People v. Alberto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 23, 2003, an informant visited the Drug Enforcement Unit of Makati Police Station and tipped PO1 Alex Inopia that Nieva Alberto y De Nieva was selling shabu, prompting the formation of a buy-bust team comprising SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan, PO1 Jaime Laura, PO1 Inopia as poseur-buyer with P500 marked money, and PO1 Randy Santos. The informant contacted Alberto via cellphone, arranging a meet-up at J.P. Rizal Extension, Comembo, Makati City. Upon arrival, the informant introduced PO1 Inopia to Alberto, who inquired about the quantity needed; Inopia handed the P500 buy-bust money, and Alberto delivered a small plastic sachet of white crystalline substance. Inopia lit a cigarette as the pre-arranged signal, leading PO1 Santos to assist in arresting Alberto, retrieving the marked money from her, and marking the sachet with 'NDA'. Laboratory examination via Chemistry Report No. D-109-03S confirmed 0.25 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). In stark contrast, Alberto claimed she was a used cellphone trader; on that date, associate Angie Angeles lured her to a house in Comembo for a P1,500 cellphone sale that fell through, after which armed men raided, handcuffed her, seized her money, and detained her, later demanding P50,000 extortion via Wilmer Antonio. Procedural History: Charged under an Information dated January 27, 2003 (noting offense on January 27 despite arrest on 23rd) for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 before RTC Makati Branch 135 (Crim Case No. 03-470), Alberto pleaded not guilty on March 5, 2003; trial followed pre-trial. Prosecution hinged on PO1 Inopia's testimony (corroborative PO1 Santos dispensed by stipulation); defense on Alberto's denial/frame-up. RTC convicted on November 28, 2003: life imprisonment, P500,000 fine. CA affirmed January 19, 2006 (CA-G.R. CR No. 00894). Alberto appealed to SC. The Petition: Appellant argued: (I) RTC gravely erred in crediting PO1 Inopia's 'incredible' uncorroborated testimony, citing implausibility of single sachet seizure, P500 price below street value, minor inconsistencies; (II) failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to date variance (Info: Jan 27 vs. testimony Jan 23), non-compliance with Sec 21 inventory/photography/media presence, 5-day lab delay, frame-up/extortion motive sans rancor proof.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC gravely erred in giving full credence to the prosecution's sole witness and finding all elements of illegal sale proven beyond reasonable doubt. Whether non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and other procedural lapses warrant acquittal due to doubt on seized shabu's integrity.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The CA Decision affirming RTC's conviction of appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165—life imprisonment and P500,000 fine—is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Credibility, Elements of Illegal Sale, Denial/Frame-up): All elements concurred: identities (Inopia positively identified Alberto as seller), object (0.25g shabu sachet marked 'NDA', lab-confirmed), consideration (P500 handed and retrieved). Inopia's straightforward testimony on buy-bust—from tip-off, team formation, marked money, signal-arrest, marking, lab submission—deserves credence under presumption of regularity (People v. Mateo), rebuttable only by clear proof of ill motive absent here (no rancor admitted). Minor inconsistencies (e.g., details trivial) do not impair positive identification (People v. Ondalok; People v. Daen). Lone witness suffices; no law mandates corroboration, evidence by quality not quantity (People v. Ayupan); parties stipulated on PO1 Santos. Denial/frame-up 'common ploy,' bare/self-serving, yields to positive testimony (People v. Astudillo). Trial/CA credibility findings binding absent overlooked facts (People v. Vallador). Date discrepancy waived, first raised on appeal violating due process (Pascual v. People). On Issue 2 (Sec 21 Non-Compliance, Chain of Custody): Sec 21 mandates immediate inventory/photography before accused/media/DOJ/elect official, 24-hour PDEA lab submission—non-compliance not fatal if integrity preserved (People v. Pringas; People v. Agulay; People v. Del Monte). Here, immediate 'NDA' marking post-arrest, same sachet lab-tested (report Jan 28, stipulated valid), unbroken chain, no contamination alleged/proven; forensic testimony dispensed. Issue unraised below, waived (People v. Mateo). Thus, evidentiary value intact for guilt determination.
Main Doctrine
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the identities of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold coupled with payment therefor. The testimony of a credible poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, supported by laboratory confirmation of the substance as shabu, suffices even without corroborative witnesses, as evidence is weighed by quality not quantity. Defenses of denial and frame-up are inherently weak, self-serving, and cannot prevail over positive identification unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence of police ill motive or irregularity. Non-compliance with Section 21's requirements for immediate physical inventory, photography, and 24-hour submission to PDEA lab is not fatal, provided the chain of custody remains unbroken, the items are properly marked immediately after seizure, and their integrity is preserved to ensure evidentiary value. Trial courts' credibility assessments of witnesses, especially police officers presumed regular in duty, are entitled to great weight on appeal absent overlooked facts materially affecting the outcome.