G.R. No. 179344; August 3, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDGARDO FERMIN Y GREGORIO AND JOB MADAYAG, JR. Y BALDERAS, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

On July 9, 2003, a police informant reported to the La Loma Police Station that two men were selling illegal drugs at No. 93 Iba St., Brgy. San Isidro, Quezon City. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO2 Edsel Ibasco as the poseur-buyer, using a marked one hundred peso bill. The team proceeded to the location. PO2 Ibasco and the informant approached accused Job Madayag, Jr., who was introduced as a drug-dependent wanting to buy drugs. After PO2 Ibasco handed the marked money, Madayag, Jr. called accused Edgardo Fermin from inside the house, who then gave three plastic sachets to Madayag, Jr. Madayag, Jr. showed the sachets to PO2 Ibasco, who took one, examined it, and then gave the pre-arranged signal. The team arrested the accused. PO2 Ibasco testified that PO2 Ronald Pascua arrested Fermin and recovered the buy-bust money and a plastic sachet from him, while PO1 Roderick Valencia arrested Madayag, Jr. and recovered a knife. PO2 Ibasco kept the sachet subject of the sale. PO2 Pascua’s testimony contained inconsistencies regarding who arrested Madayag, Jr. and who recovered which items. The seized items were submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed the substance was methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented a different version, claiming the accused were arbitrarily arrested while Madayag, Jr. was buying cigarettes and Fermin was sleeping, and that they were detained after failing to pay a demanded sum of money for their release.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs).

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court found the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the police officers, despite minor inconsistencies on collateral matters, were credible and consistent on the essential fact of the sale. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the non-presentation of the confidential informant was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court, which are accorded great respect on appeal. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00) for each accused was sustained.