G.R. No. 183676 ; June 22, 2011
RUEL AMPATUAN “Alias RUEL,” Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On October 13, 1997, police operatives conducted a buy-bust operation in Panabo City, Davao del Norte, targeting a suspected drug pusher named Totong Ibrahim. Posing as buyers, PO1 Arnel Micabalo and PO2 Francisco S. Caslib, with marked money of ₱500.00, went to Ibrahim’s house. They encountered accused-appellant Ruel Ampatuan and his wife Linda at the gate. The couple, after the policemen expressed intent to buy marijuana worth ₱500.00 for a party, went inside their house and returned with another man, Maguid Lumna. Ruel Ampatuan asked for and received the marked money, which he handed to his wife. He then showed and delivered marijuana contained in a pack inside a black bag to the poseur-buyers. Upon the pre-arranged signal, backup officers arrested Ruel, Linda, and Lumna. The confiscated substance, weighing approximately 1.3 kilos, was examined by Forensic Chemist Noemi Austero and tested positive for marijuana. An Information was filed against the three for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended. The Regional Trial Court convicted Ruel Ampatuan but acquitted Linda Ampatuan and Maguid Lumna. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Ruel Ampatuan appealed, denying ownership of the drugs and claiming he and his companions were merely visiting a friend’s house when police, after failing to catch Ibrahim, barged in, mauled him, and falsely accused him.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the conviction of petitioner Ruel Ampatuan for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the conviction is correct. The Supreme Court upheld the finding that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti (the illicit drug) was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and seller were identified. The testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO2 Caslib, established that petitioner sold and delivered the marijuana after receiving the marked money. The confiscated marijuana was presented in court and its illicit nature confirmed by forensic examination. The defense of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the clear and positive testimony of the police officers, whose performance of duty is presumed regular in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The inconsistencies in the defense’s version of events and the acquittal of the co-accused do not negate petitioner’s guilt. Accordingly, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000.00 imposed by the trial court was affirmed.