G.R. No. 179700 , June 22, 2009
Gwyn Quinicot y Curativo, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Two Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental charging petitioner Gwyn Quinicot with illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 21, 2000, a buy-bust operation was conducted at Chin Loong Restaurant in Dumaguete City. PO1 Domingo Marchan acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased from petitioner one plastic sachet of shabu worth PHP 300.00 using marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Allen June Germodo apprehended petitioner and recovered from his brown belt purse two more plastic sachets of shabu, the marked money, a lighter, and a tooter. The seized items were submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Petitioner denied the accusations, claiming he was at the restaurant to order food, was approached by acquaintances, and was forcibly taken by police officers without a warrant. He alleged the evidence was planted and that an informant named Narvic tried to extort money from him to settle the case. The defense presented Joel Patola, who testified he saw petitioner being arrested while merely sitting and eating at the restaurant. The RTC convicted petitioner of both charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation were credible and consistent. The required chain of custody of the seized drugs was preserved, as the items were marked, inventoried, and subjected to laboratory examination without any evidence of tampering. The defense of frame-up and denial were inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification and categorical testimonies of the police officers. The arrest of petitioner without a warrant was valid as it was effected during a legitimate buy-bust operation, which is an instance of a valid warrantless arrest. The alleged irregularities in the seizure of the items from petitioner’s belt purse did not affect the validity of the search, as it was incidental to a lawful arrest. The penalties imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were in accordance with law.