People vs.

Villanueva (

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

Facts:

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

Issue:

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

Ruling:

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the
commissionbut likewise to establish, with the same, the quantum of proof, the identity of the person or
persons responsibletherefore.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 sufficientto convince the court of the truth of the allegation in the
information or has established a prima facie case against theaccused, the burden of evidence shifts to
the accused making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order tomeet and nullify if not to
overthrow, that prima facie case.In this case, the Prosecution submitted three strong positive and
substantial evidence:1.

The Prosecution established with moral certainty the presence of all elements necessary for
theprosecution for the illegal sale of drugs;2.
PO1 Rana identifies Villanueva as the person who sold to him a plastic sachet containing thecrystalline
substance;3.

Regulated Drug of Shabu contained in the plastic sachet which Villanueva handed over PO1 Rana,
wasduly proven before the Trial Court.Against such three evidence, Appellant could only say that no
entrapment was conducted and insisted thathe was just framed up.Wherefore, Decision of RTC and CA
was affirmed.