G.R. No. 193855, February 18, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Virgilio Largo Perondo, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

An Information was filed against appellant Virgilio Largo Perondo for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). It was alleged that on July 20, 2003, in Cebu City, he sold, delivered, or gave away one heat-sealed plastic packet containing 0.05 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of buy-bust team members SPO2 Benjamin G. Genzon, Jr. and PO3 Simeon A. Tapanan, Jr., and Forensic Chemist PSI Mutchit G. Salinas, was that a planned buy-bust operation was conducted against appellant. A civilian asset acted as poseur-buyer using marked money. The team witnessed the asset give the marked money to appellant in exchange for a plastic sachet. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested, the marked money was recovered from him, and the sachet was retrieved from the asset. Qualitative examination confirmed the substance was shabu. The defense claimed appellant was merely eating at a barbecue stand when suddenly arrested, interrogated about drug dealers, and falsely implicated after he provided no information. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale of shabu: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment. Appellant was positively identified by police officers as the seller. The testimonies of PO3 Tapanan and SPO2 Genzon provided a clear and consistent account of the buy-bust operation and transaction. The corpus delicti was established through the testimony of the forensic chemist and the proper chain of custody, with the sachet marked with appellant’s initials. The Court rejected appellant’s arguments: the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was not fatal as the testimonies of the apprehending officers were sufficient; the lack of a pre-operation report to the PDEA was not a jurisdictional requirement; and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stood in the absence of evidence of ill motive. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 was affirmed, with the modification that appellant shall not be eligible for parole pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.