G.R. No. 169933 , March 9, 2007
Su Zhi Shan @ Alvin Ching So vs. People of the Philippines

FACTS

Petitioner Su Zhi Shan was charged with illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution alleged that after a surveillance and a test-buy operation, a buy-bust was conducted on March 31, 2000. A poseur-buyer handed marked money to the petitioner, who in turn delivered a red plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. Following his arrest, a search warrant was implemented at his residence, leading to the seizure of more plastic bags containing a similar substance. The substances from both the buy-bust and the search tested positive for shabu. The petitioner denied the charges, claiming he was a victim of “hulidap” or a shake-down after withdrawing a large sum of money, and that he was forcibly taken to his apartment where the search was conducted.
The Regional Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of both charges and imposed the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court but was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review pursuant to People v. Mateo. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved the petitioner’s guilt for the crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the petitioner’s conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, to be credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish the elements of the crimes. The Court upheld the validity of the buy-bust operation, noting that the police officers were presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. The petitioner’s defense of frame-up or “hulidap” was rejected for being inherently weak and uncorroborated. The Court ruled that such a defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, which the petitioner failed to provide.
Regarding the search of his residence, the Court found the search warrant validly issued and implemented. The items seized during the search were thus admissible in evidence. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was also deemed intact, as the prosecution presented witnesses who accounted for the drugs from seizure to laboratory examination. The Court affirmed the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals: reclusion perpetua and a fine for illegal sale, and reclusion perpetua and a fine for illegal possession. The forfeiture of the vehicle and the drugs in favor of the government was also sustained.