FEBRUARY

G.R. No. 170234 February 8, 2007 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNAR O F. NI!OLAS, Accused-Appellant. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations ; t is not re!uired that all the members of the buy-bust team kno" ho" the marked money is to be produced and marked inasmuch as they have their respective roles to perform in the operation ; As to the absence of a pre-arranged signal, same is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. The employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation !HI!O"NA#ARIO, J.: Assailed before #s is the decision$ of the %ourt of Appeals in %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. *$$+$ dated ,- August ,**. "hich affirmed in toto the decision, of the 'egional Trial %ourt /'T%0 of Pasig %ity, 1ranch $23, in %riminal %ase )o. $$.22-4, finding accused-appellant 1ernardo 5eli6ardo )icolas, a.k.a. 1ernie, guilty of violation of Section .,- Article of 'epublic Act )o. +$2., other"ise kno"n as %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,. n an nformation dated 7 August ,**,, accused-appellant 1ernardo 5eli6ardo )icolas, a.k.a. 1ernie, "as charged "ith 8iolation of Section ., Article of 'epublic Act )o. +$2., the accusatory portion thereof reading9 :n or about August 2, ,**,, in Pasig %ity and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the accused, "ho is not being authori6ed by la", did, then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously sell, deliver and give a"ay to P:, 4anilo S. 4amasco, one /$0 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing *.3, gram of "hite crystalline substance "hich "as found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride /shabu0, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said la".3 The case "as raffled to 1ranch $23 of the 'T% of Pasig %ity and docketed as %riminal %ase )o. $$.22-4. <hen arraigned on -* September ,**,, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded =)ot &ulity= to the charge.. The Pre-Trial %onference of the case "as terminated on the same day. Thereafter, the case "as heard. The prosecution presented t"o "itnesses9 P:, 4anilo S. 4amasco2 and SP:, 4ante >ipagan,7 both members of the Station 4rug ?nforcement #nit of the Pasig Police Station. The testimony

of Police nspector 4elfin A. Torrego6a, 5orensic %hemical :fficer, ?astern Police 4istrict %rime @aboratory :ffice, "as, ho"ever, dispensed "ith after both prosecution and defense stipulated that the specimenA submitted in court is the same one mentioned in the 'e!uest for @aboratory ?xamination+ and in %hemistry 'eport )o. 4-$.*$-*,?,$* and that same "as regularly examined by said forensic chemical officer. 5or the defense, appellant$$ took the "itness stand together "ith his common-la" "ife, Susan dela %ru6 8illasoto,$, and brother, Bose )icolas.$The diametrical versions of the People and the accused are narrated by the trial court as follo"s9 8?'S :) :5 T(? P?:P@? :n August 2, ,**,, at about +9-* oCclock in the evening, a confidential informant stepped inside the office of the Station 4rug ?nforcement #nit of the Pasig Police Station, Pasig %ity and informed SP:3 )umeriano S. 4e @ara, :fficer n-%harge of that unit, that a certain alias 1ernie "as selling shabu at his place along Santiago Street, in 1arangay 1agong log, Pasig %ity. mmediately, SP:3 4e @ara organi6ed a team to conduct a surveillance operation and the entrapment of alias 1ernie, if "arranted by the situation. The team "as composed of P:, 4anilo S. 4amasco, P:, Dontefalcon, P:, :rig and SP:, >ipagan "ho "as the team leader. P:, 4amasco "as designated to act as poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation "hile the other police officers "ould serve as his back-ups to assist in the possible apprehension of alias 1ernie. After a short briefing, the team of police operatives, including the confidential informant, proceeded to the target place at Santiago Street, 1agong log, Pasig %ity. SP:, 4ante >ipagan, the team leader, instructed the confidential informant to first check and look for the "hereabouts of alias 1ernie. The informant, after five minutes, returned and informed the team that he found alias 1ernie in front of his house and the team decided to proceed "ith the planned entrapment of alias 1ernie. P:, 4amasco and the informant then "alked to"ards the house of alias 1ernie "hile the back-up police officers placed themselves strategically in different positions "here they could see P:, 4amasco and the informant in the act of negotiating "ith alias 1ernie. P:, 4amasco and the informant sa" alias 1ernie conversing "ith a male person in front of his house. After the informant greeted alias 1ernie, he introduced P:, 4amasco to alias 1ernie "hose real name is 1ernardo )icolas, the accused herein, as a user of shabu and "ould like no" to buy some Php.**.** "orth of the substance from him. Alias 1ernie, responded that he still had one piece of that stuff and "as "illing to sell it to poseur-buyer 4amasco. Accused asked for the money "hich "as pre-marked by 4amasco "ith initials 4S4 /?xh. 4-$0 "hich stands for the name of 4anilo S. 4amasco. 4amasco then handed the five hundred peso bill /?xh. 40 to accused "ho accepted it. Accused, in return, gave 4amasco one plastic sachet containing "hite crystalline substance "hich looked like that of shabu. 5or a moment, P:, 4amasco examined the plastic sachet and its content and then announced to the accused he "as a police officer and arresting him for violation of the drugs la". Accused 1ernardo )icolas alias 1ernie got shocked and surprised. As 4amasco "as holding the accused, the back-up officers arrived and assisted him in handling the accused. 4amasco recovered the buy-bust money and the police team took him a"ay to their station, "here he "as turned over to a police investigator together "ith the small plastic sachet of suspected shabu that 4amasco had purchased from the accused. SP:3 )umeriano S. 4e @ara sent the small plastic sachet containing "hite crystalline substance "hich

