G.R. No. 200507; June 26, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PETER LINDA y GEROLAGA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Peter Linda y Gerolaga was charged with illegal sale of shabu (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165) before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO2 Archie Bernabe, is that on February 22, 2008, a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information from a confidential informant. PO2 Bernabe acted as poseur-buyer and was given two marked ₱100 bills. At the target area, the informant introduced PO2 Bernabe to the appellant as a buyer. PO2 Bernabe offered to buy ₱200 worth of shabu, to which appellant replied “wala pong problema,” accepted the marked money, and handed over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Bernabe then arrested appellant, recovered the marked money, and marked the sachet with “PGL” (appellant’s initials). The substance was submitted to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Elisa G. Reyes confirmed it was methylamphetamine hydrochloride. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on Reyes’s qualification and the genuineness of the documentary evidence and the specimen she brought to court. The defense’s version, from appellant’s sole testimony, was that police officers entered his house looking for his parents and, after not finding them, brought him to the precinct where he was frisked but nothing was recovered. The trial court convicted appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine, a decision affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of shabu.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held:
1. The trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessment of prosecution witness PO2 Bernabe, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great respect and finality, as no glaring errors or misapprehensions were shown. PO2 Bernabe gave a clear, direct, and corroborated narration of the buy-bust operation.
2. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers applies, as the defense failed to show any ill motive or improper conduct. Thus, the warrantless arrest following a valid buy-bust operation was lawful, and the seized item was admissible.
3. All elements of illegal sale of shabu were proven: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment. The corpus delicti (the seized sachet and marked money) was presented in court.
4. The chain of custody of the seized drug was not broken. The records show PO2 Bernabe personally delivered the marked specimen to the crime laboratory. Furthermore, the forensic chemist herself brought the specimen to court during pre-trial, and its integrity was preserved.
5. The defense of denial is inherently weak and cannot prevail over the positive identification and credible testimony of the prosecution witness. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00, as mandated by law, was correctly imposed.