G.R. No. 174980 ; August 31, 2011
RADITO AURELIO y REYES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On October 22, 2002, two Informations were filed against petitioner Radito Aurelio y Reyes for violations of Sections 5 (Sale) and 11 (Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation on October 17, 2002, in Mandaluyong City. In Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D, petitioner was accused of selling one plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of shabu to poseur-buyer PO1 Julius B. Bacero for ₱100.00. In Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D, he was accused of possessing another sachet containing 0.12 gram of shabu. The cases were consolidated. Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, as presented through the testimonies of police officers, was that a buy-bust team was formed after verification of a report of rampant shabu selling in the area. SPO2 Bacero acted as the poseur-buyer. He knocked on petitioner’s door, used the pre-arranged phrase “Pare iiskor ako ng piso,” and was let inside after a few minutes. Petitioner gave him a sachet of shabu in exchange for marked money. Upon SPO2 Bacero’s signal, PO1 Jacuba arrived and they arrested petitioner. A frisk yielded the marked money and another sachet of shabu. The seized items were marked, turned over for investigation, and subsequently examined by the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The petitioner denied the charges, claiming he was forcibly taken from a neighbor’s house by two men, brought to his own house, then to a barangay hall, and finally to the Mandaluyong City Hall. He testified that he first saw SPO2 Bacero at the police station, where the officer demanded ₱30,000.00 for his release. His testimony was corroborated by his neighbor and his sister.
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner for both charges, sentencing him to twelve years of imprisonment for each offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties: for the sale charge (Sec. 5), it imposed life imprisonment and a ₱500,000.00 fine; for the possession charge (Sec. 11), it imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day as minimum to twenty years as maximum and a ₱300,000.00 fine.

ISSUE

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in: (1) giving credence to the testimony of the police officers and finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) not finding that no legitimate buy-bust operation actually took place.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. The petition was found unmeritorious.
The Court held that the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pointed out by the petitioner (e.g., whether the informant was male or female, the exact time the informant called, and whether the police officers were in uniform) were minor and did not relate to the essential elements of the crimes charged. Such inconsistencies did not undermine the credibility of the witnesses and were even indicative of truthful, unrehearsed testimony.
The Court reiterated that the essential elements for the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. For illegal possession, the elements are: (1) the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. All these elements were sufficiently proven by the prosecution through the straightforward testimonies of the police officers, the physical evidence (the marked money and the sachets), and the Chemistry Report confirming the substance was shabu.
The defenses of denial and frame-up, which are inherently weak, were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. They could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimonies of the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The Court found no ill motive for the officers to falsely accuse the petitioner.
Therefore, the guilt of petitioner Radito Aurelio y Reyes for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 was established beyond reasonable doubt. The penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals were affirmed.