You are on page 1of 1

People vs.

Villanueva Facts:

(G.R. No. 172116, October 30, 2006)

PO1 Rana of Dangerous Drugs Enforcement Group (DDEG) was informed that Villanueva herein appellant was selling shabu. PO1 immediately composed a team to entrap appellant wherein PO1 Rana acted as the poseur buyer. After the entrapment the confiscated substance was submitted to the Northern Police District for examination which gave a positive result. Appellant denied the accusation and testified that was at home when suddenly the Policemen knocked and looked for a certain person named Roger. When he identified himself as Roger, he was immediately handcuffed and brought to the headquarters without explanation and it was only later on that he discovered that he was being charged for selling shabu. After hearing, the trial court finds Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt for drug pushing punishable under RA 9165. Court Appeals affirmed decision. Hence this petition. Appellant insist that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty alone could not sustain conviction, and that self serving and uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Rana could not prevail over his constitutionally granted presumption of innocence.

Whether or not error attended the trial courts findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of RA 9165.

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the commission but likewise to establish, with the same, the quantum of proof, the identity of the person or persons responsible therefore. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in the prosecution throughout the trial. However when prosecution has succeeded in discharging the burden of proof by presenting the evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the allegation in the information or has established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify if not to overthrow, that prima facie case. In this case, the Prosecution submitted three strong positive and substantial evidence: 1. 2. 3. The Prosecution established with moral certainty the presence of all elements necessary for the prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs; PO1 Rana identifies Villanueva as the person who sold to him a plastic sachet containing the crystalline substance; Regulated Drug of Shabu contained in the plastic sachet which Villanueva handed over PO1 Rana, was duly proven before the Trial Court.

Against such three evidence, Appellant could only say that no entrapment was conducted and insisted that he was just framed up. Wherefore, Decision of RTC and CA was affirmed.