G.R. Nos. 146107-09; December 11, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROLANDO ALMEIDA y CALVIN @ TATA ROLLY, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Rolando Almeida was charged with illegal sale and possession of shabu and illegal possession of ammunition. The prosecution alleged that on July 1, 1999, a buy-bust operation was conducted in San Pedro, Laguna. A civilian asset acted as poseur-buyer and purchased a plastic sachet of shabu from appellant for P4,500. After the sale, appellant retreated inside a house. Police officers followed and arrested him on the second floor, where they allegedly saw him repacking shabu. The police also recovered additional shabu weighing 200.203 grams, various ammunition, cash, and drug paraphernalia from the floor of the room.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Appellant, his live-in partner Vanessa Padua, and a visitor, Gilbert Chico, testified that at the time, they were merely socializing. Several armed men in civilian clothes suddenly entered without a warrant, mauled appellant, and planted the drugs and ammunition. They claimed the arrest was a frame-up due to appellant’s previous drug-related arrests. The trial court convicted appellant on all charges.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt for illegal sale and possession of shabu and illegal possession of ammunition beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted appellant of illegal sale and illegal possession of ammunition but sustained his conviction for illegal possession of the 200.203 grams of shabu. For the sale charge, the Court found the evidence insufficient. The poseur-buyer, a civilian asset, was not presented in court. The testimonies of the police officers on the details of the sale were inconsistent regarding their positions and what they witnessed, creating reasonable doubt on whether a sale actually transpired. The non-presentation of the asset, without valid justification, weakened the prosecution’s case.
However, the conviction for possession of the 200.203 grams of shabu was affirmed. The police testified they saw appellant handling these drugs upon their entry to the second floor to arrest him. Possession under the law includes constructive possession, requiring only that the accused has dominion and control over the contraband, which was established here. The seizure was valid as the items were in plain view during a lawful warrantless arrest. For the ammunition, the Court acquitted appellant because the evidence was insufficient to prove he owned them, as two other persons were in the room. Furthermore, under Republic Act No. 8294, illegal possession of ammunition cannot be prosecuted separately when another crime, like illegal possession of drugs, is committed.