G.R. No. 177320 ; February 22, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CESAR BAUTISTA y SANTOS, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On April 25, 2003, based on an informant’s tip, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation against Cesar Bautista in Caloocan City. PO2 Amadeo Tayag acted as the poseur-buyer. Upon introduction by the informant, Bautista sold one plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO2 Tayag in exchange for a marked ₱100 bill. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the backup team arrested Bautista. A search incidental to his lawful arrest yielded six more plastic sachets from his pocket. The seized items were marked and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Bautista denied the charges, claiming he was at home with his wife when police officers forcibly entered, apprehended him, and demanded money. He alleged the evidence was fabricated. The Regional Trial Court convicted him for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11(3) of Republic Act No. 9165 , imposing life imprisonment and a fine for sale, and a prison term and fine for possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Bautista’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11(3) of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes. For illegal sale, the elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The testimony of PO2 Tayag, the poseur-buyer, credibly detailed the transaction—the offer, exchange of the sachet for marked money, and the immediate arrest. The recovery of the buy-bust money from Bautista corroborated this. For illegal possession, the elements are: (1) the accused was in possession of a dangerous drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The six additional sachets were validly seized during a search incidental to a lawful arrest following the consummated sale. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. The marking at the police station by the investigating officer immediately upon receipt, and the subsequent forensic examination, complied with the procedure under R.A. No. 9165 . Bautista’s defense of denial and frame-up, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification and credible testimonies of the police officers. Their testimonies are accorded full faith and credit in the absence of proof of ill motive.