G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Brian Mercado y Sarmiento, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Brian Mercado y Sarmiento was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The prosecution’s evidence established that on July 27, 2007, a buy-bust team was formed based on a tip. PO3 Ramon Galvez acted as poseur-buyer, approached the accused-appellant, and said, “p’re, pa-iskor naman,” handing over two marked one hundred-peso bills. The accused-appellant took out three plastic sachets from his pocket, chose one, and gave it to PO3 Galvez. Upon consummation of the sale, PO3 Galvez arrested the accused-appellant. The two remaining sachets were confiscated from the accused-appellant’s pocket by SPO1 Fernando Moran. The seized items were marked at the scene, brought to the police station, and subsequently examined, yielding positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The defense presented a different version, claiming the accused-appellant was arbitrarily arrested while walking home from work, forced into a jeepney, and told to produce money to avoid a case.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused-appellant of the alleged sale and possession of shabu, in violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court sustained the judgment of conviction. The Court found no reason to reverse the findings of the lower courts on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence of ill motive. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt: for illegal sale, the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs; for illegal possession, the accused was in possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug, such possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The Court also ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, as the chain of custody was duly established through the marking at the scene, turnover to the investigator, and laboratory examination. The defense of denial and frame-up was deemed weak and self-serving against the positive testimonies and physical evidence. The procedural lapse concerning the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not raised timely during trial and, in any case, did not affect the admissibility of the evidence but only its weight, which the Court found sufficient for conviction.