The Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution’s case relied on the theory that the police apprehended the appellants during a
buy-bust operation conducted at Alivio’s residence. During the buy-bust operation, the police
found drug paraphernalia at Alivio’s residence while a search on Dela Vega’s person yielded one
plastic sachet of shabu which the police seized.

The prosecution’s evidence showed that at around 9:30 p.m. of May 20, 2003, the Pasig City
Police received a tip from an asset that one "Ariel" was rampantly selling illegal drugs in Bagong
Ilog, Pasig City. A buy-bust team was immediately formed in coordination with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency. The buy-bust money, which consisted of two (2) 100 peso bills, was
prepared and marked with the symbol, "3L." PO2 Lemuel Lagunay Laro was designated to act as
the poseur-buyer.

Together with SPO3 Lemuel Matias and PO1 Allan Mapula, PO2 Laro and the asset went to the
house of Ariel. While the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves at the
target area, PO2 Laro and the asset met Ariel. The asset introduced PO2 Laro to Ariel who was
later on identified as Alivio. The asset told Alivio that they wanted to buy shabu. Alivio asked how
much they wanted to buy, to which the asset replied: "dalawang daan lang p’re at saka puwede
kaming gumamit d’yan?" The two were ushered into the second floor of the house where they
saw dela Vega seated in front of a table with drug paraphernalia. PO2 Laro then gave the buy-
bust money to Alivio who handed it to Dela Vega. The latter then took out from his pocket one
plastic sachet of shabu which he gave to Alivio who handed it to PO2 Laro. After the exchange,
PO2 Laro introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Alivio and Dela Vega. The asset
made a signal for the buy-bust team to come inside the house. SPO3 Matias searched Dela
Vega and found him in possession of one plastic sachet of shabu. The buy-bust team also
retrieved the drug paraphernalia on top of the table, which paraphernalia they correspondingly
marked. The buy-bust team took Alivio, Dela Vega and the confiscated items to the police station
for investigation. Afterwards, the confiscated items were taken by PO1 Mapula to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. The two (2) plastic sachets tested positive for shabu.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 177771               May 30, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
ARIELITO ALIVIO y OLIVEROS and ERNESTO DELA VEGA y CABBAROBIAS, Appellant.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

On appeal to this Court is the Decision, 1 dated November 30, 2006, of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01138, which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 70, Pasig City, in Criminal Case Nos. 12450-52-D. The RTC convicted Arielito Alivio y
Oliveros and Ernesto dela Vega (collectively referred to as appellants) of violating Sections 5, 11
and 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.

The Arraignment and Plea

In Criminal Case No. 12450-D, the Information charged the appellants of selling shabu, as
follows:

the accused, conspiring and confederating together, and both of them mutually helping and
aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Lemuel Laro, a police poseur-buyer, one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing six (6) centigrams (0.06 gram) of white
crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.3

In Criminal Case No. 12451-D, Dela Vega was charged of possessing shabu under the following
Information:

the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug; did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one
(1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ten (10) decigrams (0.10 gram), of white
crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.4

Finally, in Criminal Case No. 12452-D, Alivio was charged of possessing drug paraphernalia
consisting of two disposable lighters, an improvised tooter and an improvised burner. The
pertinent portion of the Information states:

the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess paraphernalia or otherwise use any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession
two (2) pcs. of disposable lighters, one (1) improvised tooter and one (1) improvised burner,
which are all instruments, equipment, apparatus or paraphernalia, fit or intended for smoking,
sniffing, consuming or introducing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu,
a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.5

The appellants pleaded not guilty to all the charges and trial on the merits followed.

By agreement of the prosecution and the defense, the testimony of forensic chemist P/Insp.
Joseph Perdido was dispensed with and they entered stipulations on:

1) The due execution and genuineness of the Request for Laboratory Examination dated
May 20, 2003 which was marked in evidence as Exhibit "A" and the stamp showing
receipt thereof by the PNP Crime Laboratory as Exhibit "A-1";

2) The due execution and genuineness, as well as the truth of the contents, of Chemistry
Report No. D-940-03E dated May 12, 2003 issued by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Joseph
M. Perdido of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Eastern Police District, Saint Francis St.,
Mandaluyong City, which was marked in evidence as Exhibit "B", the finding and
conclusion as appearing on the report as Exhibit "B-1" and the signature of the forensic
Chemist over his typewritten name likewise as appearing on the report as Exhibit "B-2";

3) The existence of the two (2) plastic sachets and other paraphernalia, but not their
source or origin, contained in an envelope, the contents of which were the subject of the
Request for Laboratory Examination, which where marked in evidence as follows: as
Exhibit "C" (the envelope), as Exhibit "C-1" (the 1st plastic sachet), as Exhibit "D" (the
improvised tooter with markings EXH-E AAO dated 05-20-03), as Exhibit "E" (the
improvised burner) and as Exhibits "F-1" & "F-2" (the two disposable lighters). 6

The Version of the Defense

The appellants anchored their defense on denial and frame-up. They denied selling shabu and
claimed that they were together that night drinking at the second floor of Alivio’s residence. They
also claimed that five (5) men (who turned out to be policemen) suddenly barged in on them
looking for a person named "Bon-bon." When they replied that neither of them was Bon-bon, the
policemen frisked and arrested them. The policemen took from the appellants their earnings for
that day and the ₱5,000.00 cash they found in the house. The appellants tried to resist arrest
and suffered injuries as a result. 7

Alivio additionally asserted that he could not have sold shabu to PO2 Laro since he knew him to
be a policeman. Alivio claimed that he was a former driver of Atty. Nelson Fajardo whom he used
to accompany to the police station where PO2 Laro was assigned.