"as then marked "ith ?E(.-A 15)F*A*2*, to the ?astern Police 4istrict %rime @aboratory :ffice at St. 5rancis St., Dandaluyong %ity, as per his letter memorandum dated August 2, ,**, /?xhs. 1 and 1-$0. The specimen "as received at the ?P4 %rime @aboratory office by PF nsp. 4elfin Torrego6a, a 5orensic %hemical :fficer, "ho "eighed and examined the specimen "hich he found to contain *.3, gram of "hite crystalline substance "hich "as tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride as per his %hemistry 'eport )o. 4-$.*$-*,? /?xhs. % and %$0. Accused 1ernardo 5. )icolas "as conse!uently charged "ith 8iolation of Section ., Article of '.A. +$2.. 8?'S :) :5 4?5?)S? xxxx GAppellantH testified that on August 2, ,**, at about $*9** oCclock in the evening, he "as outside of his house conversing "ith his brother, Bose )icolas, and a friend named Arnold Dende6. (e had ;ust came /sic0 out of his house in order to close the billiard salon that he o"ned. As they "ere then huddled in animated conversation, t"o motor vehicles stopped in front of his billiard parlor, a car and a van. The passengers of the van alighted and one of them pointed a gun at him. As accused "as not familiar "ith the men, he could not recogni6e them. (e learned, later on, that the man "ho poked a gun at him "as P:, 4anilo 4amasco "ho "as accompanied by other persons numbering about four or five of them. 4amasco "arned him not to move, holding and "aiving in his hand a plastic sachet "hich 4amasco said he bought from accused 1ernardo )icolas. The police officers then proceeded to put handcuffs on the hands of the accused, in spite of his protest denying anything to do "ith the plastic sachet of alleged shabu being displayed by 4amasco. The police officers also handcuffed and arrested Arnold Dende6. Bose )icolas did not allo" himself to be arrested and handcuffed. <hen he sensed that he "ould be handcuffed, he immediately fled and ran into his house, locking himself in. @uckily for him, the police officers did not pursue him any longer. (e ;ust "atched the incident by peeping through the "indo" of his house. Accused 1ernardo )icolas alias 1ernie and Arnold Dende6, "ere then forced into the police vehicle and taken to the police station, although )icolas sho"ed resistance "hich forced the police officers to physically carry him into their vehicle. Accused 1ernard )icolas "as then charged "ith 8iolation of Section ., Article , '.A. +$2.. Appellant denies the charge. (e insists that there "as no buy-bust operation and that the shabu /methamphetamine hydrochloride0 allegedly sold by him to the poseur buyer "as planted evidence. (e claims that the trumped-up charge is a "ay of getting even "ith him because he, together "ith his "ife, had filed a case before the )ational Police %ommission /)AP:@%:D0 for grave misconduct against several policemen /P:, Boel Tapec, P:$ %hristopher Semana and five Bohn 4oes0 assigned at the Station 4rug ?nforcement #nit of the Pasig Police Station, for entering and robbing their house on . 5ebruary ,**,. (e further claims that the policemen "ho arrested him for allegedly selling shabu "ere the Bohn 4oes mentioned in the complaint he and his "ife filed "ith the )AP:@%:D. n its decision dated A :ctober ,**-, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The dispositve portion of the decision reads9

