FACTS:

Accused-appellants Joseph and Anthony Serrano were charged with the illegal sale and possession of shabu. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence, including the plastic sachets containing shabu, a chemistry report, and the marked money used in the buy-bust operation. The Court of Appeals summarized the prosecution's version of events, involving coordination between law enforcement agencies and the apprehension of the accused-appellants. During their apprehension, Anthony was found with four plastic sachets of shabu, marked bills, scissors, a lighter, and empty plastic sachets. Joseph had a heat-sealed plastic sachet, which he previously handed to one of the police officers. The evidence was sent for examination, confirming the substances as shabu. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed the drugs and items were only shown to them at the police station. They were convicted by the RTC and appealed to the Supreme Court, which found no merit in their contentions. During the trial, the defense argued that there was no proof as to how the marked bills ended up with Anthony, but the court found no contradiction in the testimonies of the police officers. The court also found conspiracy between the accused-appellants based on their acts.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there was conspiracy between the accused-appellants.

2. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies in this case.

4. Whether the elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs have been proven.

5. Whether the elements of a valid buy-bust operation have been established.

6. Whether the accused-appellants are guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

7. Whether or not there was conspiracy among the accused in committing the crime.

8. Whether or not the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. Yes, there was conspiracy between the accused-appellants. The court found that their conduct before, during, and after the commission of the crime demonstrated a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. The fact that accused-appellant Joseph negotiated with the poseur-buyer, received the buy-bust money, and handed it to his brother Anthony, who in turn handed the sachet of shabu to Joseph to deliver to the poseur-buyer, indicated a unity of design and objective to sell the illegal drug.

2. Yes, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, which showed the concerted action between Joseph and Anthony before, during, and after the offense. The marked money was found in Anthony's possession, together with other sachets of shabu and paraphernalia used in packing the illegal drug. These facts, along with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions of the arresting officers, support the finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies in this case. The accused did not prove any irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the police officers nor ascribe bad faith or any improper motive to the police officers involved. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings and conclusions that the accused committed the offenses charged.

4. The elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible, straightforward, and corroborative of each other. The prosecution proved that a legitimate buy-bust operation took place and that the accused were apprehended. The seized substance was brought to and identified in court, and the accused were positively identified as the persons who sold the sachet containing the crystalline substance confirmed to be shabu.

5. The elements of a valid buy-bust operation have been established. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of the arresting officer, showed that the buy-bust operation was conducted properly. The marked money was given to one of the accused, who then handed it to his brother. The brother then handed over the sachet of shabu to the confidential informant, who in turn handed it to the arresting officer. The positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have established the validity of the buy-bust operation.

6. The accused-appellants are guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the arresting officer, established that the accused-appellant was in possession of four sachets of shabu. Chemical analysis confirmed that the substance in the sachets was indeed shabu. The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The accused were found guilty of the crime charged.

PRINCIPLES:

• Conspiracy is primarily a mental agreement and may be inferred and proved through the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime, which demonstrates a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest.

• Direct proof of a prior agreement is not essential to establish conspiracy. Proof of concerted action is sufficient.

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies to police officers involved in buy-bust operations. Their testimonies deserve full faith and credit, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

• The presumption of innocence of the accused may be overcome by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions of the arresting officers, especially when there is no proof of motive to falsely impute the crime.

• The principle of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies when there is no proof of irregularity, bad faith, or improper motive on the part of the police officers involved.

• Findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, being factual in nature, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. This rule applies more stringently when said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.

• For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The transaction or sale must be proven to have actually taken place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of corpus delicti.

• In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

• Mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. It is self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. The categorical testimony that rings of truth generally prevails over bare denial.

• The penalty for the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams.

• Conspiracy can be established through direct evidence or inferred from the acts of the accused.

• The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.