G.R. No. 184805; March 3, 2010
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Victorio Pagkalinawan, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Victorio Pagkalinawan was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Sale) and 11 (Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on July 20, 2004, in Taguig City. The prosecution’s version, presented through PO1 Rey Memoracion and PO3 Arnulfo Vicuña, stated that a confidential informant reported the illegal drug activities of a certain “Berto.” A buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Memoracion as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to the location, where the informant introduced PO1 Memoracion to appellant as a taxi driver wanting to buy shabu. Appellant took the marked PhP500 money, showed three plastic sachets of shabu, and asked the poseur-buyer to pick one. Upon taking the sachet, PO1 Memoracion gave the pre-arranged signal, and appellant was arrested. The other two sachets were recovered from him. The seized items were examined and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense interposed denial, claiming that armed men barged into his house, searched it, found nothing, but arrested him and brought him to the police station where cases were filed after he refused to settle amicably. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, based on the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the defense’s claim of instigation and irregularity in the buy-bust operation.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crimes charged. The buy-bust operation was validly conducted as an entrapment, not instigation, as appellant was already engaged in drug pushing and the police merely provided an opportunity for the commission of the offense. The testimonies of the police officers were credible and consistent, enjoying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, which was not overcome by the defense of denial and frame-up. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was preserved, and the forensic report confirmed the substances were shabu. The defense’s claims were insufficient to overturn the factual findings of the lower courts, which are accorded high respect. Appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.