<(?'?5:'?, the court finds accused 1?')A'4: 5. ) %:@AS &# @TI beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of violation of Section ., Article , '.A. +$2. and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos /P.**.**0,$3 "ith the accessory penalties provided under Section -. thereof.$. 5rom the decision, appellant filed a )otice of Appeal informing the court that he is appealing the same to the %ourt of Appeals.$2 Though the )otice of Appeal specified that the decision is being appealed to the %ourt of Appeals, the trial court nonetheless for"arded the records of the case to the Supreme %ourt pursuant to Section -, 'ule $,, of the 'ules of %ourt.$7 :n ,, )ovember ,**3, appellant filed an appellantCs brief before the Supreme %ourt. :n -$ Darch ,**., the :ffice of the Solicitor &eneral filed the PeopleCs brief.$A Since the penalty imposed by the trial court "as life imprisonment, the case "as remanded to the %ourt of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Dateo.$+ :n ,- August ,**., the %ourt of Appeals rendered its decision affirming in full the decision of the trial court.,* Appellant filed a )otice of Appeal assailing the decision before the Supreme %ourt.,$ <ith the elevation of the records of the case to the Supreme %ourt, the parties "ere re!uired to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, "ithin -* days from notice.,, The parties opted not to file supplemental briefs on the ground that they have fully argued their positions in their respective briefs.,Appellant assigns as errors the follo"ing9 . T(? T' A@ %:#'T &'A8?@I ?''?4 ) & 8 )& 5A T( A)4 %'?4?)%? T: T(? #)'?@ A1@? T?ST D:) ?S :5 T(? P':S?%#T :) < T)?SS?S A)4 ) T:TA@@I 4 S'?&A'4 )& T(? 8?'S :) :5 T(? 4?5?)S?. . T(? T' A@ %:#'T &'A8?@I ?''?4 ) 5 )4 )& T(? A%%#S?4-APP?@@A)T &# @TI :5 T(? %' D? %(A'&?4 4?SP T? 5A @#'? :5 T(? P':S?%#T :) T: P':8? ( S &# @T 1?I:)4 '?AS:)A1@? 4:#1T. Appellant observed that /$0 the policemen did not conduct surveillance first; /,0 they did not have any agreement as regards the money to be used in buying the shabu; and /-0 they failed to talk about any signal to inform the back-up policemen that the transaction has been consummated. (e contends that the absence of these things is unusual and that it made even more doubtful that the buy-bust operation really took place. 1avvphi1.net

These observations "ill not purge him of the charge. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The %ourt has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers.,3 A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially "here the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.,. 5lexibility is a trait of good police "ork.,2 n the case at bar, the buy-bust operation "as conducted "ithout need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the informant accompanied the policemen to the person "ho is peddling the dangerous drugs. Appellant faults the policemen because there "as no agreement or discussion among themselves as regards the marked money and the pre-arranged signal. 5rom the records, it is clear that it "as P:, 4amasco "ho prepared the marked money,7 as sho"n by his initials on the top right corner of the P.**.** bill that "as used in purchasing the shabu from appellant.,A The fact that the team leader and the other members of the team did not discuss or talk about the marked money does not necessarily mean that there "as no buy-bust operation. As explained by SP:, >ipagan, since P:, 4amasco "as the designated poseur buyer it "as the latterCs discretion as to ho" to prepare the marked money. t is not re!uired that all the members of the buy-bust team kno" ho" the marked money is to be produced and marked inasmuch as they have their respective roles to perform in the operation. As this %ourt sees it, the other members of the team left the matter of the marked money to one person J the poseur buyer J because it "as he "ho "as to deal directly "ith the drug pusher. As to the absence of a pre-arranged signal, same is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. The employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. <hat determines if there "as, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment "hich has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the 4angerous 4rugs @a".,+ The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are /$0 the identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob;ect, and consideration; and /,0 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.-* <hat is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled "ith the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.-$ n the case under consideration, all these elements have been established. The "itnesses for the prosecution clearly sho"ed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu sub;ect of the sale "as brought and identified in court. The poseur buyer /P:, 4amasco0 categorically identified appellant as the seller of the shabu. (is testimony "as corroborated by SP:, >ipagan. Per %hemistry 'eport )o. 4-$.*$-*,? of Police nspector 4elfin A. Torrego6a, the substance, "eighing *.3, gram, "hich "as bought by P:, 4amasco from appellant in consideration of P.**.**, "as examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride /shabu0.

