G.R. No. 179036 ; July 28, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARLITO MATEO y PATAWID, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On June 28, 2003, based on a tip, a buy-bust team was formed in Makati City. MADAC Operative Geraldo Fariñas acted as poseur-buyer, with back-up officers. Fariñas and an informant approached accused-appellant Carlito Mateo along Kalayaan Avenue. The informant introduced Fariñas as a buyer. After Mateo asked if the informant “was okay,” Fariñas handed over two marked ₱100 bills. Mateo then produced a plastic sachet and gave it to Fariñas. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the back-up team arrested Mateo. The team recovered the buy-bust money from him and a black coin purse containing seven more plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Forensic examination confirmed the sachets contained methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different account. Mateo claimed he was merely walking when two men forcibly apprehended him, brought him to a barangay hall, and demanded he identify a certain “Eboy.” When he could not, he was photographed in a room where he saw shabu sachets. He denied any involvement in selling or possessing drugs, alleging the evidence was planted.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs against accused-appellant.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes. For illegal sale under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the evidence showed: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the drugs and payment. Fariñas, as the poseur-buyer, gave a clear, consistent, and credible testimony detailing the transaction. The marked money was recovered from Mateo, and the seized item was positively identified and chemically confirmed to be shabu.
For illegal possession under Section 11, 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. The recovery of seven additional sachets from Mateo’s coin purse, following a valid arrest, proved possession. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being uncorroborated and self-serving, failing to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers. The chain of custody of the evidence was also preserved, as the sachets were properly marked at the scene and submitted for examination. Thus, the guilt of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt.