G.R. No. 195777; June 19, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. FERDINAND CASTRO y LAPENA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On May 7, 2003, a buy-bust team was formed by the Pasig City Police Station’s Drug Enforcement Unit based on a tip from a confidential informant that a certain “Fredie” (accused-appellant Ferdinand Castro) was selling illegal drugs. PO1 Allan Mapula acted as the poseur-buyer, using a marked ₱100 bill. The team proceeded to Kalamansi Street, where the informant introduced PO1 Mapula to the accused-appellant as a buyer. Accused-appellant asked how much shabu was wanted, and upon being told ₱100.00, he received the marked money and handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his right pocket. PO1 Mapula gave the pre-arranged signal, arrested accused-appellant, and introduced himself as a police officer. A search incidental to arrest yielded two more plastic sachets from accused-appellant’s pocket and the recovery of the buy-bust money. The seized items were marked at the scene. Forensic examination confirmed the contents of all three sachets as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The defense presented a different version, claiming accused-appellant was arrested without cause while engaging in a drinking spree in front of his house. He and his companions (Arturo Millare and Romeo dela Cruz) testified that police officers suddenly accosted, handcuffed, and took him away without explanation.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant for violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for illegal possession. Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the equipoise rule should apply due to conflicting self-serving testimonies, that his warrantless arrest was invalid, and that the seized items were inadmissible.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused-appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the equipoise rule applies in favor of accused-appellant.
3. Whether the warrantless arrest was valid and the seized items admissible.

RULING

The Supreme Court sustained the conviction of accused-appellant.
1. The prosecution proved the elements of the crimes beyond reasonable doubt.
* For illegal sale under Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the elements are: (a) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment. These were established through the credible and consistent testimonies of PO1 Mapula (poseur-buyer) and PO1 Familara, corroborated by the presentation of the corpus delicti (the seized shabu) and the marked money.
* For illegal possession under Section 11 of R.A. 9165, the elements are: (a) possession of an identified prohibited drug; (b) lack of legal authority; and (c) conscious possession. These were proven by the recovery of two additional sachets of shabu from accused-appellant’s pocket during a search incidental to a lawful arrest.
2. The equipoise rule does not apply. The rule, which states that evidence of contradictory versions places the case in equipoise and warrants acquittal, is inapplicable. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were found credible and accorded full weight and respect, as affirmed by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. The defense’s denial and frame-up claim could not overcome the positive identification and evidence presented by the prosecution.
3. The warrantless arrest was valid, and the seized items were admissible. The arrest was a result of a legitimate buy-bust operation, which is an exception to the warrant requirement. Accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to a police officer. The subsequent search of his person, which yielded more shabu, was a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was also preserved, as they were marked at the scene and promptly submitted for laboratory examination.
The penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals were affirmed. For illegal sale of shabu (Section 5), the penalty is life imprisonment and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10,000,000. For illegal possession of shabu (less than 5 grams under Section 11), the penalty is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a fine of ₱300,000.