<e !uote the material portions of the testimony of the poseur buyer that detailed the apprehension of appellant, as follo"s9 A9 And "e briefed and after a short briefing "e proceeded to the alleged residence of 1ernie and "hen "e reached the place, particularly sa" the sub;ect person in front of the alleged house. K9 Iou said "e, "hom are you referring to as those "ho "ent "ith you to the house of 1ernieL A9 The confidential informant. K9 After reaching the house of 1ernie, "hat happened thereL A9 sa" the sub;ect person infront of his alleged house talking to another male person. K9 <hat "as the general condition of that place outside the house of 1ernie "hen you sa" himL A9 4im light, sir. K9 After you first sa" 1ernie talking "ith somebody else, "hat did you doL A9 The confidential informant greeted alias 1ernie and after greeting said person the other male person he "as talking to "ent farther from us and they conversed. K9 And after that conversation bet"een your informant and 1ernie, "hat happenedL A9 The confidential informant introduced me as a shabu user and as a customer. K9 (o" far "ere you from 1ernie "hen you "ere introducedL A9 :nly t"o /sic0 a"ay. K9 @ess than a meterL A9 Ies, sir. K9 <hat "as the response of 1ernie as you "ere introduced as a shabu userL A9 (e checked my personality first and he asked me if "ill get the stuff, he asked me in tagalog, kukuha ka baL K9 And "hat did you tell himL A9 ans"ered him, kung mayroon kukuha ako. K9 And "hat "as his ans"erL

A9 (e ans"ered me that, mayroon kaya tamang-tama kasi isa na lang itong natitira sa akin panggamit ko sana. K9 At that very moment, after you "ere told by 1ernie isa na lang ang natitira, "hat did youL A9 asked him kung pu"ede pang bilhin and then he told me, isa na lang ito panggamit ko, magkano ba ang kukunin moL K9 <hat "as your ans"erL A9 told him, P.**.** "orth. K9 And "hat is GhisH replyL A9 :kay, ibibigay ko na lang sa inyo. K9 And "hat happened nextL A9 (e asked my payment first. K9 And "hat did you do after he asked your paymentL A9 gave him the pre-marked money. K9 <hat /sic0 that bill made offL A9 P.**.** bill. K9 <here did you put that marking in that billL A9 put the marking on the upper right portion of the bill inside the .**. K9 <hat are the markings did you put thereL A9 put my initials 4S4. K9 )o" after you gave him that P.**.** marked money, "hat else happenedL A9 After he received the pre-marked money then he gave me one /$0 plastic sachet containing "hite crystalline substance after receiving said examined the plastic sachet. K9 After that examination of yours, "hat did you doL A9 After a brief examination immediately introduced myself as a police officer and subse!uently, arrested alias 1ernie.

K9 After you introduced yourself as a police officer, "hat "as the reaction of alias 1ernieL A9 (e "as shocked, sir. K9 4id he tell you anythingL A9 )one, sir. K9 And "hat did you do after arresting him immediatelyL A9 After informing his constitutional right recovered the pre-marked money. K9 Iou mean, you frisked him, Dr. <itnessL A9 Ies, sir. K9 <hat else did you recover from him aside from the mark moneyL A9 )othing more.-, Appellant tries to discredit P:, 4amasco and SP:, >ipagan by sho"ing an inconsistency in their testimonies regarding the condition of the scene of the incident. (e points out that P:, 4amasco stressed that the place "as dark "hile SP:, >ipagan said that the area "as "elllighted.-After going over the testimonies of the t"o police operatives, "e find no inconsistency in their testimonies. <hen asked about the general condition of the place outside the house of appellant, P:, 4amasco ans"ered =dim light.=-3 :n the other hand, SP:, >ipagan said the place "as =a lighted area.=-. P:, 4amasco did not say that the place "as dark nor did SP:, >ipagan say that the place "as "ell-lighted. <hat is clear is that the place "as lighted. Thus, since both "itnesses said that the place "as lighted, the inconsistency is more apparent than real. ?ven assuming ad arguendo that this can be considered an inconsistency, same is trivial to adversely affect their credibility. <e no" go to appellantCs contention that the policemen "ho arrested him "ere impelled by improper motive. (e argues that he "as merely talking to his brother and a friend "hen the policemen suddenly arrived and insisted that he had sold shabu to P:, 4amasco. (e claims that the charge against him "as driven by the policemenCs desire to get even "ith him for filing a case for grave misconduct against the said policemen "ith the )AP:@%:D. (e added that the trial court should have considered the motive as to "hy he "as charged and that the possibility of vengeance is not remote. <e find appelantCs imputation of ill motive on the police officers to be unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. <e agree in the trial courtCs ruling "hen it said9

