PEOPLE VS DILAO

FACTS:
A police informer called up the [DEU] Unit, Caloocan City Police Station, told the police that an
alias Philip was rampantly selling shabu along Pangako St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. The
informer also identified the drug pusher as Philip Dilao y Castro, herein appellant. A buy-bust
operation was then conducted, and the appellant was caught. He countered the allegations
against him. The RTC found him guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. CA affirmed in toto the decision.
Hence, the appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether CA erred in its decision.

HELD:
No. It cannot be over-emphasized that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven
procedure, sanctioned by law at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. It is often
utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution
of their nefarious activities.18 Credence of the buy-bust operators cannot be undermined by the
mere fact that law enforcers are perceived to resort to the practice of planting evidence to gain
favor from their superiors. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute a serious crime
against an accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as
the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellants often self-
serving and uncorroborated claim of having been a victim of a frame-up.

Since the appellant was found guilty of selling "shabu" weighing 0.06 gram, absent any
aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly sentenced him to life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. C-65963. Since he was also found
guilty of possession of "shabu" weighing 0.07 gram, absent any aggravating or mitigating
circumstance and in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he was correctly meted
a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and
a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) in Criminal Case No. C-65964.




PEOPLE vs. QUIAOIT G.R. No. 175222 July 27, 2007

FACTS:
At around 11:00 o'clock in the evening of 12 April 2004, the Tarlac PNP received a report from a
confidential informant that someone was selling shabu at the Golden Miles, a videoke bar located
in Barangay San Roque, Tarlac City. Acting on said information, a team was immediately
organized by PNP Provincial Director Rudy Gamido Lacadin to conduct a surveillance in order to
verify the information and perform a buy-bust operation. Shortly thereafter, the team went to
Golden Miles where they initially observed the movements of appellant who was with the
confidential informant at that time. Later, the informant introduced PO1Baquiran to appellant and
the two negotiated the sale of shabu. According to PO1 Baquiran's testimony, appellant handed
to him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in front of The Golden Miles' comfort
room which was located at the back of said establishment. In return, he gave appellant a marked
P500.00 bill. As soon as the exchange between appellant and PO1 Baquiran took place, the latter
gave his companions the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head. PO2 Dueas and PO1
Cabradilla moved in to arrest appellant. The plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
was later marked RID 1 by PO2 Dueas. On their way back to Camp Makabulos, the informant
allegedly told the buy-bust team, through a text message, that appellant still had in his possession
illegal drugs other than that which he had sold to PO1Baquiran. Thus, upon reaching the camp,
they frisked appellant and this yielded six more plastic sachets, the contents of which were similar
to those earlier bought by PO1 Baquiran. The seized crystalline substance was subjected to test
and the result shows that it was shabuhe appellant contends that the arrest was illeal since he was
framed up by the police and the court should consider the arrest as a result of instigation and not
entrapment contrary to the arresting officers claim.

ISSUE:
Was the arrest of the accused a result of instigation or inducement?


HELD:
No. The demarcation line distinguishing "instigation" from "entrapment" is clearly drawn. In the case
of People v. Quintana, the Court explained the distinction between the two: In instigation, the
instigator practically induces the accused into the commission of the offense and himself
becomes a co-principal; in entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of
trapping and capturing the law breaker in the execution of his criminal plan. Instigation and
inducement must be distinguished from entrapment. The general rule is that instigation and
inducement to commit a crime, for the purpose of filing criminal charges, is to be condemned as
immoral, while entrapment, which is the employment of means and ways for the purpose of
trapping and capturing the law breaker, is sanctioned and permissible. And the reason is obvious.
Under the first instance, no crime has been committed, and to induce one to commit it makes the
instigator a co-criminal. Under the last instance, the crime has already been committed and all
that is done is to entrap and capture the law breaker. In the case at bar, the Court finds appellant's
claim of instigation to be baseless.





























PEOPLE VS STA. MARIA

Facts:
On November 27, 2002, at around 10:00 oclock in the morning, P/Chief Insp. Noli Pacheco, Chief
of the Provincial Drug Enforcement Group of the Bulacan Provincial Office based at Camp Alejo
Santos, Malolos, Bulacan received an intelligence report about the illegal drug activities in Sitio
Gulod, Barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan of a certain "Fael," who later turned out to be
appellant Rafael Sta. Maria. P/Chief Insp. Pacheco formed a surveillance team to look for a police
asset to negotiate a drug deal with appellant. In the morning of November 29, 2002, the
surveillance team reported to P/Chief Insp. Pacheco that a confidential asset found by the team
had already negotiated a drug deal for the purchase of P200 worth of shabu from appellant at
the latters house at No. 123 Sitio Gulod, Barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan between 7:00
and 7:30 in the evening of November 29, 2002. The surveillance team then prepared for a buy-
bust operation, with PO3 Enrique Rullan as team leader, and PO1 Rhoel Ventura, who was
provided with two (2) marked P100-bills, as poseur-buyer. At the appointed time and place, PO1
Ventura and the confidential informant proceeded to appellants house and knocked at the
door. Appellant opened the door and the confidential informant introduced to him PO1 Ventura
as a prospective buyer. PO1 Ventura later handed the two (2) marked P100-bills to appellant who,
in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. Thereupon, PO1 Ventura sparked his cigarette lighter,
which was the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the buy-bust team that the sale was
consummated. Appellant was arrested and the two marked P100-bills recovered from him. Also
arrested on that occasion was one Zedric dela Cruz who was allegedly sniffing shabu inside
appellants house and from whom drug paraphernalia were recovered. Upon laboratory
examination of the item bought from appellant, the same yielded positive for methylampetamine
hydrochloride or shabu weighing 0.041 gram.
The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
9165. CA affirmed the decision. Hence, the appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether what transpired was an instigation and not a valid buy-bust operation.

HELD:
It was a valid buy-bust operation. In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap
and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. In instigation, the instigator practically
induces the would-be-defendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-
principal. In entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the
resolve to commit the crime come from him. In instigation, the law enforcer conceives the
commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into
execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal from liability. Instigation
does.
Here, the mere fact that the agreement between appellant and the police informant for the
purchase and sale of illegal drugs was made on November 27, 2002, while the buy-bust operation
was conducted on November 29, 2002, is of no moment. Without more, it does not prove that said
informant instigated appellant into committing the offense. If at all, the earlier agreement and the
subsequent actual sale suggest that appellant was habitually dealing in illegal drugs.
It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation.10 In this case,
apart from appellants self-serving declaration that he was instigated into committing the offense,
he did not present any other evidence to prove the same.

SC affirmed the decision.






















PEOPLE VS LAYLO

FACTS;
PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor were conducting anti-drug surveillance operations at Lozana Street,
Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal. While the police officers were in front of a sari-sari store at around
5:40 p.m., appellant Laylo and his live-in partner, Ritwal, approached them and asked, Gusto
mong umiskor ng shabu? PO1 Reyes replied, Bakit mayroon ka ba? Laylo then brought out two
plastic bags containing shabu and told the police officers, Dos (P200.00) ang isa. Upon hearing
this, the police officers introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately arrested Laylo.
Ritwal, on the other, tried to get away but PO1 Pastor caught up with her. PO1 Pastor then frisked
Ritwal and found another sachet of shabu in a SIM card case which Ritwal was carrying.

The police officers charged Laylo for attempted sale of illegal drugs and used the two plastic
sachets containing shabu as basis while Ritwal was charged for possession of illegal drugs using as
basis the third sachet containing 0.02 grams of shabu. The RTC found Laylo and Ritwal guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violations of RA 9165 and CA affirmed the decision. Hence, the
appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the court erred in convicting the appellant.

HELD:
No. Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the
intended crime by showing the substance to PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor.12 The sale was aborted
when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant and Ritwal under arrest. From
the testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish that there was an attempt
to sell shabu. In addition, the plastic sachets were presented in court as evidence of corpus delicti.
Thus, the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently established by evidence.

Appellant claims that he was a victim of a frame up. However, he failed to substantiate his claim.
The witnesses presented by the defense were not able to positively affirm that illegal drugs were
planted on appellant by the police officers when they testified that they saw someone place
something inside appellants jacket. In Quinicot v. People,13 we held that all egations of frame-
up and extortion by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs
cases. They are viewed by the Court with disfavor, for such defenses can easily be concocted
and fabricated.
PEOPLE VS NICOLAS

Fact:
On August 6, 2002, at about 9:30 oclock in the evening, a confidential informant stepped inside
the office of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig Police Station, Pasig City and informed
SPO4 Numeriano S. De Lara, Officer In-Charge of that unit, that a certain alias Bernie was selling
shabu at his place along Santiago Street, in Barangay Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. Immediately, SPO4
De Lara organized a team to conduct a surveillance operation and the entrapment of alias
Bernie, if warranted by the situation. The team was composed of PO2 Danilo S. Damasco, PO2
Montefalcon, PO2 Orig and SPO2 Zipagan who was the team leader. PO2 Damasco was
designated to act as poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation while the other police officers would
serve as his back-ups to assist in the possible apprehension of alias Bernie. After a short briefing,
the team of police operatives, including the confidential informant, proceeded to the target
place at Santiago Street, Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. SPO2 Dante Zipagan, the team leader,
instructed the confidential informant to first check and look for the whereabouts of alias Bernie.
The informant, after five minutes, returned and informed the team that he found alias Bernie in
front of his house and the team decided to proceed with the planned entrapment of alias Bernie.
PO2 Damasco and the informant then walked towards the house of alias Bernie while the back-
up police officers placed themselves strategically in different positions where they could see PO2
Damasco and the informant in the act of negotiating with alias Bernie. PO2 Damasco and the
informant saw alias Bernie conversing with a male person in front of his house. After the informant
greeted alias Bernie, he introduced PO2 Damasco to alias Bernie whose real name is Bernardo
Nicolas, the accused herein, as a user of shabu and would like now to buy some Php500.00 worth
of the substance from him. Alias Bernie, responded that he still had one piece of that stuff and
was willing to sell it to poseur-buyer Damasco. Accused asked for the money which was pre-
marked by Damasco with initials DSD (Exh. D-1) which stands for the name of Danilo S. Damasco.
Damasco then handed the five hundred peso bill (Exh. D) to accused who accepted it. Accused,
in return, gave Damasco one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which looked
like that of shabu. For a moment, PO2 Damasco examined the plastic sachet and its content and
then announced to the accused he was a police officer and arresting him for violation of the
drugs law. Accused Bernardo Nicolas alias Bernie got shocked and surprised. As Damasco was
holding the accused, the back-up officers arrived and assisted him in handling the accused.
Damasco recovered the buy-bust money and the police team took him away to their station,
where he was turned over to a police investigator together with the small plastic sachet of
suspected shabu that Damasco had purchased from the accused. SPO4 Numeriano S. De Lara
sent the small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which was then marked with
EXH.-A BFN/080602 to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office at St. Francis St.,
Mandaluyong City, as per his letter memorandum dated August 6, 2002 (Exhs. B and B-1). The
specimen was received at the EPD Crime Laboratory office by P/Insp. Delfin Torregoza, a Forensic
Chemical Officer, who weighed and examined the specimen which he found to contain 0.42
gram of white crystalline substance which was tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride as per his Chemistry Report No. D-1501-02E (Exhs. C and C-1). Accused Bernardo F.
Nicolas was consequently charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.

Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty of the crime charged despite
failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:
No. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the
legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust
operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective
means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary
especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the
entrapment.25 Flexibility is a trait of good police work.26 In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation
was conducted without need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the informant
accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous drugs.















LASERNA VS DDB

Facts:
Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as citizen and taxpayer, also seeks in his Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 that Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and (g) of RA 9165 be struck
down as unconstitutional for infringing on the constitutional right to privacy, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure, and the right against self - incrimination, and for being
contrary to the due process and equal protection guarantees.

