GR 184957; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184957; October 27, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, vs. GRACE VENTURA y NATIVIDAD, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Grace Ventura was charged with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution evidence established that based on confidential information, a buy-bust team was formed. A police asset acted as poseur-buyer and approached Danilo Ventura, Grace’s father, at their residence. Danilo received marked money, went inside, and later, Grace emerged and handed a plastic sachet to the asset. Upon the pre-arranged signal, police officers rushed in, arrested Grace and Danilo, and recovered the marked money from Danilo and the sachet from the asset. Forensic examination confirmed the sachet contained 0.124 gram of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a different version, claiming the police forcibly entered their home without a warrant, mauled the occupants, and planted the evidence. They alleged the operation was not a legitimate buy-bust but an illegal search and seizure motivated by a prior grudge.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, giving great weight to their assessment of witness credibility. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illegal drug. The testimonies of the police officers were consistent and credible, detailing the buy-bust operation from the receipt of information to the arrest and seizure. The defense of frame-up and denial was rejected for being inherently weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court also ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drug was sufficiently established. The sachet was immediately marked at the scene, submitted for laboratory examination, and positively identified in court. The defense’s admission of the Chemistry Report dispensed with the need for the forensic chemist’s testimony. The defense failed to substantiate its claim of non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. The warrantless arrest was valid as it was effected during a legitimate buy-bust operation, which is an exception to the warrant requirement. The appeal was denied for lack of merit.