G.R. No. L-22169 - Alabat vs. Vda. de Alabat

On December 16, 2002, at around 9:50 p.m. in Barangay San Jose Sico, Batangas City, Pablito Andaya y Reano was charged under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for allegedly selling approximately 0.09 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a prohibited drug.
The information charged Andaya with the unlawful sale, delivery, or dispensing of the dangerous drug.

Andaya pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
The prosecution presented five witnesses: SPO4 Delfin Alea, SPO3 Nelio Lopez, SPO2 Danilo Mercado, SPO4 Protacio Marasigan, and Jupri Delantar (a forensic chemical officer).
SPO4 Alea testified about the buy-bust operation based on a confidential informant/poseur buyer who arranged to buy shabu from Andaya. The informant reported to the police; the team prepared two marked P100 bills and conducted the buy-bust operation.
The asset knocked on Andaya’s door, handed over the marked money, and received some crystalline substance from Andaya. A pre-arranged signal was made by the asset to the police team, who then arrested Andaya.
The seized crystalline substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.09 gram.
Police witnesses testified regarding the accounting and handling of the marked money, the seized substance, the complaint preparations, and delivery of evidence to the crime lab.

Andaya denied selling shabu, claiming at the time of the police arrival he was at home watching TV, was arrested without a warrant, and that police searched his house but found no shabu or firearms.
Andaya alleged coercion and money demands by police officers, producing inconsistent accounts of missing money and cellphone after arrest.
His wife Crisanta corroborated the denial of selling shabu and testified regarding alleged lost property and demands for money by the police.

On February 21, 2006, the RTC convicted Andaya based on the testimony of police witnesses, the police blotter records, the marked money, and forensic results.
The RTC disregarded Andaya’s and his wife’s testimonies due to inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence, citing the presumption of regularity in police officers’ official duties.
Andaya was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay costs; the drugs were confiscated.

Andaya appealed urging that his arrest and search were illegal and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On February 11, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, citing the prudence in protecting confidential informants’ identity to prevent retaliation, and accepted the testimonies of the police officers despite the non-presentation of the confidential informant/poseur buyer.

Andaya appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating that the search and arrest violated his constitutional rights, and that the prosecution’s failure to present the confidential informant was detrimental to the case.

Whether or not the search of Andaya’s house and his arrest violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently proved Andaya’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the non-presentation of the confidential informant/poseur buyer who allegedly consummated the illegal drug sale transaction.