~epublir of tbe 1)31Jihppines

$,ttprrme ([ourt
:fflanila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 259181

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:

CAGUIOA, J., Chairperson,

INTING,
- versus -
GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
SINGH, JJ.
NHELMAR MENDIOLA y
MARTIN @ "HONDA," NOEL
MENDIOLA y PONCE @
Promulgated:
"NOEL," and GLEN RAMOS y
AKIATAN@ "GLEN," August 2, 2023
Accused-Appellants. \.\, ~~\\o..-\\
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is an appeal I assailing the Decision 2 dated January

15, 2021, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13666.
The CA affirmed the Decision3 dated June 5, 2019, of Branch 164,
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 20724-D-
PSG that found Nhelmar Mendiola y Martin alias "Honda" (accused-
appellant Nhelmar), Noel Mendiola y Ponce alias "Noel" (accused-
appellant Noel), and Glen Ramos y Akiatan alias "Glen" (accused-
appellant Glen) (collectively, accused-appellants) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, 4 A1iicle II of Republic Act
Rollo, pp. 3--4, Notice of Appeal dated February 17. 2021.
Id . at 8-40. Penned by Associate Justice Maritlor P. Punzalan-Castillo and concurred in by
Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Alfredo D. Ampuan.
Id . at 43-55. Penned by Presiding Judge Jennifer Albano Pilar.
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delive,:v, Distribution and Transpurtation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
Decision 2 G.R. No. 259181

(RA) No. 9165, 5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002," as amended. The CA also affirmed accused-appellant
Noel's conviction in Criminal Case No 20725 -D-PSG for violation of
Section 11,6 Article II of the same law.

The Antecedents

The instant case stemmed from two separate Informations in

Criminal Case No. 20724-D-PSG which charged accused-appellants with
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; and Criminal Case No. 20725 -D-PSG
which charged accused-appellant Noel with Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs. The accusatory portions of the two Informations state:

Criminal Case No . 20724-D-PSG

On or about September 27, 2015 , in Pasig City and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and
confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, and give away to
PO3 Jun Mataverde, a member of [the] Philippine National Police, who
acted as police poseur buyer, one (1) double self-sealing transparent
plastic bag containing 1050.68 7 grams of white crystalline substance,
which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of said law.

Contrary to law. 8

Criminal Case No . 20725 -D-PSG

On or about September 27, 2015 , in Pasig City, and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully

mi ll ion pesos (PI 0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person , who, unless authorized by law,
shal l sell, trade, administer. dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit
or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regard less of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
xxxx
Entitled " An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repea ling Republic
Act No. 6425 , Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of I 9Tl., as Amended, Providing
Funds Therefor, and For Other Purposes," approved on June 7, 2002.
SEC. I I. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (PS00,000.00) to Ten million pesos (PI 0,000,000.00)
shal l be imposed upon any person , who, unless authorized by law , shall possess any dangerous
drug in the following quantities, regard less of the degree of purity thereof:
xxxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetami ne hydrochloride or "s habu[ .]"
Stated as " 1056.68 grams" in the RTC Decision , rolfo. r- 43.
Records, p. I.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 259181

authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his
custody and control one (1) double self-sealing transparent plastic bag
containing 979.07 grams of white crystalline substance, which was
found positive to the test of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of said law.

Contrary to law. 9

Upon arraignment, accused-appellants entered a plea of "Not

Guilty" to the respective charges. 10

Trial ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution established that on September 27, 2015, at around

5:00 a.m., a male confidential informant (Cl) went to the Regional Anti-
Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (RAID-SOTG) at Camp
Bagong biwa, Bicutan, Taguig City, and reported that a ce1iain person
known as "Honda" (later identified as accused-appellant Nhelmar) and his
cohorts were involved in the rampant selling of illegal drugs in Pasig City.
The CI informed Police Inspector Michael Yap (P/Insp. Yap) that they set
a deal at 8:00 p.m. at the parking lot of Jollibee, Ortigas Extension, Brgy.
Rosario, Pasig City. Thus, Police Chief Inspector Roberto Razon (PCI
Razon) instructed P/Insp. Yap to f01m a buy-bust team. 11

The team was composed of the following: P/lnsp. Yap; Police

Officer 3 Junjun Mataverde 12 (PO3 Mataverde), the poseur-buyer; Senior
Police Officer 2 Nirbert E. Porlucas (SPO2 Porlucas ), the arresting officer;
and PO3 Neil Dumlao 13 (PO3 Dumlao) and SPO3 Rolando Aligier, Jr. 14
(SPO3 Aligier), the back-up officers. 15 P/Insp. Yap instructed the CI to
arrange a transaction with the group of "Honda" and introduce PO3
Mataverde as a buyer of one kilogram of shabu. The buy-bust team

9
Id. at 4.
10
Rollo, p. 9.
11
Id. at IO.
12 Referred to as "Jun Jun R. Mataverde" and " Maraverde" in some parts of the ro/lo. See id. at I0,
53 .
13
Referred to as "Niel Dumalo" in some parts of the rollo. See id. at 45 , 48.
14
Referred to as "SPO3 Rolando Algier, Jr. ," " SPO3 Aliege:·," and " PO3 Aligier" in some parts of
the rollo. See id. at 10, 12, 25 .
15
ld . atl0, 45.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 259181

coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and prepared

the marked money. Afterwards, the team proceeded to the target area. 16

At the target area, around 8:00 p.m., a green Honda Civic sedan
with plate no. LDD-814 and a black Honda Civic sedan with plate no.
UUY-594 arrived. A man (later identified as accused-appellant Nhelmar)
alighted from the black Honda Civic. The CI approached accused-
appellant Nhelmar and immediately introduced PO3 Mataverde as the
buyer of shabu. Accused-appellant Nhelmar then called his companions
who were inside the green Honda Civic. He instructed one of his
companions, a long-haired male person (later identified as accused-
appellant Glen) to get the striped plastic bag containing one kilogram of
shabu from the passenger seat of the black Honda Civic. Meanwhile, the
other cohort, an older man (later identified as accused-appellant Noel)
uttered: "Ako na maglu-look out para sigurado." 17

Accused-appellant Glen took out the striped plastic bag from the
black Honda Civic and handed it to PO3 Mataverde, who then opened it
and saw inside a self-sealing plastic bag containing white crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu. In exchange, PO3 Mataverde gave to
accused-appellant Nhelmar a brown envelope containing the marked
money. While accused-appellant Nhelmar was opening the brown
envelope, PO3 Mataverde executed the pre-arranged signal. In no time,
SPO2 Porlucas and PO3 Dumlao immediately rushed to the scene and
assisted PO3 Mataverde in arresting all of the accused-appellants. 18

SPO2 Porlucas then subjected accused-appellant Nhelmar to a body

frisk. He confiscated from the latter's possession one .38 caliber gun with
five pieces of ammunition. PO3 Mataverde, on the other hand,
apprehended accused-appellant Noel inside the green car and confiscated
from him one black bag with one self-sealing plastic bag containing
suspected shabu. 19

After the police officers informed accused-appellants of their

constitutional rights, they conducted the marking, inventory, and
photographing of the seized items at the place of arrest in the presence of
several witnesses. PO3 Mataverde marked the seized items as follows: ( 1)

16
Id.atl0- 11.
17
Id.atll.
18
Id. at 11-12.
19
Id. at 12.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 259181

the red and white striped plastic bag with the markings "JRM/NMM
9/27/15," (referring to his initials, the initials of accused-appellant
Nhelmar, and the date of seizure) and its content, which is one self-sealing
transparent plastic bag containing shabu, with the markings "JRM/NMM-
A 9/27/15;" and (2) the black bag with the markings "JRM/NMP
9/27 / l 5," (his initials, the initials of accused-appellant Noel, and date of
seizure), and its content, which is one self-sealing transparent plastic bag
containingshabu, with the markings "JRM/NMP-1 9/27/15." Meanwhile,
SP02 Porlucas marked the .38 caliber gun with the markings "NP/NMM
9/27/15" and the five pieces of live ammunition with "NP/NMM-1
9/27/15" to "NP/NMM-5 9/27/15." 20

P03 Mataverde then conducted the inventory in the presence of the

following: accused-appellants; Jun Mestica2 1 (Mestica), media
representative of Remate Tonite; and Barangay Kagawad Henry Dela
Cruz (Kagawad Dela Cruz). 22

The following also witnessed the conduct of the inventory:

representatives from other media outlets, such as ABS-CBN, GMA
Network, and TVS ; SP03 Aligier, the assigned investigator; PCI Razon;
Director General Joel Pagdilao (Gen. Pagdilao) of the National Capital
Region Police Office (NCRPO); and Secretary Mel Senen Sarmiento
(Secretary Sarmiento) of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG). 23

During the inventory at the place of arrest, the team took

photographs of the seized items and accused-appellants. 24

Thereafter, the police officers brought accused-appellants and the

seized items to Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, for documentation. 25
SP03 Aligier then prepared the necessary documents for the
investigation. After the investigation, P03 Mataverde turned over the
marked and sealed seized items to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory. PCI Alejandro De Guzman (PCI De Guzman) received
the marked and sealed seized specimen, the Request for Laboratory
Examination, and the Chain of Custody Form. Upon receipt of the

20
Id .
21
Referred to as " Jun Mystica" and " Jun l\t!istica" in some parts of the rol/o. See id . at 12, 28, 35 , 47.
22
Id. at 47 .
23 Id . at 12- 13 . See also T SN , Ap ril 25 , 201 6, pp. i9--20.
24
Id . at 12.
25
Id. at 47 .
Decision 6 G.R. No. 259181

specimens, he immediately conducted physical, chemical, and

confirmatory tests to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. In the
Chemistry Report No. D-394-15 dated September 28, 2015, PCI De
Guzman concluded that the contents of the two self-sealing transparent
plastic bags tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Similarly, in Chemistry Report No. DT-504-15 to DT-506-15, the test
result showed that accused-appellant Glen tested positive for use of
dangerous drugs. 26

After the examination, PCI De Guzman placed his own markings

and signature on the marked and sealed seized items. He then turned over
the documents and the marked, sealed seized drugs to the evidence
custodian. 27

On February 29, 2016, PCI De Guzman personally retrieved the

relevant documents and the marked and sealed seized items from the
evidence custodian and presented them to the trial court. 28

During trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that PCI De
Guzman can identify the specimens which he subjected to qualitative
examination through his own marking and signature. 29

Version of the Defense

In defense, accused-appellants denied the accusations against them.

For his part, accused-appellant Noel insisted that between 5:00 a.m. and
6:00 a.m. of September 26, 2015, he and his wife Marivic Mendiola
(Marivic) left their house to go to Divisoria on board a green Honda Civic.
Before they proceeded to Divisoria, they fetched their son, accused-
appellant Nhelmar, from his house. Accused-appellant Noel then left his
car at accused-appellant Nhelmar' s house and used the latter's black
Honda Civic instead. 30

At around 7:00 a.m., while they were in the area of Recto, Manila,
three cars parked behind their car. Suddenly, several men alighted from
their respective cars and approached accused-appellant Noel and his

26 Id.
27
See id.at 13- 15.
28
Id. at 14.
29 Id.
30
Id. at 15.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 259181

family. For no reason at all, the men an-ested and handcuffed them. After
a while, one of the armed men brought another man in handcuffs, who
turned out to be accused-appellant Glen. The men brought all of them to
Camp Bagong Diwa in Taguig City. 31

Accused-appellant Glen testified that on September 26, 2015, at

around 7:30 a.m., he was at Sta. Cruz, Manila to fetch his common-law
wife when armed men suddenly accosted him. They handcuffed him and
forced him to board a white car. Later, they brought him to Camp Bagong
Diwa. 32

The Ruling of the RTC

In the Decision 33 dated June 5, 2019, the R TC convicted all

accused-appellants of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 in Criminal Case
No. 20724-D-PSG. It sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and ordered them to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. lt
likewise convicted accused-appellant Noel of violation of Section 11 of
RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 20725-D-PSG. It sentenced him to suffer
life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 34

Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA. 35

The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision, 36 the CA affirmed zn toto the RTC

Decision convicting the accused-appellants. 37

Hence, the instant appeal. 38

31
ld . at15-16.
32
Id.at 16-17.
33
Id. at 43- 55.
34
Id. at 55.
35
See Notice of Appeal, CA rollo, pp. 16-18.
36
Rollo, pp. 8-40.
37
Id. at 40.
38 In the Notice of Appeal dated February 17, 2021 , it appears that only one "accused-appellant"
appealed the assailed CA Decision . It could not be determined who among the three accused
appealed the CA Decision to the Coutt. However, the Resolution dated February 17, 202 1 of th e
CA states that "[a]ccused-appellants' Notice of Appeal x x x is NOTED and GIVEN DU E
COURSE." Italics supplied . See rollo, pp. 3, 6.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 259181

The Issue

Whether the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-

appellants.

The Court 's Ruling

The Court resolves to dismiss the appeal.

In Criminal Case No. 20724·-D-PSG, the prosecution satisfactorily

established the following elements of Illegal Sale of shabu: "( 1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment." 39

The pieces of evidence showed that accused-appellants conspired

in selling and delivering a self-sealing transparent plastic bag containing
1050.68 grams of shabu to PO3 Mataverde in exchange for the marked
money prepared by the buy-bust team. Thus, the sale of shabu was
consummated, and all the elements constituting the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs were present.

PO3 Mataverde identified accused-appellants as the persons who

sold to hiin the subject illegal drugs after receiving the marked money. 40

Likewise, in Criminal Case No. 20725-D-PSG, the prosecution

established the following elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs: "(l) 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 drug." 41

After PO3 Mataverde apprehended accused-appellant Noel, he saw

one black bag with one self-sealing plastic bag containing white
crystalline substance. Later, the white crystalline substance was found to
be shabu weighing 979.07 grams. 42 In other words, accused-appellant
Noel was caught red-handed in possession of a significant amount of

39
People v. Dela Cruz, 930 SCRA 169,. 174 (2020).
40
Rollo, p. 18.
41
See People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 243944, March 15. 2021.
42
Rollo, p. 18.

f)1
Decision 9 G.R. No. 259181

shabu without showing any proof that he was duly authorized to possess
the drug. It is beyond doubt that the finding of illegal drugs in the vehicle
occupied by a person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession
thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict the possessor. 43
Accused-appellant Noel failed to rebut this presumption. In addition, PO3
Mataverde positively identified accused-appellant Noel as the person
from whom they recovered the bag of shabu weighing 979.07 grams. 44
Clearly, accused-appellant Noel is also guilty of Illegal Possession of
Drugs.

Moreover, the buy-bust team complied with all the requirements

provided in Section 21 of RA 9165.

The buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of accused-appellants

was successfully conducted on September 27, 2015, or after the
amendments to RA 9165 under RA 10640, 45 which became effective on
August 7, 2014. 46 RA 10640 provides that the inventory and
photographing be done in the presence of the accused from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as an elected
public official and a representative of either the National Prosecution
Service or the media. 47

Here, records reveal that the police officers conducted the marking,
inventory, and photographing at the place of arrest and in the presence of
accused-appellants, media representative Mestica, Kagawad Dela Cruz,
representatives from other media outlets such as ABS-CBN, GMA
Network, and TVS, PCI Razon, assigned investigator SPO3 Aligier,
NCRPO Regional Director Gen. Pagdilao, and DILG Secretary
Sarmiento. The law enforcers further established that media representative
Mestica and Kagawad Dela Cruz were near the place of arrest and readily
available to witness the marking and inventory of the seized items. 48 The
witnesses were present thereat and witnessed the marking, inventory, and
photographing of the seized items and the actual proceedings conducted
by the buy-bust team.

43
People v. Chen Jun yue, G.R. No. 253186, September 21 , 2022.
44
Rollo, p. 18.
45
Entitled " An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending
for the Purpose Section 2 1 of Republi c Act No. 9 165, Otherwise Known as the 'Comprehen sive
Dangerous Drugs Act of2002,"' approved on July 15, 2014.
46
See Footnote 26 in People v. Gutierrez, 842 Phil. 681. 689-690(2018).
47
Sec. 21, Arr. 11 , Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), as amended by Sec. I. Republic Act No. I0640
(2014). See People v. Alconde, 846 Ph;I. 398, 407 (2019).
48
Rollo, p. 20.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 259181

In Nisperos v. People 49 (Nisperos), the Court En Banc highlighted

that the mandatory witnesses must be at or near the place of apprehension,
or readily available thereat, to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.
In the case at bench, the law enforcers evidently complied with the
requirements emphasized by the Court in Nisperos.

It is likewise undisputed that at the place of arrest, PO3 Mataverde

marked the red and white striped plastic bag with his initials "JRM", the
initials ofthe accused-appellant Nhelmar "NMM", and the date "9/2 7/ 15."
Similarly, he marked its content, which is one self-sealing transparent
plastic bag containing shabu, as "JRM/NMM-A 9/27/15." He also marked
the black bag with his initials and the initials of accused-appellant Noel,
"JRM/NMP 9/27 /l 5," and its content, which is one self-sealing
transparent plastic bag containing shabu, as "JRM/NMP-1 9/27/15." The
team took photographs of the seized items, and of the actual marking and
inventory. 50

It is evident that the police officers complied with the rules on

marking, inventory, and photographing; and the witness requirements as
mandated in Section 21 of RA 9165.

It is likewise beyond doubt that the rule on the chain of custody was
observed by the buy-bust team and that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items were preserved.

"To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral

certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain
of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation
in court as evidence of the crime." 51 The rule on chain of custody is in
accordance with Section l(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.
1, series of 2002. 52

49
G.R. No. 250927 , November 29, 2022.
50
Rollo, pp. 35-36.
51
People v. De Dias, G.R. No. 243664, January 22 , 2020.
5: The Guide lines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equ ipm ent provides: '" Chain of Custody ' means the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such records of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
s ignature. of the person who held temporary cusrody of the seized item, the date and the time when
Decision 11 G.R. No. 259181

In People v. Sipin ,53 the Court reiterated the links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, to wit: ( 1) the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officers; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug
seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from
the forensic chemist to the court. 54

Here, immediately after the marking and inventory at the place of

arrest, SPO3 Aligier prepared the necessary documents and conducted an
investigation of the seized items. 55 After the investigation, PO3 Mataverde
turned over the marked and sealed seized items to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. 56

PCI De Guzman, the forensic chemist, personally received the

marked and sealed seized items, and the required documents (request for
laboratory examination and chain of custody form). Upon receipt, he
immediately conducted physical, chemical, and confirmatory tests thereof
to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. 57 After examination, the
specimens tested positive for shabu. Thereafter, PCI De Guzman placed
his own markings and signature on the marked and sealed seized items.
Then, he turned over the documents, and the marked and sealed seized
items to the evidence custodian. Also, the prosecution and the defense
stipulated that PCI De Guzman can identify the specimens which he
subjected to qualitative examination through his own marking and
signature. 58

On February 29, 2016, PCI De Guzman personally retrieved from

the evidence custodian the relevant documents, and the same marked
(with his own markings and signatures) and sealed seized items; he
presented them to the trial court. 59 To be sure, the records indicated that
the illegal drugs confiscated during the buy-bust operation were

such transfer of custody were made in the co urse of safekeeping and use in com1 as evidence, and
the final disposition. "
53
833 Phil. 67 (2018).
54
Id. at 81 .
55
Rollo, p. 13 , 47.
56
Id. at 36.
57
Id. at 13- 14.
58
ld . at l4.
59 Id . at 14- 15.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 259181

segregated, marked, inventoried, kept, and delivered in such a way that

the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved until
their presentation and identification in open court.

From the foregoing pieces of evidence, the buy-bust team had

established all the links in the chain of custody. The chain of custody was
not broken from the time of marking and inventory, to the examination in
the laboratory, up to the presentation of the packs of shabu to the court.
To prove all the links in the chain of custody, the law enforcers executed
and presented the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property, Chain
of Custody Form, and the photographs taken during the marking and
inventory. 60

Besides, accused-appellants failed to present any evidence to show

that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented at the trial
had been compromised at some point. 61 On the contrary, the body of
evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the conclusion that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved and
safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody.

Finally, the defense of denial is viewed with disfavor as a general

rule because of the ease with which an accused can concoct it to suit his
defense. Denial partakes of the nature of evidence that is both negative
and self-serving; thus, it cannot be given more credence than the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify clearly and lend
credibility as to the various aspects of the crime committed. 62 As negative
defenses, bare denials and accusations of frame-up, generally, cannot
prevail over the affirmative testimonies of truthful witnesses. 63

The foregoing principle applies in prosecutions for violations of RA

9165, especially those originating from buy-bust operations. 64 As the
Court held in People v. Pasion: 65

In such cases, the testimonies of the police officers who

conducted the buy-bust operations are generally accorded full faith and
credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of

60
Id. at 35- 37.
c,i See Brief for the Accused-Appellants, CA rolla. pp. 59- 65.
62
Zalam eda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 733 (2009).
63 People v. Pasion, 752 Phil. 359, 370(2015).
64 Id.
65 Id.
Decision 13 G.R. No . 259181

public duties. Hence, when lined up against an unsubstantiated denial

or claim of frame-up , the testimonies of the officers who caught the
accused red-handed are given more weight and usually prevail.

In order to overcome the presumption of regularity,

jurisprudence teaches Us that there must be clear and convincing
evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duties
or that they were prompted with ill motive. 66 (Underscoring in the
original)

Thus, in the absence of evidence of ill motive on the part of law

enforcers to impute such serious crime against the accused-appellants that
would deprive their liberty for a lifetime, 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 accused-appellants' self-
serving claim of having been framed-up. 67

As regards the penalty, the Court finds it proper to increase the fine
imposed considering the quantity of shabu seized from accused-
appellants. Thus, in addition to life imprisonment, a fine of Pl,000,000.00
should be imposed against each of the accused-appellants in Criminal
Case No. 20724-D-PSG. Also, a fine of Pl,000,000.00 should be imposed
against accused-appellant Noel in Criminal Case No. 20725 -D-PSG.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated

January 15, 2021, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 13666
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION:

1. In Criminal Case No. 20724-D-PSG, accused-appellants Nhelmar

Mendiola y Martin alias "Honda," Noel Mendiola y Ponce alias
"Noel," and Glen Ramos y Akiatan alias "Glen," are found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Each of them is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine
of Pl ,000,000.00; and

2. In Criminal Case No. 20725-D-PSG, accused-appellant Noel

Mendiola y Ponce alias "Noel" is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic

66
Id. at 370- 371.
67
See People v. Dilao, 555 Phil. 394, 408 (2007).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 259181

Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life

Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Pl,000,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

HEN

--=: :s:-&.,j~
SAMUEL H. GAERLAN
Associate Justice
Decision 15 G.R. No. 259181

ATTESTATION

in consultation before the case was assi riter of the opinion

of the Court's Division.

NS. CAGUIOA

zvzszon

CERTIFICATION

Pursuantto Section 13,Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division

Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.

AL . 0
Chief Justice