G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Fernando Gutierrez y Gatso, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Amended Information charged accused-appellant Fernando Gutierrez with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charge alleged that on September 12, 2002, in Ramos, Tarlac, he willfully and unlawfully possessed two small plastic sachets containing approximately 14.052 grams of shabu. He pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, based on police testimonies, is that at around 4:45 p.m. on September 12, 2002, a police team responded to a tip about a drug transaction in Purok Jasmin. Upon arrival, they saw Gutierrez and Dennis Cortez under a santol tree handing plastic sachets to individuals. Upon seeing the police, Gutierrez and others fled. After a brief chase, PO3 Romeo Credo apprehended Gutierrez, who was carrying a bag. A search of the bag, conducted either immediately or later at the police station in the presence of the barangay captain, yielded plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, drug paraphernalia, and other items. The seized substances were examined by the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory and found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense, relying solely on Gutierrez’s testimony, claimed denial and frame-up. He testified that on that afternoon, he merely accompanied Cortez to Ramos to buy a duck. Cortez carried a backpack of unknown contents. After buying a duck, they went to a house; Cortez went inside with the backpack, leaving Gutierrez outside. Police arrived, fired a warning shot, entered the house, and later emerged with two individuals who pointed to Gutierrez as Cortez’s companion. The police arrested him and forced him to claim ownership of Cortez’s backpack, which contained the incriminating items.
The Regional Trial Court found Gutierrez guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s conviction of accused-appellant for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, which hinges on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and the weight given to their evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that credence is usually accorded to the narration of police officers in drug cases, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. There was no proof of any ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely accuse Gutierrez; they were merely responding to a tip. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility prevail over Gutierrez’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up.
The Court addressed the alleged inconsistencies in the police testimonies—specifically, whether the accused were initially seen under a santol tree or a kubo, and whether the bag was searched immediately upon apprehension or at the police station. It held these to be minor discrepancies on extraneous matters that do not affect the material points of the crime. The central facts established were that Gutierrez fled upon seeing the police, was apprehended while carrying a bag, and that the bag contained shabu and paraphernalia. The integrity of the evidence was preserved, and the chain of custody was established through the immediate request for laboratory examination and the Chemistry Report confirming the substance as shabu. Therefore, the prosecution proved Gutierrez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.