G.R. No. 205610 , July 30, 2014
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ramonito Villarta y Rivera and Allan Armenta y Cabiles, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Ramonito Villarta y Rivera (alias Monet) and Allan Armenta y Cabiles (alias Ambo) were charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Villarta was charged in three separate Informations for Illegal Sale (Section 5), Illegal Possession (Section 11), and Illegal Use (Section 15) of dangerous drugs. Armenta was charged in two separate Informations for Illegal Possession (Section 11) and Illegal Use (Section 15). Both pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution evidence established that on April 19, 2006, a confidential informant tipped off the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) in Pasig City that a certain “Monet” was selling shabu at Urbano Velasco Avenue. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO2 Ronald R. Caparas as poseur-buyer and PO2 Jesus Cambronero as back-up. An initial operation that evening was unsuccessful. The following day, April 20, 2006, the informant notified the team that Monet was at the target location. PO2 Caparas and the informant proceeded to Cupa Compound, where they approached Villarta (Monet). The informant introduced PO2 Caparas as a buyer. PO2 Caparas handed Villarta ₱200.00 marked money for shabu. At that moment, Armenta arrived and asked Villarta if he still had shabu, to which Villarta replied he only had two pieces left. Armenta gave Villarta ₱100.00. Villarta then handed one plastic sachet to PO2 Caparas and another to Armenta. Upon receiving the sachet, PO2 Caparas gave the pre-arranged signal and arrested Villarta, recovering the marked money and another plastic sachet from him. PO2 Caparas informed PO2 Cambronero that Armenta was also in possession of shabu, leading to Armenta’s arrest, with PO2 Cambronero recovering the sachet from him. The seized items were marked at the scene. Requests for drug test and laboratory examination were prepared. Forensic Chemical Officer P/Sr. Insp. Sandra Decena Go conducted tests, finding the seized substances positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Urine tests showed Villarta positive for methamphetamine and Armenta positive for THC metabolites.
The defense presented a different version. Villarta claimed he was resting in his rented room on April 19 when four armed men entered, looking for a certain “Jay Jay,” and he was subsequently detained. Armenta claimed he was waiting for a tricycle on April 20 when three armed men approached, handcuffed him, and brought him to the headquarters, where he was mauled and forced to confess to a cellphone snatching. Both claimed they met each other only at the detention center and denied the charges.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Villarta for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession, and both appellants for Illegal Possession. The charges for Illegal Use were dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellants for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the convictions.
The Court held that all elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 were present: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment. PO2 Caparas, the poseur-buyer, positively identified Villarta as the seller, detailed the transaction where he handed marked money and received a plastic sachet, and this testimony was corroborated by PO2 Cambronero. The forensic report confirmed the substance was ephedrine.
For Illegal Possession under Section 11, the elements are: (1) the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Villarta was found in possession of an additional sachet upon arrest, and Armenta was caught possessing a sachet he bought from Villarta during the transaction. Both were not authorized to possess dangerous drugs.
The Court rejected the defense of denial and frame-up, noting that such defenses are weak against the positive testimonies of police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The appellants failed to present strong and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Court also found that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was sufficiently established. The items were immediately marked at the place of arrest, and the forensic chemist confirmed their integrity upon examination. While the Implementing Rules and Procedures of R.A. No. 9165 outline a procedure for handling seized drugs, the Court ruled that non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the items are preserved, as was done in this case.
The charges for Illegal Use under Section 15 were correctly dismissed by the RTC, as the Information for Villarta alleged methamphetamine hydrochloride, but the urine test was positive for methamphetamine, creating a discrepancy. For Armenta, the Information alleged THC metabolites, but the urine test was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, also a fatal variance.
The penalties imposed by the RTC were affirmed: for Villarta, life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine for Illegal Sale; for both appellants, an indeterminate prison term of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months, and a ₱300,000 fine for Illegal Possession.