The evidence does not sho" that 4amasco and >ipagan "ere moved by ill-"ill in testifying against the accused. There "as no ill feeling or personal animosity existing bet"een the police officers and the accused at the time of the latterCs arrest. t is true that accused 1ernardo 5. )icolas and his common-la" "ife Susan 4ela %ru6 8illasoto filed an administrative case against P:, Boel Tapec and P:$ %hristopher Semana, both of the Pasig %ity Police Station for grave misconduct before the )ational Police %ommission "hich is docketed as A4D %AS? )o. ,**-**A /)%'0. 1ut the filing of this case against Tapec and Semana is not enough reason for 4amasco and >ipagan to fabricate or plant evidence against the accused. There "as absolutely no reason at all for them to risk their lives and career to go and plant evidence against the accused "hich is in violation of Section ,+ of '.A. +$2. that imposes upon any person found guilty of planting any dangerous drug regardless of !uantity and purity, the penalty of death. These police officers are presumed to kno" this la" and the court believes that these police officers do not "ish to lose their lives by fabricating evidence against innocent individuals. Accused 1ernardo )icolas, naturally, "as expected to deny the accusation against him, for admission "ould automatically result in conviction. The testimony of his common-la" "ife, Susan 4ela %ru6 8illasoto is not much of help to the accusedCGsH defense. Since she did not "itness "hat transpired "hen accused "ent out of the house in the evening of August 2, ,**,. All that she substantially testified to "as that she heard shouting outside of their house and sa" three persons forcibly carrying her husband to the other side of the road. /TS), Buly 7, ,**-, p. 30. <itness Bose 5. )icolas, to the mind of the court is not a credible "itness. (e claimed he "as present at the time accused "as arrested. (e said he fled in order to avoid being handcuffed and arrested by the police "hen his brother alias 1ernie "as arrested. (e did not even visit his brother in ;ail. (e talked to him only on August ,., ,**- to discuss "ith him his testimony in court. /TS), September $., ,**-, p. $-0. 1eing accusedCs close relative, Bose )icolas is expected to testify favorably in behalf of the accused "hose testimony, of course, is not sufficient to overthro" the strength and "eight of the testimonies of the police officers 4amasco and >ipagan.-2 <e like"ise find appellantCs declaration that the policemen "ho arrested him "ere the very same ones "ho robbed his house on . 5ebruary ,**, to be a mere afterthought in order that he may ;ustify his claim of improper motive on the part of the policemen. (o" convenient, indeed, it is for him to make such a declaration. 5rom the time of the alleged break-in in his house on . 5ebruary ,**, until the time he "as arrested on 2 August ,**, for selling shabu, he never lifted a finger to try and find out the identities of the alleged five Bohn 4oes mentioned in his complaint "ith the )AP:@%:D. (e could have easily gone to the Station 4rug ?nforcement #nit of the Pasig Police Station, but this he did not do. :nly "hen he "as arrested during an entrapment operation did he make such a claim. The timing thereof renders such declaration very dubious and unreliable. AppellantCs contention that he "as framed-up is made even more suspect by the fact that the statement-7 of his common-la" "ife that he had gone out of the house for only t"o minutes "hen the policemen arrived and took him a"ay is belied by the statement-A of his brother that he had been outside the house for -* minutes and "as talking "ith his brother and Arnold Dende6 "hen the policemen arrived.

5rame-up, like alibi, is generally vie"ed "ith caution by this %ourt, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Doreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the 4angerous 4rugs Act.-+ 5or this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.3* n the case at bar, the presumption remained uncontradicted because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they "ere inspired by an improper motive. Prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers "ho conducted the buy-bust operation. %onsidering that this %ourt has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, "hich had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the "itnesses during trial. (ence, factual findings of the trial courts are accorded respect absent any sho"ing that certain facts of "eights and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.3$ <e have no reason to deviate from this rule. <e affirm the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the %ourt of Appeals. The evidence presented by the prosecution proves to a moral certainty petitionerCs guilt of the crime of selling dangerous drugs. The sale of shabu is penali6ed under Section ., Article reads9 of 'epublic Act )o. +$2.. Said section

S?%. .. Sale, Trading, Administration, 4ispensation, 4elivery, 4istribution and Transportation of 4angerous 4rugs andFor %ontrolled Precursors and ?ssential %hemicals. J The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from 5ive hundred thousand pesos /P.**,***.**0 to Ten million pesos /P$*,***,***.**0 shall be imposed upon any person, "ho, unless authori6ed by la", shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give a"ay to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the !uantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. #nder said la", the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its !uantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P.**,***.** to P$*,***,***.**. 5or selling *.3, gram of shabu to P:, 4amasco, the trial court, as sustained by the %ourt of Appeals, imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P.**,***.** in accordance "ith Article 2-/,03, of the 'evised Penal %ode. Section +A of 'epublic Act )o. +$2., ho"ever, provides for the limited application of the provisions of the 'evised Penal %ode on said la". This Section reads9 S?%. +A. @imited Applicability of the 'evised Penal %ode. J )ot"ithstanding any la", rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the 'evised Penal %ode /Act )o. -A$.0, as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. <here the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. /#nderscoring supplied.0

