PEOPLE vs GARY DELA CRUZ

GR 185717, 2011

FACTS: Version of the Prosecution the Accused was apprehended in a BUY-BUST operation conducted by
the a team police officers and the PDEA in Quezon City. One of the police officer posed as the poseur-buyer
who purchased a sachet of shabu from the Accused using buy-bust money. After such transaction was
completed the police operatives proceeded with the arrest but the Accused gave them a chase. He was
apprehended by PO1 Valencia who frisked him and thereby recovered the buy-bust money from him. In the
police station, the substance in the sachet as well as the buy-bust money was turned over to the desk officer
and the accused was committed to the city after the inquest. An information was filed thereafter. The police
officer who apprehended the Accused and the one who posed as the poseur-buyer testified for the
Prosecution. The testimony of the forensic chemist confirming the substance as shabu was dispensed with
upon stipulation by the defense.

Version of the Defense the Accused denied the allegation using the defense of denial and alleged a
frame-up by the arresting officers. According to him, the arrest transpired inside his house after five armed
men alighted from a Tamaraw FX in front of his house. One of them saw the Accused then entered his house
and frisked him and got 60 pesos from his pocket. Another man entered his house as well and got a shoe box.
When he asked to be informed of his supposed violation, he was merely told to explain at the precinct. They
proceeded to take the accused to the police precinct where he was investigated and subsequently detained.
Meanwhile, a man approached him and demanded 30k for his release. Two neighbors of the Accused served
as his witnesses.

Ruling of RTC: Accused, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. In convicting the Accused, the RTC relied on and gave credence to the
testimony of prosecution witnesses. The trial court likewise did not accord evidentiary weight to the
testimonies of the defense witnesses, stating that they were not present when the accused was arrested;
thus unaware of how the arrest has transpired. TRTC concluded that the testimonies did not provide clear
and convincing justification to overthrow the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
function by the police officers. Moreover, the lack of showing any ill motive on the part of the police officers
to testify against the accused, and the principle that the bare denial of an accused is inherently weak, the
RTC convicted the accused.

Ruling of CA: The CA upheld the findings of the trial court. It premium credence on the testimonies of the
police officers who arrested the Accused in flagrante delicto and positively identified him in open court over
the mere denial of the Accused, as corroborated by the defense witnesses. The CA found no improper motive
on the part of the police officers who, it said, were regularly performing their official duties.

Ruling of SC: