G.R. No. 220715 , August 24, 2016.
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Ronnie Boy Eda y Casani, Appellant.

FACTS

On February 17, 2011, appellant Ronnie Boy Eda y Casani was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” under Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust team was formed after a civilian asset reported Eda’s drug-selling activities in Barangay Caloocan, Balayan, Batangas. PO2 Roman De Chavez Bejer acted as the poseur-buyer. During the operation, Eda sold one plastic sachet of shabu to the civilian asset in exchange for marked money. Upon the consummation of the sale, PO2 Bejer arrested Eda and recovered the marked money. A subsequent body search conducted by PO1 Reynante Brosas Briones yielded four more plastic sachets of shabu from Eda’s right pocket. The seized items were marked, and an inventory was conducted at the nearby barangay hall in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice, the barangay, and the media. The items were later confirmed to be shabu by the crime laboratory. Eda denied the charges, claiming he was framed. He testified that he was forcibly apprehended near a grocery store, accused of being a pusher, and that the police officers planted the drugs on him. The Regional Trial Court convicted Eda, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. For illegal sale, the prosecution established the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the drugs. For illegal possession, it was shown that Eda was in possession of the drugs without authority and that he freely and consciously possessed them. The Court found the testimonies of the police officers credible, consistent, and detailed. It ruled that the chain of custody of the seized drugs was preserved, as the marking, physical inventory, and photographing were done in the presence of the required witnesses immediately after seizure at the barangay hall, which was justified as a crowd had begun to gather at the scene. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the police officers prevailed. The penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed: for illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 6604), imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of ₱300,000.00; for illegal sale (Criminal Case No. 6605), life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00.