<ith the aforesaid section, the provisions of the 'evised Penal %ode shall no longer apply to the provisions of the 4rugs la" except "hen the offender is a minor. Thus, Article 2-/,0 of the 'evised Penal %ode shall not be used in the determination of the penalty to be imposed on the accused. Since Section +A of the 4rugs @a" contains the "ord =shall,= the non-applicability of the 'evised Penal %ode provisions is mandatory, sub;ect only to the exception in case the offender is a minor. n the imposition of the proper penalty, the courts, taking into account the circumstances attendant in the commission of the offense, are given the discretion to impose either life imprisonment or death, and the fine as provided for by la". n light, ho"ever, of the effectivity of 'epublic Act )o. +-32 entitled, =An Act Prohibiting the mposition of 4eath Penalty in the Philippines,= the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been prohibited. %onse!uently, the penalty to be meted on appellant shall only be life imprisonment and fine. (ence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P.**,***.** "ere properly imposed on the accused-appellant. <(?'?5:'?, premises considered, the instant appeal is 4 SD SS?4. The decision of the %ourt of Appeals in %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. *$$+$ dated ,- August ,**. "hich affirmed in toto the decision of the 'egional Trial %ourt of Pasig %ity, 1ranch $23, in %riminal %ase )o. $$.224, finding accused-appellant 1ernardo 5eli6ardo )icolas, a.k.a. 1ernie, guilty of violation of Section ., Article of 'epublic Act )o. +$2., is hereby A55 'D?4. S: :'4?'?4. $INITA %. !HI!O"NA#ARIO Associate Bustice Foo&'o&e(
$

Penned by Associate Bustice /no" Presiding Bustice0 'uben T. 'eyes "ith Associate Bustices Bosefina &uevara-Salonga and 5ernanda @ampas Peralta, concurring. 'ollo, pp. $**-$$A.
,

'ecords, pp. A+-+3.

Sale, Trading, Administration, 4ispensation, 4elivery, 4istribution and Transporation of 4angerous 4rugs andFor %ontrolled Precursors and ?ssential %hemicals.
3

'ecords, p. $. d. at $2. TS), $2 4ecember ,**, and - 5ebruary ,**-. TS), - Darch ,**-. ?xhibit ?-$.

?xhibit 1-$; 'ecords, p. .,. ?xhibit %-$; 'ecords, p. .3. TS), ,2 Day and ,+ Day ,**-. TS), 7 Buly ,**-. TS), $. September ,**-. Should read P.**,***.**. 'ecords, p. +-. d. at +2. S?%. -. (o" appeal taken. J xxxx /c0 The appeal to the Supreme %ourt in cases "here the penalty imposed by the 'egional Trial %ourt is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or "here a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or "hich arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for "hich the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance "ith paragraph /a0 of this section.

$*

$$

$,

$-

$3

$.

$2

$7

$A

'ollo, pp. 7*-+,. &.'. )os. $3727A-A7, 7 Buly ,**3, 3-- S%'A 23*. 'ollo, p. $$A. d. at $,.. d. at ,,. d. at ,--,3, ,2-,7. People v. @i Iin %hu, &.'. )o. $3-7+-, $7 5ebruary ,**3, 3,- S%'A $.A, $2+. People v. &on6ales, 3-* Phil. .*3, .$3 /,**,0. People v. %adley, &.'. )o. $.*7-., $. Darch ,**3, 3,. S%'A 3+-, .**.

$+

,*

,$

,,

,-

,3

,.

,2

,7

?xh. 4; 'ecords, pp. ..-.2. TS), $2 4ecember ,**,, pp. 2-7. People v. %orpu6, 33, Phil. 3*., 3$3 /,**,0. People v. Adam, 3.+ Phil. 272, 2A3 /,**-0. People v. Padasin, 33. Phil. 33A, 32$ /,**-0. TS), $2 4ecember ,**,, pp. .-7. AppellantCs 1rief, p. $*; rollo, p. .2. TS), $2 4ecember ,**,, p. .. TS), - Darch ,**-, p. 7. 'ecords, pp. +,-+-. TS), 7 Buly ,**-, pp. $--$3. TS), $. September ,**-, p. -. People v. ?ugenio, 33- Phil. 3$$, 3$+ /,**-0. People v. >heng 1ai (ui, -+- Phil. 2A, $-. /,***0. People v. Ahmad, &.'. )o. $3A*3A, $. Banuary ,**3, 3$+ S%'A 277, 2A.. A'T. 2-. 'ules for the application of indivisible penalties. xxx n all cases in "hich the la" prescribes a penalty composed of t"o indivisible penalties, the follo"ing rules shall be observed in the application thereof9 xxx

,A

,+

-*

-$

-,

--

-3

-.

