G.R. No. 106525 November 8, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Roberto Clapano y Salvador, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Roberto Clapano was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City for violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended) and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The information alleged that on or about November 14, 1991, in Iligan City, he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sold, transported, delivered, and possessed one aluminum foil containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or “shabu” without authorization. The case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the PNP NARCOM Field District Unit of Iligan City and Lanao del Norte. Based on information from a confidential agent, Arnel Sistona, that a drug pusher was selling shabu at Keno’s Restaurant on Cabili Avenue, a team was organized. Sistona acted as the poseur-buyer. At around 2:00 P.M. on November 14, 1991, Sistona met with Clapano outside the restaurant, gave him marked money, after which Clapano went inside and returned to hand Sistona an aluminum foil containing shabu. The NARCOM team then arrested Clapano. Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. In his defense, Clapano claimed he was merely talking to a friend outside the restaurant when suddenly arrested, denied selling shabu, alleged manhandling and a “frame-up,” and argued his right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of accused-appellant Roberto Clapano beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of shabu.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the prosecution established Clapano’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the trial court’s findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, who were law enforcers presumed to have regularly performed their duty, deserve respect. The positive testimonies of the arresting officers, particularly SPO1 Julieto Vega who witnessed the transaction, prevailed over the negative testimony of the appellant. The defense of frame-up was not substantiated by evidence. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer/informer and the marked money was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as the testimony of the eyewitness was sufficient and the absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus in evidence. The seizure of the shabu through a buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment, was sanctioned by law and did not violate the right against unreasonable search and seizure as the accused was caught in flagrante delicto.