Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83316:57310&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:30:06+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALFREDO CERDON Y SANCHEZ, Accused-Appellant.
On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 10 November 2011, affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 57, of appellant Alfredo Cerdon y Sanchez for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and the corresponding penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00.
Appellant was charged with the violation following a “buy-bust” operation.
After receiving a copy of the trial court's Decision, petitioner seasonably filed a Notice of Appeal before the Court of Appeals. On 10 November 2011, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the RTC. The appellate court held that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the appellant as the one who sold the shabu to the poseur-buyer; that the sale that actually took place; and the payment of P200.00. The appellate court ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug.
Appellant essentially maintains that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the corpus delicti of the offense. Appellant also argues that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial links in the chain of custody of the shabu.
After a painstaking review of the records, we agree with the lower courts’ findings that the guilt of the appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.11 Indeed, all these elements were duly established. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the Special Operations Group of Mabalacat, Pampanga.
Mr. Witness, in the last hearing of this case, you mentioned that when you reached the house of the target person you were introduced. And you said you were then in front of the house of Alfred. My next question is: how were you introduced?
I was introduced by our asset as his “kumpadre”, sir.
And after you were introduced as the asset’s “kumpadre”, what else happened then?
Accused Alfredo Cerdon asked me how much will I buy shabu from him, sir.
After that, what else happened?
Accused Alfredo Cerdon went inside his house and a few minutes later he went back in front of his house and gave me one plastic sachet of shabu in exchange for P200.00, sir.
Which came first, the giving of the shabu or the giving of P200.00, sir.
You gave him P200.00, sir.
I thought you were buying “aduang pesos”?
“Aduang pesos” means P200.00, sir.
At the time that this accused gave you the shabu and you gave him the money, where was the asset then?
We were just beside each other, sir.
How far were you from his house then?
In front of the house, sir.
So, you were still outside the house at the time?
And after the giving of the money to him, what else happened?
I executed the pre-arranged signal by scratching my head, sir.
After executing the pre-arranged signal, what else happened?
I introduced myself as a policeman and then PO3 Laxamana and PO3 Agustin rushed to the scene, sir.
What was the accused’s reaction when you introduced yourself as policeman?
Last hearing, Mr. Witness, you testified that your confidential informant introduced PO1 Yusi to a certain Fred in front of his house. Can you please tell us where is this house you are referring to?
At No. 356 Roxas St., Barangay Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, sir.
When Officer Yusi was introduced to this certain Fred, where wer you?
We were 10 to 15 meters away from them, sir.
So, while you were 10 to 15 meters away from Officer Yusi, where is your attention focused?
To PO1 Yusi and the suspect, sir.
And what did you observe subsequently?
After the confidential informant introduced PO1 Michael Yusi to the suspect, then moments later, the suspect went inside his house and another moments later, he went back and handed something to Yusi, simultaneously, Yusi handed something to the suspect, sir.
After that exchange, can you please tell us what happened?
Yusi gave the pre-arranged signal to us by scratching his head, sir.
When was this scratching of head agreed as the pre-arranged signal?
During the briefing in our office, sir.
What is the significance of Yusi scratching his head?
It means when the buy-bust operation is already consummated then he will scratch his head as pre-arranged signal so that we can arrest the suspect, sir.
So, after seeing Yusi scratching his head, what would you do and the rest of the team?
Appellant avers that there was no testimony which proves that the police officers complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 in effecting his arrest and in the subsequent disposition of the prohibited drug involved. Appellant asserts that there was no evidence presented to show that the police officers conducted an inventory, and took photographs, of the confiscated items in his presence, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Appellant points out that the confiscation receipt was neither prepared by the police officers in the presence of the media representative and the DOJ, nor was it signed by the latter. Furthermore, appellant claims that the police officers presented no valid justification as to their non-compliance with the procedural mandates of the law.
Appellant then contends that the prosecution failed to prove the crucial links in the chain of custody of shabu, such as: 1) immediate marking of the seized shabu; 2) to whom PO3 Laxamana turned over the sachet at the crime laboratory; 3) the presentation of the chemist on the witness stand; and 4) the identity of the person who had custody over the subject drug pending its presentation in court.
Appellant’s defense, which is predicated on bare denial, deserves scant consideration in light of the positive testimonies of the police officers. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.21 Bare denial of appellant cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.22 Moreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellant.
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold shabu. Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, “[t]he penalty of life imprisonment to death and fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved x x x.” Hence, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed upon appellant the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 10 November 2011 of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of appellant by the RTC of Angeles City, Pampanga, Branch 57 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring. Rollo, pp.2-16.
2 Presided by Judge Omar T. Viola. Records, pp. 96-104.
6 TSN, 9 December 2003, pp. 2-4; TSN, 15 August 2006, pp. 6-11; TSN 28 October 2008, pp. 2-4 and 7.
7 TSN, 10 September 2009, pp. 3-7.
9 People v. Ocampo, 503 Phil. 310, 317 (2006).
11People v. Isnani, G.R. No. 133006, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 439, 449 citing People v. Tan, 432 Phil. 171, 183 (2002) citing further People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 131 (2000); People v. Tiu, 460 Phil. 95, 103 (2003).
12 TSN, 9 December 2003, pp. 2-3.
13 TSN, 28 October 2008, pp. 2-3.
16 G.R. No. 182231, 16 April 2009, 585 SCRA 668.
18 G.R. No. 185379, 27 November 2009, 606 SCRA 247.
21People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 85-86 (2000) citing People v. Dichoso, G.R. No. 101216-18, 4 June 1993, 223 SCRA 174, 187; People v. Constantino, G.R. No. 109119, 16 August 1994, 235 SCRA 384, 391; People v. Tranca, G.R. No. 110357, 17 August 1994, 235 SCRA 455, 462-463.
22People v. Lee Hoi Ming, 459 Phil. 187, 195 (2003); People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 727 (2003).

References: v. 
In fine
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.