G.R. No. 184181 ; November 26, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH ROBELO y TUNGALA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Based on a tip, a buy-bust team was formed with PO2 Arnel Tubbali as poseur-buyer. A marked 100-peso bill was provided. At the target area, a civilian informant introduced PO2 Tubbali to appellant Joseph Robelo and his companion, Teddy Umali. PO2 Tubbali expressed intent to buy shabu and handed the marked money to Umali. Umali then ordered appellant to give PO2 Tubbali a plastic sachet of shabu, which appellant complied with. Upon receiving the sachet, PO2 Tubbali gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to the arrest of appellant and Umali. A subsequent body search yielded another plastic sachet from appellant’s pocket. The seized items were marked at the police station and later confirmed by forensic examination to contain methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
Appellant denied the accusations, claiming he was arrested at his mother’s house without cause and that the police demanded money for his release. He was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court convicted him, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes. For illegal sale, it proved the transaction wherein appellant, upon Umali’s order, delivered a sachet of shabu to PO2 Tubbali in exchange for the marked money. For illegal possession, it proved appellant had custody and control of another sachet found in his pocket, without legal authority. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The chain of custody was not compromised, as the items were marked immediately after seizure, submitted for laboratory examination, and positively identified in court. Appellant failed to substantiate any irregularity in the police operation or to cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence.
The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the apprehending officers, as their testimonies were consistent and credible. Appellant’s denial, being uncorroborated, could not prevail over the positive identification by the police. The penalties imposed—life imprisonment and a fine for illegal sale, and an indeterminate prison term plus a fine for illegal possession—were in accordance with Republic Act No. 9165 . The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.