The Ruling of the RTC

On February 28, 2005, the RTC convicted the appellants of all charges laid. The RTC relied on
the presumption of regularity in the buy-bust operation and the lack of improper motive on the
part of the police officers. The RTC rejected the proferred denial and frame-up as defenses as
they are inherently easy to concoct, and found that the prosecution sufficiently established all the
elements of the crimes charged and the identity of the appellants as perpetrators. The RTC thus
concluded:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 12450-D both accused Arielito Alivio and Ernesto Dela Vega are hereby
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II,
Republic Act 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and are hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and to solidarily pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP500,000.00). 1avvphi1

In Criminal Case No. 12451-D accused Ernesto dela Vega is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal
possession of shabu) and is hereby sentenced to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty
(20) Years and to pay a Fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 300,000.00).

In Criminal Case No. 12452-D accused Arielito Alivio is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II, of Republic Act 9165 (illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia) and is hereby sentenced to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day to
Four (4) Years and a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,000.00). 8

The appellants appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

On November 30, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA took into account the
consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to support the presumption that the police
officers regularly performed the buy-bust operation. The CA likewise ruled that the appellants
failed to substantiate their defenses.

The Issue

The appellants raised the following lone assignment of error:

THE [CA] ERRED IN FINDING THE [APPELLANTS] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165. 9
The appellants argue that the lower courts erred in evaluating the testimonial evidence when
they placed undue reliance on the presumption of regularity and the absence of improper motive
on the part of the police officers to perpetuate the claimed irregularities. The appellants assert
that the presumption of regularity cannot take precedence over the presumption of innocence in
their favor.

The appellants also fault the lower courts for disregarding the defense’s evidence that showed
Alivio’s familiarity with PO2 Laro as a policeman. They emphasize that this evidence was
corroborated by the testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo.

Finally, the appellants contend that the identities of the subject shabu were not sufficiently proven
since the seized items were not marked at the time the appellants were apprehended.

The Court’s Ruling

We find no reversible error committed by the RTC and the CA in convicting the appellants of the
crimes charged.

While the presumption of innocence is the highest in the hierarchy of presumptions, it remains a
rebuttable presumption. In a criminal case, the presumption of innocence can be overcome by
the presumption of regularity when the latter is accompanied by strong evidence supporting the
guilt of the accused.10 Even without the presumption of regularity, a drug conviction can be
sustained through competent evidence establishing the existence of all the elements of the
crimes charged.

In this case, although the presumption of regularity did not arise considering the evident lapses
the police committed in the prescribed procedures, we rule that the prosecution’s evidence
sufficiently established all the elements of the three (3) crimes charged and the identity of the
appellants as the perpetrators.

The existence of the buy-bust operation

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer to the assessment on this point by
the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and
their credibility on the witness stand.11 Our independent examination of the records shows no
compelling reason to depart from this rule.

First, the lower courts found the testimonies of PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias consistent, positive
and straightforward. These testimonies were corroborated by PO1 Mapula who testified that the
appellants were apprehended through a buy-bust operation.

Second, the records reveal the lack of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team.
Appellant Alivio even admitted that he had no idea why the police officers filed the present case
against him.12 Alivio also denied police extortion. 13

Third, the appellants’ failure to file cases against the buy-bust team for planting evidence
undoubtedly supports the prosecution’s theory that the appellants were arrested because they
were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu.

Fourth, the following documentary evidence presented by the prosecution corroborates the
existence of an actual buy-bust operation:
 (a) The Pre-Opns Reports, made part of the records, showed that anti-narcotics
operations were conducted on May 20, 2003 against one "@Ariel" who was "allegedly
involved in selling/trading of dangerous drugs."14

(b) The existence of the buy-bust money,15 bearing the marking "3L," was presented
during the trial as part of PO2 Laro’s testimony.16 According to PO2 Laro, the marking
stood for his initials which he placed on the buy-bust money for easy identification.

(c) The Affidavits of Arrest17 by PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias executed immediately after
the arrest of the appellants showed that the arrests were made pursuant to a buy-bust
operation.18

Familiarity

The defense failed to sufficiently prove the alleged familiarity of appellant Alivio with PO2 Laro.
The testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo failed to give out specific details on the dates and
occasions when he supposedly talked to PO2 Laro in the presence of Alivio. 19 Moreover, the
evidence also shows a time gap between Alivio’s employment with Atty. Fajardo (from 2000 to
2001) and the occurrence of the buy-bust operation (in 2003). As against these sketchy claims,
PO2 Laro testified that Alivio failed to recognize him during the buy-bust operation. 20

In any event, in Gwyn Quinicot v. People, 21 we held that it is not the existing familiarity between
the seller and the buyer, but the agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the
illegal drugs, that is crucial in drug-related cases:

What matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the
buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug.
Besides, drug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to
anyone who can pay for the same, be they strangers or not. It is of common knowledge that
pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open like any article of
commerce. Drug pushers do no confine their nefarious trade to known customers and complete
strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay.22 [Citations omitted]

In this case, the prosecution’s evidence sufficiently established the exchange of the shabu and
the buy-bust money between the appellants and PO2 Laro.

The identity of the confiscated shabu

and/or drug paraphernalia

In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in court as
the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed
procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within
the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of
custody with respect to the confiscated items.

Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 — that prescribes the procedure to be observed by the
authorities in handling the illegal drug and/or drug paraphernalia confiscated — provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous

Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof;