View full case

PEOPLE v. ALDRIN BERDADERO Y ARMAMENTO

FACTS:

On March 28, 2003, Aldrin Berdadero was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for allegedly selling shabu. The police received a report about the appellant's drug-selling activities and organized a buy-bust operation. During the operation, the appellant sold two plastic sachets containing shabu to an informant in exchange for marked money. The police apprehended the appellant, recovered the marked money, and recorded the operation and confiscated items. The sachets were submitted for laboratory examination and tested positive for shabu.

The appellant claimed to be a victim of frame-up, stating that two men pretending to be locksmiths entered his house, returned later, kicked the door open, and handcuffed him without explaining the reason for his arrest.

The trial court found the appellant guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that there was no buy-bust operation, his arrest was unlawful, and the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. He also challenged the authority of the police officers to conduct the operation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the elements of illegal sale of shabu were established by the prosecution

  2. Whether the defense of frame-up is tenable

  3. Whether the buy-bust operation complied with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules

  4. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance was properly preserved.

  5. Whether the evidence against the accused was obtained in violation of Section 86 of RA 9165.

  6. Whether the PDEA had the authority to conduct the buy-bust operation.

  7. Whether the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer weakens the evidence for the prosecution.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is unmeritorious. The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of the illegal sale of shabu. The appellant was positively identified as the seller of the shabu, the sale actually occurred, and the marked money used in the buy-bust operation was adduced in evidence.

  2. The defense of frame-up fails. The appellant did not present clear and convincing evidence to support the allegation of frame-up. The prosecution witnesses' credibility remains intact, and the appellant's failure to present a corroborating witness weakens the claim of frame-up.

  3. The failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules does not render the seizure and custody of the evidence void and invalid. Non-compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirement may be excused if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

  4. The integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance was properly preserved. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses show that the evidence was marked, properly handled, and tested in the laboratory. The appellant failed to prove that the evidence was tampered with.

  5. The evidence against the accused was not obtained in violation of Section 86 of RA 9165. While the provision designates the PDEA as the lead agency in drug-related cases, it does not make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or render evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Other law enforcement bodies still have the authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA, as long as drug cases are eventually transferred to the latter.

  6. The PDEA had the authority to conduct the buy-bust operation. The court found that Section 86(a) of Republic Act No. 9165 establishes the relationship and coordination between the PDEA and other law enforcement agencies. While the PDEA is the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act, the PNP, NBI, and other law enforcement agencies may continue to conduct anti-drug operations in support of the PDEA. The court held that PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas, who conducted the buy-bust operation, possessed the authority to do so.

  7. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer does not weaken the evidence for the prosecution. According to the court, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is only fatal if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction. In this case, the testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas were sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The court noted that the referral to the shabu handed by the appellant to the poseur-buyer as "something" merely indicates that at the time of the sale, it was presumed to be shabu. The specimen was later submitted to the crime laboratory for testing, which confirmed that it was indeed shabu. Therefore, the absence of the poseur-buyer's testimony did not weaken the prosecution's evidence.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

  • For a prosecution involving illegal drugs, the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation is crucial.

  • The defense of frame-up is viewed with disfavor and requires clear and convincing evidence.

  • Non-compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not invalidate the seizure and custody of the evidence if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The chain of custody serves to ensure the integrity and identity of the evidence for conviction.

  • Presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits of public officers and presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.

  • Burden of proof lies with the accused to show that evidence was tampered with.

  • Silence in the law should not be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of the designated agency illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.

  • Section 86 of RA 9165 designates the PDEA as the lead agency in drug-related cases, but other law enforcement bodies still have the authority to perform similar functions until the cases are transferred to the PDEA.

  • The PDEA is the lead agency in the enforcement of Republic Act No. 9165, but other law enforcement agencies can conduct anti-drug operations in support of the PDEA.

  • The non-presentation of a poseur-buyer is not fatal if there are other eyewitnesses to the illicit transaction.