Issues:
(1) Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional qualification
for candidates for senator? Corollarily, can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications for
candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the Constitution? and

(2) Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 unconstitutional? Specifically, do these
paragraphs violate the right to privacy, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and
the equal protection clause? Or do they constitute undue delegation of legislative power?

Held:
Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA 9165, the Court finds no valid justification
for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. In the case of students, the
constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students
emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry
to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school
authorities. In the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the
mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug
test policy and requirement.

We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons charged before the public
prosecutor's office with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day
imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are "randomness" and
"suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a
mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and
being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They
are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of
committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The
persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutor's office and
peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent
to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.40 To impose mandatory drug testing on
the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution,
contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons' right
to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are
veritably forced to incriminate themselves.

SC partially granted the petition in G.R. Nos. 157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d)
of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec. 36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All concerned
agencies are, accordingly, permanently enjoined from implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA
9165. No costs.

























PEOPLE VS ROBELO

Fact:
At about 10:00 a.m. of March 26, 2004, the Station of Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task
Force (SAID), Police Station 2 in Moriones, Tondo, Manila received information from a civilian
informer that a certain alias "Kalbo" (appellant) is involved in the sale of illegal drugs in Parola
Compound. Forthwith, the Chief of SAID organized a team composed of eight police officers to
conduct a "buy-bust" operation to entrap appellant. PO2 Arnel Tubbali (PO2 Tubbali) was
designated as the poseur-buyer and was thus handed a 100 peso bill which he marked with his
initials. The rest of the team were to serve as back-ups.

The civilian asset led PO2 Tubbali to the target area while others positioned themselves in strategic
places. Not long after, appellant came out from Gate 16, Area 1-b with a companion who was
later identified as Teddy Umali (Umali). Upon approaching the two, the civilian informer introduced
to them PO2 Tubbali as a friend and a prospective buyer of shabu. PO2 Tubbali then conveyed
his desire to buy P100.00 worth of shabu and handed Umali the marked P100.00 bill. After
accepting the money, Umali ordered appellant to give PO2 Tubbali one plastic sachet of shabu
to which the latter readily complied. PO2 Tubbali then looked at the plastic sachet, placed it in
his pocket, and made the pre-arranged signal by scratching his butt. Whereupon, the rest of the
team rushed to the scene and arrested appellant and Umali. When frisked by PO2 Conrado
Juano, one plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu was found inside appellants pocket. He
and Umali were afterwards brought to the precinct where the investigator marked the seized
items with the initials "JRT-1" and "JRT-2". The investigator then prepared the Laboratory Request,3
Booking Sheet,4 Arrest Report,5 Joint Affidavit of Apprehension6 and a referral letter for inquest.

The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Possession and Illegal
Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 11(3) and (5) in relation to Section 26, Article II,
respectively, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 and CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUES:
(a) THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
(b) THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASOANBLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE POLICE OFFICERS
FAILURE TO REGULARLY PERFORM THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS.
HELD:
Time and again, SC has stressed virtually to the point of repletion that alibi is one of the weakest
defenses that an accused can invoke because it is easy to fabricate. In order to be given full faith
and credit, an alibi must be clearly established and must not leave any doubt as to its plausibility
and veracity. Here, appellants claim that he was at his mothers house at the time of the incident
cannot stand against the clear and positive identification of him by the prosecution witnesses. As
aptly held by the RTC, "[t]he portrayal put forward by appellant remained uncorroborated. The
testimonies of the witnesses presented by the defense do not jibe with one another and that of
the claim of the appellant himself. x x x Lastly, the demand for money worth P10,000.00 remained
unsubstantiated. x x x If indeed appellant is innocent he or his family who were his witnesses should
have filed a case of planting of evidence against the police which is now punishable by life
imprisonment."

"Non-compliance with Section 21 does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused."22 The records reveal that at no instance did appellant hint a
doubt on the integrity of the seized items.

Undoubtedly, therefore, the suspected illegal drugs confiscated from appellant were the very
same substance presented and identified in court. This Court, thus, upholds the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties by the apprehending police officers.

The decision is affirmed in toto.













