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 in three separate Informations for illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and illegal possession of ammunition. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted on July 1, 1999, in San Pedro, Laguna. A civilian asset acted as poseur-buyer and allegedly purchased a plastic sachet of shabu from appellant for P4,500.00 outside a house. Upon the consummation of the sale, police officers moved in, but appellant retreated inside the house and went upstairs. The officers followed and, on the second floor, allegedly found appellant repacking shabu and another individual sniffing shabu. The police confiscated additional shabu weighing 200.203 grams, various ammunition, cash, and drug paraphernalia.
The defense presented a different version. Appellant, his live-in partner Vanessa Padua, and a visitor, Gilbert Chico, testified that at the time of the alleged incident, they were merely socializing inside the house when armed men forcibly entered without a warrant, ransacked the place, planted evidence, and arrested them after demanding money. They denied any drug transaction occurred.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved the illegal sale of shabu beyond reasonable doubt; (2) whether the appellant was guilty of illegal possession of the 200.203 grams of shabu; and (3) whether the appellant was guilty of illegal possession of ammunition.

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. Regarding the sale, the Court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient. The testimony of the poseur-buyer, a crucial witness, was not presented. The police officers’ testimonies on the actual sale were inconsistent and lacked the requisite detail to establish the identity of the buyer and seller and the corpus delicti of the sale, creating reasonable doubt.
For the charge of illegal possession of the 200.203 grams of shabu, the Court ruled the evidence sufficient. Possession under the law includes constructive possession, requiring only that the accused has dominion and control over the contraband. The police testified they saw appellant handling the drugs on the second floor, establishing his control. The Court rejected the defense of an illegal search, ruling the items were in plain view during a lawful warrantless arrest hot on the pursuit of appellant after the alleged sale.
Finally, the Court acquitted appellant of illegal possession of ammunition. The ammunition was found on the floor in a room with two other persons, failing to prove appellant’s exclusive possession. Furthermore, applying Republic Act No. 8294, the separate offense of illegal possession of ammunition cannot be sustained when the accused is convicted for another crime, such as illegal possession of dangerous drugs.