G.R. No. 229049 , June 6, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ABELARDO SORIA Y VILORIA, ALIAS “GEORGE”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Abelardo Soria y Viloria was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on February 17, 2012, in Rosario, La Union. Based on information from a confidential informant, a team led by Police Chief Inspector Erwin Dayag was formed. PO2 Eleuterio V. Esteves was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given marked money. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). During the operation near the Our Lady of Lourdes Church, appellant approached PO2 Esteves. After confirming the buyer, appellant handed over one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance in exchange for the marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, appellant was arrested. A body search, conducted in the presence of barangay officials, yielded three more plastic sachets from his right pocket and the recovery of the marked money. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the scene. They were later turned over to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The defense claimed frame-up and denial, alleging that police officers planted evidence on him while he was waiting for a bus.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s finding that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION. The Court found that the prosecution successfully established all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The buy-bust operation was legitimate, and the chain of custody of the seized drugs was preserved. The marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items were conducted immediately at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused and required witnesses (barangay officials), complying with Section 21 of RA 9165. The defense of frame-up and denial, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the police officers. The penalties imposed by the lower courts were affirmed, with the modification for the illegal possession charge (Criminal Case No. A-6135) to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, in accordance with the total weight of the shabu.