PEOPLE VS AURE

Facts:
At around 4:00 in the afternoon of August 26, 2003, an informant came to the Office of MADAC
Cluster 2 and reported that a certain Carlo, later identified as Carlo Magno Aure, was rampantly
selling illegal drugs along F. Nazario Street, Barangay Singkamas, Makati City.9 Aure was
reportedly armed with a handgun and was using his car in his illegal transactions.10

Upon being apprised of the ongoing drug peddling, the Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit of the
Makati City Police Station immediately created a group of officers which would conduct a buy-
bust operation.11 Composing this team was PO3 Lagasca, as the team leader, with operatives
from both the police stations Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force (AIDSOTF) and
MADACs Clusters 2 and 3 as members.

When a briefing was conducted, MADAC operative Bilason was assigned as the poseur-buyer to
be provided with 12 marked five hundred peso (PhP 500) bills, amounting to six thousand pesos
(PhP 6,000).

After marking the 12 PhP 500 bills, the team, with the informant, went to the place where Aure was
reported to be conducting his trade. When they reached a point along Primo Rivera Street, about
30 meters away from F. Nazario Street, they alighted from their vehicles. MADAC operative Bilason
and the informant walked towards F. Nazario Street, while the rest of the team members followed
them.

Thereafter, when Bilason and the informant saw Aure and a certain "Buboy," who turned out to be
Austriaco, seating inside a car parked along F. Nazario Street, they approached the latter. In the
meantime, the other team members strategically positioned themselves within the area to monitor
the transaction.

Bilason was introduced by the informant as a buyer of shabu. Aure initially expressed his
apprehension that Bilason could be an operative. Nevertheless, when the informant assured him
that Bilason is his friend from the province, Aure asked Bilason how much he needed. To this,
Bilason replied "Isang bolto, pare,"12 which meant six thousand pesos (PhP 6,000) worth of shabu.
When demanded by Aure, Bilason handed the previously marked money to him. The latter then
placed the marked money inside his right front pocket.

Afterwards, Aure secured from Austriaco a small brown bag and a plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, suspected as shabu, taken from the same bag. Aure then handed over the
same plastic sachet with its contents to Bilason.

After ascertaining that what Aure gave him was shabu, Bilason lighted his cigarette to signal to his
team members that the transaction with Aure was already consummated. Immediately, PO3
Lagasca and MADAC operative Flores closed in.13 After introducing themselves as AIDSOTF and
MADAC operatives, Bilason and his team members placed Aure and Austriaco under arrest, and
ordered them to get out of the car.14

Subsequently, Bilason seized the small brown bag from Aure. When inspected, said bag yielded
another plastic sachet containing substantial amount of suspected shabu wrapped in red
wrapping paper, empty plastic sachets, and glass pipe tooter. Also seized was a .45 caliber pistol
with one magazine and five live bullets found inside the car near the place where Aure was
seated. Flores also recovered the marked money from Aure. The recovered items were marked
by Bilason in the presence of Aure and Austriaco. PO3 Lagasca likewise explained to the two
suspects the cause of their arrest and apprised them of their constitutional rights.

Eventually, Aure and Austriaco were brought to the AIDSOTF office. The examinations conducted
by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory on the plastic sachets of suspected shabu and
the glass pipe tooter yielded positive results for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride.15 This was
indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-1068-0316 issued by Police Inspector Alejandro C. de
Guzman.
After trial, the RTC convicted Aure and Austriaco and CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC.


ISSUE:
Whether the court A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME
CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF the PROSECUTION TO PROVE their GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

HELD:
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165,
the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.36 What is material to
the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.37 In the
instant case, all these were sufficiently established by the prosecution.

Time and again, We have held that "denials unsubstantiated by convincing evidence are not
enough to engender reasonable doubt particularly where the prosecution presents sufficiently
telling proof of guilt."43

In the absence of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime
against the accused-appellants, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
stands.44 Especially here, where an astute analysis of MADAC operative Bilasons testimony does
not indicate any inconsistency, contradiction, or fabrication.

Considering the foregoing disquisitions, We uphold the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty and find that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving
the guilt of accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

SC affirmed the decision.