-2

-7

-A

-+

3*

3$

3,

,. <hen there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

'epublic of the Philippines S)PRE$E !O)RT Danila T( '4 4 8 S :) G.R. No. 17201* February 12, 2007 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.BOISAN !AB)GATAN y $A!ARA$BON, Accused-Appellant. Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse him of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court "ith respect to the credibility of "itnesses shall prevail over appellantCs bare allegation that he "as framed-up !HI!O"NA#ARIO, J.: 5or 'evie" is the 4ecision$ of the %ourt of Appeals dated ,A :ctober ,**. in %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. **$73 entitled, =People of the Philippines v. 1oisan %abugatan y Dacarambon,= affirming the 4ecision, rendered by the 'egional Trial %ourt of 1aguio %ity, 1ranch 2$, in %riminal %ases )o. ,*33$-' and )o. ,*33,-', finding appellant guilty of illegal sale and of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride more popularly kno"n as =shabu.= :n + August ,**,, t"o nformations "ere filed against appellant before the 'egional Trial %ourt of 1aguio %ity for violations of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. or the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,. The offense involved in %riminal %ase )o. ,*33$-' for violation of Section ., Article , of 'epublic Act )o. +$2.- "as allegedly committed as follo"s9 That on or about the Ath day of August, ,**, in the %ity of 1aguio, Philippines, and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the above-named accused and "ithout any authority of la", did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously S?@@, 4 ST' 1#T? andFor 4?@ 8?' a small transparent plastic heat sealed sachet containing "hite crystalline substance =Shabu= "eighing *.$ gram for :)? (#)4'?4 5 5TI P?S:S /P$.*.**0, Philippine %urrency to P:1enedict 4el-ong, a member of the Philippine )ational Police "ho acted as poseur-buyer, kno"ing fully "ell that said methamphetamine hydrochloride /S(A1#0, is a regulated GdrugH, in violation of the aforementioned provision of la".3 :n the other hand, the nformation relative to %riminal %ase )o. ,*33,-' for infringement of Section $$, Article of the same la". reads9 That on or about Ath day of August, ,**, in the %ity of 1aguio, Philippines and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the above-named accused, did then and there "illfully,

unla"fully and feloniously have in hisFher possession and control one transparent plastic containing four /30 small transparent plastic sachet containing "hite crystalline substance =Shabu= "eighing approximately *., gm., marked as ='#A= =B5=; *., gm marked ='#A= =B5=; *.$ gm. Darked ='#A= =B5= and *.$ gm marked ='#A= =B5=, respectively; a regulated drug, "ithout the corresponding license or prescription, in violation of the aforecited provision of la".2 4uring his arraignment on ,$ August ,**,, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.7 :n $7 September ,**,, the pre-trial of the cases "as held at "hich time appellant admitted the existence of the follo"ing documents9 $. %ertification of Preliminary test on the five sachets marked as ?xh. A and 1 as to the findings of the positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. ,. %hemistry 'eport )o. 4-*7*-,**, -. 1uy-bust money 3. 'e!uest for 4rug Test .. 1ooking Sheet and Arrest 'eport of the accused.A 4uring the trial of the cases, the prosecution presented the testimonies of P:, 1enedict 4el-ong, P:, &ilbert 1ulalit, and P:- 'oy Aguirre "ho "ere all members of the 1aguio %ity Police. The prosecutionCs version of the facts sho"s that on A August ,**,, a reliable civilian informant, accompanied by a barangay kaga"ad, "ent to the Station 7 of the 1aguio %ity Police. The informant purportedly advised Police %hief nspector ?duardo >. &arcia that a person by the name of 1oisan "as engaged in the illegal sale of shabu at 8illacor 1illiard (all located on :tek St., 1aguio %ity.+ Police %hief nspector &arcia immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation to apprehend 1oisan "ith P:, 4el-ong as the designated poseur-buyer.$* Police %hief nspector &arcia gave P:, 1ulalit one piece of P$**.** bill and a P.*.** bill. P:, 1ulalit proceeded to have the bills photocopied and authenticated by the %ity ProsecutorCs :ffice.$$ @ater in the afternoon, the team proceeded to 8illacor 1illiard (all. P:- Aguirre and P:, 1ulalit positioned themselves inside a public utility ;eepney parked near the entrance of the billiard hall. The other member of the team, P:$ ?ugene 'aymundo, stood about four to five meters a"ay.M$, <hen they reached the designated place, they "ere met by a man "earing a black bull cap and a gray s"eatshirt "ith collar. This person "as identified during the trial to be appellant. After the civilian informant introduced P:, 4el-ong and appellant to each other, the latter asked P:, 4elong ho" much "orth of shabu "as he "illing to purchase. P:, 4el-ong replied that he had only P$.*.** "ith him. After he handed this sum to appellant, the latter dre" from his right front

