G.R. No. 177148; June 30, 2009
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Raul Nuñez y Revilleza, Appellant.

FACTS

On April 26, 2001, at around 6:00 a.m., police operatives conducted a search at the residence of Raul R. Nuñez in Barangay San Antonio, Los Baños, Laguna, based on a search warrant for reported drug possession. The team was led by Commanding Officer Arwin Pagkalinawan and included SPO1 Odelon Ilagan and PO2 Joseph Ortega, among others. Barangay Captain Mario Mundin and Chief Tanod Alfredo Joaquin were summoned to witness the search. Upon arrival, Mundin called appellant out, and Pagkalinawan showed him the warrant. SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Crisostomo then searched appellant’s room in his presence. SPO1 Ilagan found thirty-one (31) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 233.93 grams, along with drug paraphernalia and a wallet containing cash, inside appellant’s dresser. Additional items were confiscated on suspicion of being proceeds from drug transactions. Appellant signed a Receipt for Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search. He was charged with violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended. The Regional Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of Two Million Pesos. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Appellant raised the defense of frame-up, alleging inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies and questioning the validity of the search warrant and the non-presentation of barangay officials as witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession of Regulated Drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of illegal possession of regulated drugs are: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. All elements were present. The defense of frame-up was viewed with disfavor as it is easily fabricated and commonly used in drug cases. Credence was given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, who are police officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of SPO1 Ilagan and PO2 Ortega (regarding when a barangay official was picked up and who was present in the room) were deemed minor and inconsequential, as their testimonies corroborated each other on material points: appellant was shown the warrant, the search was conducted in his presence, and shabu was found in his dresser. Appellant’s objection to the legality of the search warrant was deemed waived for not being raised during trial. The non-presentation of the barangay officials as witnesses was within the prosecutor’s discretion and did not weaken the prosecution’s case, as the accused could have presented them. Appellant’s signing of the Receipt for Property Seized and Certification of Orderly Search further undermined his defense. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Two Million Pesos was affirmed, as the quantity of shabu (233.93 grams) fell under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, which mandates such penalty for possession of 200 grams or more.