Case Digest (G.R. No. 174980)
Facts:
The case involves Radito Aurelio y Reyes, also known as "Jack," as the petitioner against the People of the Philippines as the respondent. The events leading to the case began on October 17, 2002, in Mandaluyong City, where the petitioner was accused of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Two Informations were filed against him, with Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D alleging the illegal sale of shabu and Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D alleging illegal possession of shabu.
The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of Police Chief Inspector Bien B. Calag, Jr., who directed a buy-bust operation after receiving reports of rampant shabu sales in the area. SPO2 Julius Bacero was designated as the poseur-buyer. During the operation, Bacero successfully purchased a sachet of shabu from the petitioner for P100.00, after which he was arrested, and another sachet of shabu wa...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 174980)
Facts:
Charges Against the Petitioner
On October 22, 2002, two Informations were filed against petitioner Radito Aurelio y Reyes for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The charges were:
- Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D: Illegal sale of 0.05 grams of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) to a poseur-buyer, PO1 Julius Bacero, for P100.00.
- Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D: Illegal possession of 0.12 grams of shabu without legal authority.
Prosecution’s Version
- On October 17, 2002, a police team, led by SPO2 Julius Bacero, conducted a buy-bust operation after receiving information about illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City.
- SPO2 Bacero acted as the poseur-buyer and purchased shabu from the petitioner. After the transaction, the petitioner was arrested, and another sachet of shabu was recovered from his possession.
- The seized items were marked, tested, and confirmed to be shabu by the crime laboratory.
Petitioner’s Version
- The petitioner denied the charges, claiming he was framed. He alleged that he was forcibly taken by police officers, who demanded P30,000.00 for his release.
- His sister and neighbor corroborated his testimony, stating that he was not involved in any illegal drug activity.
Trial Court Ruling
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the petitioner for both charges, sentencing him to 12 years imprisonment for each case.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties:
- Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D: Life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for illegal sale of shabu.
- Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00 for illegal possession of shabu.
Issue:
- Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in giving credence to the testimony of SPO2 Bacero and finding the petitioner guilty.
- Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in finding that a legitimate buy-bust operation took place.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that:
- The prosecution established all elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu beyond reasonable doubt.
- The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were trivial and did not affect the credibility of their accounts.
- The defenses of denial and frame-up were unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Ratio:
Elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of Shabu:
- For illegal sale, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, consideration, and the delivery of the drug.
- For illegal possession, the prosecution must prove that the accused was in possession of a prohibited drug without legal authority and was aware of such possession.
- The prosecution successfully proved these elements through the testimonies of SPO2 Bacero and PO1 Jacuba, as well as the physical evidence (shabu and marked money).
Credibility of Witnesses:
- The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is given great respect, especially when affirmed by the appellate court.
- Minor inconsistencies in testimonies do not undermine credibility and may even strengthen the case by showing the absence of rehearsed statements.
Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up:
- These defenses require clear and convincing evidence, which the petitioner failed to provide.
- The petitioner’s failure to file a complaint against the police officers for frame-up or extortion weakened his claims.
Presumption of Regularity in Official Duties:
- In the absence of evidence showing ill motive on the part of the police officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties stands.
Proper Penalties:
- The penalties imposed by the CA were correct under R.A. No. 9165:
- Illegal Sale: Life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
- Illegal Possession: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00.
- The penalties imposed by the CA were correct under R.A. No. 9165:
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner, finding no reversible error in the lower courts’ rulings. The petition was denied, and the penalties imposed by the CA were affirmed.