GR 151314; (June, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 151314; June 3, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. MARIAM BANDANG y SALAMAT, ADING SALAMAT & RAKIMA ABUBAKAR, appellants.
FACTS
The prosecution evidence established that based on a tip, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellants for drug trafficking near Arlegui Bridge, Quiapo, Manila. On May 2, 2000, PO1 Olga Carpentero, acting as poseur-buyer, was introduced by an informant to appellants Mariam Bandang and Rakima Abubakar. They negotiated for the sale of 700 grams of shabu for ₱490,000. The transaction was set for the following day. On May 3, 2000, the teams proceeded with boodle money. Appellants entered Carpentero’s car, where Bandang handed over a black bag containing seven plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. Upon receiving the bag, Carpentero handed the payment and signaled the arrest. The substance, weighing 716.54 grams, tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellants denied the charges, raising the defenses of alibi and frame-up. Bandang claimed she was forcibly taken while working as a manicurist. Salamat and Abubakar similarly alleged they were arbitrarily apprehended without involvement in any drug sale. They asserted the evidence was planted and the operation was a fabrication.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellants for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the consummation of the selling transaction. In a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs and payment. Here, the prosecution clearly established these elements through the credible testimony of PO1 Carpentero, who detailed the negotiation, the exchange of the drugs for the boodle money, and the immediate arrest. The seized substance was positively identified, marked, and chemically confirmed to be shabu. The defense of alibi and frame-up was rejected for being weak and self-serving, especially when juxtaposed with the clear and consistent narrative of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The appellants’ failure to present convincing evidence of any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely implicate them further weakened their defense. The transaction was consummated, and the presentation of the corpus delicti in court, properly identified and preserved, sufficed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000.00 was thus upheld.