirez, together with Rodolfo Bocadi y Apatan, was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs). The information alleged that on March 1, 2005, in Dumaguete City, the accused, conspiring together, sold and delivered to an NBI poseur-buyer one plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of shabu. Bocadi was separately charged for illegal possession of 0.17 gram of shabu found on his person. Both pleaded not guilty, and the cases were consolidated for trial.
The prosecution’s version, led by Special Investigator Arnaldo Fineza (poseur-buyer), was that a buy-bust operation was conducted in Barangay Looc based on a confidential tip. At the location, Bocadi offered shabu, agreed to sell ₱300 worth, went inside a house, returned, and handed one sachet to SI Fineza. SI Fineza then handed the marked money to Baticolon, who was standing nearer. Upon arrest, Bocadi and Baticolon attempted to flee; Baticolon was apprehended after a chase. The marked money was recovered from Baticolon, and a second sachet was found on Bocadi. The seized items were inventoried at the NBI office in the presence of a media representative, a barangay kagawad, an NBI agent, and a PDEA representative, then submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the substance was shabu.
The defense claimed Baticolon was resting at home when a known police asset, Walter Adarna, barged in, assaulted him, took his wallet, and arrested him without cause. Defense witness May-May Artus corroborated this. Bocadi was allegedly only asked to pinpoint Baticolon’s house.
The Regional Trial Court found both accused guilty of illegal sale, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine. Bocadi was also convicted for illegal possession. Only Baticolon appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial courts erred in upholding the existence and validity of the buy-bust operation.
2. Whether the trial courts erred in ruling that conspiracy to sell illegal drugs was established.
3. Whether the trial courts erred in convicting Baticolon despite his guilt not being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions.
1. On the validity of the buy-bust operation: The Court found the operation valid and legitimate. The prosecution established all elements of illegal sale: the identities of the buyer (SI Fineza) and sellers (Baticolon and Bocadi), the object (shabu), the consideration (₱300), and the delivery and payment. The corpus delicti was presented in court. The defense of denial and frame-up was rejected, as it cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, especially since the accused were caught in flagrante delicto.
2. On the existence of conspiracy: The Court agreed conspiracy was proven. The testimony of SI Fineza showed that Baticolon and Bocadi acted in concert: Bocadi negotiated and delivered the shabu, while Baticolon received the marked money. Their coordinated actions demonstrated a common design to sell illegal drugs.
3. On proof beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that Baticolon’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s evidence, including testimonial and object evidence, was credible and consistent. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established, with the inventory conducted in the presence of required witnesses. The defense’s version was deemed unreliable and uncorroborated.
The penalty of life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine for each accused was sustained in accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 .