G.R. No. 169195 February 17, 2010
FRANCISCO APARIS y SANTOS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On January 17, 1996, around 2:30 a.m., a PNP Narcotics Command team conducted a buy-bust operation at Dian Street, corner Zobel Street, Barangay Palanan, Makati City. The operation targeted “Boyet Aparis,” whose name was on the drug watchlist. PO3 Nelson Labrador acted as the poseur-buyer to purchase PHP 100,000 worth of shabu. A white Lancer GLI arrived with two male persons. The passenger, later identified as Edilberto Campos, alighted and approached Labrador’s car. Labrador and his informant then entered the backseat of the Lancer, accompanied by Campos. Inside, the driver, Francisco Aparis y Santos (petitioner), asked if they had the money. After Labrador showed the marked money, petitioner handed over a plastic bag containing a white substance. Labrador gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to the arrest of petitioner and Campos. The substance was confirmed to be 101.11 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). Petitioner and Campos were charged with violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). Petitioner denied the allegations, claiming he was framed, robbed, and arrested while driving along Roxas Boulevard, Manila, and that the buy-bust operation never occurred. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 64, convicted petitioner but acquitted Campos for insufficient evidence of conspiracy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a modification on the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC and the Court of Appeals committed reversible errors in appreciating the evidence and in asserting jurisdiction, and whether petitioner’s fundamental rights were violated during his arrest.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of shabu were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer (PO3 Labrador) and seller (petitioner), the object (shabu), and consideration (marked money); and (2) the delivery of the shabu and payment. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses were credible and consistent, and the corpus delicti was presented. Petitioner’s defense of frame-up was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identification by police officers. The alleged inconsistencies in testimonies were minor and did not affect the core narrative of the buy-bust. Jurisdiction was properly with the RTC of Makati, as the crime was committed within its territory, and the Information sufficiently alleged the location. Petitioner’s claim of violation of his constitutional rights during arrest was not raised in the trial court and could not be entertained for the first time on appeal. The arrest was lawful as it resulted from a valid buy-bust operation.