Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 182524 (People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Pineda y Borja). - We resolve the appeal, filed by accused Alfredo "Pedok" B. Pineda (appellant), from the November 21, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02116.^[1]

In its January 31, 2006 decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City, convicted the appellant of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165,^[3] respectively. The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Virginio Costa (team leader), and Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) Operatives Erwin Ocampo (poseur-buyer) and Rogelio Flores (back-up), the arresting team that conducted the buy-bust operation against the appellant. It rejected the appellant's self-serving defense of denial.

For the sale of dangerous drugs, the RTC sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. For the possession of dangerous drugs,^[4] the RTC imposed upon the appellant an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC's ruling. The CA agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty should be accorded to them.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling 

We dismiss the appeal.  

We find no reason to reverse the RTC's findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, less so in the present case where the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling.

In his appeal, the appellant contends that, aside from the testimony of MADAC Operative Ocampo, there exists no independent evidence to prove that he was arrested in a legitimate entrapment operation; that the corroborative testimonies of PO2 Costa and MADAC Operative Flores are unreliable because they were ten (10) meters away from the scene, and they did not actually witness the sale transaction between him and Ocampo.

We cannot agree with the appellant's contention. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, "[w]hat is material x x x is x x x proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti."^[5] 

In this case, we find the testimony of MADAC Operative Ocampo to be credible enough to prove that a sale of dangerous drugs occurred between him and the appellant. He positively identified the appellant as the one who gave him the plastic sachet that contained shabu and received from him the marked money.^[6] Also, we note that the buy-bust operation was reported to and was conducted in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.^[7] Thus, the appellant's mere denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive testimony identifying him as the seller of the confiscated shabu, and the presumption that the arresting officers regularly performed their duties.

For the charge of illegal possession, we similarly find the appellant guilty thereof. "[I]n a prosecution for illegal possession of [dangerous drugs], it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug."^[8] These elements were properly established in the present case through the positive and credible testimonies of PO2 Costa and MADAC Operatives Ocampo and Flores, pointing to the appellant as the possessor of the dangerous drugs. :

We find the penalties imposed to be within the ranges provided by law.cralaw

WHEREFORE, the decision dated November 21, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02116 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo; rollo, pp. 2-10.

^[2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 03-3148 and 03-3149; CA rollo, pp. 14-20. 

^[3] Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 

^[4] Consisting of methylampethamine hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of 0.17 gram and two blisters of Diazepam, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.36 gram. 

^[5] People of the Philippines v. Nelly Ulama y Arrisma, G.R. No. 186530, December 14, 2011. See also People of the Philippines v. Arnel Zapata y Canilao, G.R. No. 184054, October 19, 2011. 

^[6] TSN, April 25, 2005, pp. 8-9. 

^[7] CA rollo, p. 16. 

^[8] People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003).