People vs. Del Monte G.R. No. 179940, April 23,2008 Topic: R.A. 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (2002) Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J. Facts: Prosecution (Truth): On 10 December 2002, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant went to the office of the PDEA SEU in Baliuag, Bulacan and reported that appellant was selling shabu. The team was composed of SPO2 Hashim S. Maung, as team leader, PO1 Gaudencio Tolentino, Jr. as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Antonio Barreras as back-up operative. After the briefing, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to Poblacion Dike for the execution of the buy-bust operation. When the team arrived at appellant's place, they saw the appellant standing alone in front of the gate. The informant and PO1 Tolentino approached appellant. The informant introduced PO1 Tolentino to appellant as his friend, saying "Barkada ko, user." PO1 Tolentino gave appellant P300.00 consisting of three marked P100 bills. The bills were marked with "GT JR", PO1 Tolentino's initials. Upon receiving the P300.00, appellant took out a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it over to PO1 Tolentino. As a pre-arranged signal, PO1 Tolentino lit a cigarette signifying that the sale had been consummated. PO1 Barreras arrived, arrested appellant and recovered from the latter the marked money. The white crystalline substance in the plastic sachet which was sold to PO1 Tolentino. It was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug as testified by Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, Forensic Chemical Officer. Defense: On 10 December 2002, appellant was sleeping in his

sister's house in Poblacion Dike when a commotion woke him up. His nephew, Alejandro Lim, was shouting because he,

together with appellant's common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza, and a niece, was being punched and kicked by the police. When appellant tried to pacify the policemen, they arrested him, mauled him, punched him on the chest, slapped him and hit him with a palo-palo. He sustained swollen face, lips and tooth. His common-law wife was likewise hit on the chest with the palo-palo. The policemen then took appellant and his common-law wife to a house located in the middle of a field where they demanded P15,000.00 for their liberty. The next day, appellant was brought to the police station. Amelia Mendoza identified PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Barreras as the offending police officers. The following day at 6:00 a.m., her child and cousin arrived with the P15,000.00. She was released but appellant was detained. Appellant anchors his appeal on the policemen's failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. He claims that pictures of him together with the alleged confiscated shabu were not taken immediately upon his arrest. He adds that PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Antonio Barreras did not conduct a physical inventory of the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest. Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of violating R.A. 9165 despite failure of the police to comply with Sec. 21 of said law. Held: Yes. Non-compliance with Section 21, particularly in the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules.

There is no provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the

prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. All these elements have been shown in the instant case. The prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. Per Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002 of Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, the substance, weighing 0.290 gram, which was bought by PO1 Tolentino from appellant in consideration of P300.00, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail. Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government

officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. The witnesses for the defense cannot even agree on what time the arresting policemen allegedly arrived in their house. Appeal is DENIED. Norberto Del Monte aka Obet is guilty for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.