PEOPLE v.

DEL MUNDO
G.R. No. 169141 Dec. 6, 2006 J. Tinga
petitioners People of the PHL
respondents Romeo Del Mundo
author Pagda
summary Del Mundo was arrested after a buy-bust operation was conducted. Charges of the
sale of shabu and its illegal possession were filed against him. The RTC convicted him
of both, but the CA only found him guilty of the sale. He appealed his conviction
before the SC.
The Court upheld his conviction. The MADAC agents clearly proved the occurrence
of the illegal sale and identified Del Mundo as the seller. Moreover, the drugs sold
were identified in open court. As to Del Mundo’s argument that the informant should
have been presented, the Court held that there was no need for such to be done. The
informant’s testimony would be merely cumulative and corroborative to that done by
the agents. Moreover, there was a presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties on the part of the government agents; they proceeded to entrap Del
Mundo in order to curb the illegal sale of drugs.
facts of the case
 The Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) received a report from a confidential informant that Del
Mundo was engaged in selling shabu. They formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation to nab him.
 The buy-bust operation was done without a hitch. MADAC Agent Bilason was designated as the poseur-
buyer who was to “purchase” P200 worth of shabu. Along with the informant, they approached Del
Mundo at the corner of Pasong Tirad and Ponte Street in Makati, where he allegedly plied his trade. Del
Mundo was then talking to a female companion and alleged “scorer” (wtf is this), Susan Pugal. Bilason
gave the money, Del Mundo gave one sachet of shabu. Bilason then gave the signal, so the rest of the team
arrested Del Mundo and Pugal and apprised them of their constitutional rights.
 Two plastic sachets were recovered from Del Mundo. Tests conducted on one of the plastic sachet
containing the white substance yielded positive results for shabu.
 Two informations were filed against Del Mundo for violation of RA 9165. Criminal Case 02-3038 involved
the sale of shabu. Criminal Case 02-3039 pertained to illegal possession of drugs.
 Del Mundo’s interposed the defense of denial. He claimed that he never sold shabu in his life. He also said
that police officers went to his home, brought him to Drug Enforcement Unit office, and forced him to
admit that he sold shabu.
 The RTC found him guilty of both the sale of shabu and the illegal possession of drugs. The CA modified
the decision -- Del Mundo was still guilty of the sale of shabu, such sale between him and the MADAC
having been sufficiently shown; however, he was acquitted of the illegal possession charge. The
prosecution did not produce evidence to show that Del Mundo was actually in possession of the second
sachet supposedly containing shabu (remember, only one of the plastic sachets was tested. Two plastic
sachets were recovered from Del Mundo when he was arrested).
 Del Mundo appealed before the SC; he questioned his conviction for the illegal sale given that he was
acquitted on the possession charge.
His argument – non-presentation before the trial court of the informant and witnesses other than the
MADAC agents militates against the trustworthiness of the prosecution’s theory.

issue
WON the prosecution had to present the informant. NO.
[Dispositive] WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 27 June 2005 of the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR No. 00232
finding appellant Romeo del Mundo y Sta. Maria guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 02-3038
for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.

ratio
1
 Agent Bilason clearly established that an illegal sale of shabu took place and that appellant Del Mundo was
the seller thereof. Moreover, Bilason was also able to identify in court the confiscated drugs and the
marked money, which are corroborating pieces of evidence of the corpus delicti.
o In the prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, the only elements necessary are (1) the identity of the
buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment
thereof.
o What is material is the proof that the transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti (body/substance of the crime). Elements of corpus delicti – (1) proof of occurrence of
certain event, and (2) some person’s criminal responsibility for the act.
o As applied -- As stated above, Agent Bilason, in open court, was able to (1) establish the sale, (2)
identify the seller, and (3) identify the confiscated drugs and marked money.

 Defense -- But the testimony came from the MADAC agents, who themselves conducted the buy-bust!
Don’t they have an interest in seeing that the guy they caught is put behind bars? They didn’t even present
the informant!
Court – Nope! Doesn’t change a thing; Del Mundo’s still convicted.
o Bilason’s testimony and narration of events was positive, probable, and in accord with human
experience. It bears badges of truth, such that it would be difficult for a rational mind to find it not
credible.
o Being officers of the government, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
holds. It wasn’t even uncontroverted. Del Mundo failed to prove that Bilason and the rest of the team
were motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of illegal drugs.
o On the non-presentation of the informant, the rule is that his presentation in an illegal sale of drugs is
NOT essential for the conviction, nor is it indispensible for a successful prosecution. His testimony will
be merely corroborative and cumulative. Moreover, there is a need to hide their identity and preserve
their invaluable service to the police.
o Del Mundo never presented evidence to show that he was forcibly brought to the DEU Office. Also, his
defense of denial is unavailing. He was clearly identified in the buy-bust operation.