G.R. No. 194999 - People vs. Nepomuceno y Pedraza

On August 11, 2003, two Informations were filed in the RTC of Makati, Branch 64 charging Gloria Nepomuceno y Pedraza with violations under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165).
Criminal Case No. 03-2917 charged her with violation of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) for allegedly selling 0.03 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in exchange for P100.00 on August 9, 2003 in Makati.
Criminal Case No. 04-1407 charged her with violation of Section 15 (illegal use of dangerous drugs) based on a positive confirmatory test for methylamphetamine following her arrest.

Acting on a tip from a confidential informant (CI), the Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of Makati organized a buy-bust operation.
A team was constituted with PO2 Vicente Barrameda as the designated poseur buyer and team leader, supported by PO2 Virginio Costa, PO2 Rodrigo Igno, PO1 Alex Inopia, and PO1 Randy Santos.
The operation was carefully planned:

The team was provided with two 50-peso bills as marked money.
PO2 Barrameda coordinated the operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
On August 9, 2003, around 2:00 p.m., the team deployed at the corner of Caton and Zobel Streets, Barangay La Paz, Makati City.

The CI introduced PO2 Barrameda to the accused as a prospective buyer.
PO2 Barrameda informed the accused that he wanted P100.00 worth of shabu and presented her with marked money.
Appellant delivered a small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which was immediately marked by PO2 Barrameda.
A pre-arranged signal (PO2 Barrameda lighting a cigarette) indicated the completion of the transaction.
PO1 Santos then recovered the money from the accused’s possession.

After the transaction, the accused was arrested and taken to the DEU of Makati for processing.
The seized plastic sachet and its contents were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for drug testing and laboratory examination.
Laboratory results confirmed that the substance tested positive for shabu (methylamphetamine hydrochloride).

The identity of the buyer and seller through the testimonies of PO2 Barrameda and PO1 Santos.
The consummation of the transaction through delivery of the drug and receipt of payment.

A conviction for the violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 03-2917, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of P500,000.00.
An acquittal for violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 04-1407 for insufficiency of evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) denied her appeal on August 25, 2010, affirming the RTC’s decisions.

The identification by the police officers, who were unfamiliar with her, was unreliable.
Her warrantless arrest, search, and seizure were illegal as there was only a suspicion of criminal activity.
The procedural defects in the seizure of the drug (failure to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the item in the presence of required representatives as mandated by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165) compromised the evidentiary value.

She contended that her defenses (alibi, denial, and claim of being framed) should have created reasonable doubt about her involvement in the transaction.

Whether the identification of the accused made by the police officers and by the confidential informant was reliable enough to link her to the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Whether the absence of prior acquaintance between the officers and the accused undermined the credibility of their identification.

Whether the warrantless arrest, search, and seizure of the accused were lawful, particularly given her claim that she was apprehended solely on suspicion.
Whether her failure to timely object to the arrest process constituted a waiver of her right to challenge the procedure.
Whether the non-compliance with the post-seizure requirements (physical inventory and photography as per Section 21, Article II of RA 9165) affected the integrity and admissibility of the evidence.

Whether the prosecution fulfilled its burden by proving all essential elements of the crime, including the identity of the buyer and seller, delivery of the drug, and the occurrence of the transaction.
Whether the appellant’s defenses were adequately substantiated against the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police.