G.R. No. 171578 ; August 8, 2007
HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA y RECTO, Appellant, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee.

FACTS

Appellant Herminio Buenaventura was charged with violation of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) for sale and possession of marijuana. The prosecution evidence established that following a tip, a buy-bust operation was conducted on April 13, 2002. P/Insp. Roberto Palisoc, acting as poseur-buyer, met appellant at his residence in Mandaluyong City. After the marked money of ₱2,400 was handed over, appellant provided one brick of marijuana from a black traveling bag. Upon P/Insp. Palisoc’s pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested appellant and recovered the marked money from his person. A search of the premises yielded the same bag containing nine more bricks of marijuana. Forensic examination confirmed all ten bricks, totaling 8,757.346 grams, were positive for marijuana.
The defense presented a different version, claiming appellant was arbitrarily arrested while walking on the street. He denied any knowledge of the marijuana, asserting the police planted the evidence after forcing entry into his house. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of both charges and imposed reclusion perpetua for each, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution successfully proved appellant’s guilt for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the validity of the buy-bust operation, giving credence to the clear and consistent testimonies of the police officers who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated; mere denial cannot prevail over positive identification and the detailed account of a legitimate entrapment. The chain of custody over the seized drugs was also preserved, as the prosecution established the unbroken links from seizure, marking, laboratory examination, to presentation in court. The forensic chemist’s report confirming the substance as marijuana was properly admitted.
Regarding the penalty, the Court noted that the sale and possession of 750 grams or more of marijuana under R.A. No. 6425 carried the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. In light of R.A. No. 9346 prohibiting the death penalty, the imposition of reclusion perpetua for each offense, along with the corresponding fines, was affirmed as proper. The petition was denied.