G.R. No. 171019 ; February 23, 2007
The People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Rafael Sta. Maria y Indon, Appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that based on an intelligence report, a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant Rafael Sta. Maria for selling illegal drugs. On November 29, 2002, PO1 Rhoel Ventura, acting as poseur-buyer, handed two marked ₱100 bills to appellant at his residence in San Rafael, Bulacan. In exchange, appellant gave PO1 Ventura a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Upon consummation of the sale, Ventura gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to appellant’s arrest and the recovery of the marked money. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was 0.041 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Appellant presented a different version, claiming he was at home with a companion when police officers forcibly entered without a warrant, searched his house, falsely accused him of selling drugs, and arrested him. He denied any involvement in a drug transaction, asserting the arrest was illegal and the evidence was fabricated. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs. The testimony of PO1 Ventura, the poseur-buyer, was clear, consistent, and credible, detailing the transaction. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers.
Appellant’s argument regarding the non-participation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in the buy-bust operation was raised for the first time on appeal and thus barred. The Court ruled that R.A. No. 9165 does not deprive the Philippine National Police of its authority to conduct anti-drug operations or render arrests by non-PDEA agents illegal. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, as the chain of custody was established from the seizure, marking, and turnover for laboratory examination, which yielded a positive result for shabu. The appeal was without merit.