G.R. No. 173483 , September 23, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, versus MERLIE DUMANGAY y SALE, Appellant.

FACTS

On November 29, 2002, an informant reported to the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) that appellant Merlie Dumangay y Sale was selling shabu at the corner of Don Pedro and Enriquez Streets, Barangay Poblacion, Makati City. A buy-bust team was formed, with MADAC member Francisco Barbosa as the poseur-buyer. The team coordinated with the Makati City Police Station’s Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU). Barbosa, accompanied by the informant, approached appellant in front of her house. The informant introduced Barbosa as a buyer. Appellant asked how much he wanted to purchase, and Barbosa replied, “dalawang daang piso lang,” handing over two marked ₱100 bills. In exchange, appellant gave him a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. After Barbosa examined the sachet, he gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to appellant’s arrest. During the arrest, the marked money and two additional plastic sachets containing similar substances were recovered from appellant. She was informed of the cause of her arrest and her constitutional rights. The seized items were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed that the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), each weighing 0.01 gram. The forensic chemist’s testimony was dispensed with due to a stipulation between the parties regarding the laboratory report.
Appellant pleaded not guilty during arraignment. At trial, the prosecution presented Barbosa as its sole witness. The defense presented only appellant, who denied the allegations. She testified that she was sleeping at home with her daughter when she was awakened by men who searched her house but found nothing illegal. She claimed she was forcibly taken to the barangay hall, where she was ordered to strip in a comfort room, but no drugs were found on her. She also asserted that no uniformed police officers were present during her arrest and that Barbosa was not among the arresting team. She did not file a complaint due to lack of familial support.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 135, convicted appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 02-3568 (for selling 0.01 gram of shabu, violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 ) and 02-3569 (for possessing 0.02 grams of shabu, violating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 ). She was sentenced to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine for the sale, and imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years plus a ₱300,000 fine for possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 , despite alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the defense’s claim of frame-up.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes charged. For illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, the elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment. These were proven through Barbosa’s credible testimony, detailing the buy-bust operation, the marked money, and the exchange of shabu. For illegal possession under Section 11, the elements are: (1) possession of a dangerous drug; (2) lack of legal authority; and (3) conscious possession. These were satisfied by the recovery of two additional sachets from appellant after her arrest.
The Court rejected appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up, which were deemed weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. It emphasized that the testimonies of law enforcement officers are presumed regular in the performance of duties, absent proof of ill motive. Minor inconsistencies in Barbosa’s testimony (e.g., whether the informant pointed out appellant or merely her location) were considered trivial and did not undermine the core narrative of the buy-bust operation. The Court also noted that the defense failed to substantiate claims of irregularities in the arrest or evidence handling.
Regarding the chain of custody, the Court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The sachets were immediately marked, forwarded to the crime laboratory, and tested, with no evidence of tampering. The stipulation on the forensic report further bolstered the prosecution’s case. The Court reiterated that the quantity of drugs seized (0.01 gram per sachet) is irrelevant to prosecution, as R.A. No. 9165 penalizes possession or sale regardless of amount.
Thus, appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalties imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals were upheld as conforming to law. No costs were awarded.