pocket a small sachet "hich he gave to P:, 4el-ong. P:, 4el-ong then examined the content of the sealed plastic sachet. %ertain that "hat appellant gave him "as shabu, P:, 4el-ong scratched his head using his left hand to alert his fello" team members that the sale of shabu "as already consummated. Thereupon, the rest of the buy-bust team rushed to"ards appellant and informed him that he "as being arrested. They like"ise advised him of his constitutional rights.$P:- Aguirre then frisked appellant and recovered from the latter four small transparent sachets containing crystalline substance. Appellant "as thereafter taken to the police station "here the buy-bust team prepared the arrest report, booking sheet, and their ;oint affidavit. They also made a re!uest for the initial testing of the evidence they confiscated from appellant. The task of conducting the preliminary test "as performed by P:, Boseph 5ilog "ho issued a certification dated A August ,**,, the pertinent portion of "hich states9 The purpose of "hich is to determine the presence of regulated drug on the above specimen. That by using the =S D:)S '?A&?)T= to the "hite crystalline substance from the five /.0 plastic heat sachets, gave P:S T 8? result of =4A'N 1@#? %:@:'= "hich indicates the presence of Dethamphetamine (ydrochloride, an active component of Shabu, a regulated drug.$3 The sachets of "hite crystalline substance "ere also examined by the 'egional %rime @aboratory :ffice of the Philippine )ational Police. This test yielded the follo"ing results9 5 )4 )&S9 Kualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens /?xhs. =A=, 1-$ thru 1-30 gave P:S T 8? result to the test for the presence of Dethamphetamine hydrochloride /S(A1#0, a regulated drug. x x x %:)%@#S :)9 ?xhs. =A=, 1-$ thru 1-3 contain Dethamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. x x x.$. Appellant "as like"ise sub;ected to a drug test "hich allegedly sho"ed that he "as a shabu user.$2 ?xpectedly, accused presented an entirely different version of "hat transpired during that afternoon and claimed that the buy-bust never took place.$7 According to appellant, he is a Darana" "ho earns a living by peddling sunglasses in 1aguio %ity. At the time the supposed buy-bust operation took place, he "as playing billiard "ith t"o others at the 8illacor 1illiard (all "hen three men in civilian clothes arrived.$A Appellant identified t"o of the men "ho came inside the billiard hall to be P:, 4el-ong and P:- Aguirre.$+ The group of P:, 4el-ong allegedly frisked appellantCs fello" players and "as able to recover a single plastic sachet from one of them. P:, 4el-ong, "ho "as then standing beside appellant,

held the latterCs hand, pointed a gun at his head, and "arned him not to do anything or else he "ould be shot.,* P:- Aguirre then called for a mobile car and appellant, together "ith his t"o companions, "as brought to the Station 7 of the 1aguio %ity Police.,$ n the police station, appellant "as handcuffed to the "indo" rail. After a fe" hours, one of the arresting officers came to see him and asked appellant if he could settle his case by paying a sum of money to the police,, or he could ;ust identify others "ho are engaged in drug trade in 1aguio %ity.,Appellant like"ise claimed that he learned later on that the t"o others "ho "ere arrested "ith him "ere able to settle their cases and had been set free.,3 As for the result of his drug test, appellant stated that he "as a drug user "hile he "as still residing in Dindanao and that he decided to move to 1aguio %ity to evade the habit.,. The prosecution presented P:, 4el-ong as a rebuttal "itness. (e stated that "hile they "ere "aiting for the mobile patrol car after the appellantCs arrest, a minor boy and a companion approached appellant and asked if he still had drugs to sell.,2 The buy-bust team then decided to arrest the t"o "ould-be-buyers. As the drug test of the boy revealed that he "as a drug user, he "as referred to the Iouth and <omen Section of the 1aguio %ity Police :ffice. They "ere, ho"ever, compelled to release his companion as his drug test established that he "as not a drug user and because he claimed that he had ;ust met the minor boy that afternoon.,7 :n $ 4ecember ,**-, the trial court rendered its decision sustaining the prosecution, thus9 <(?'?5:'?, ;udgment is rendered finding the accused &# @TI as charged on both counts and he is hereby sentenced as follo"s9 a0 in %riminal %ase )o. ,*33$-', to @ife mprisonment and to pay a fine of P$,***,***.**, and b0 in %riminal %ase )o. ,*33,-', to a prison term of t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to fifteen /$.0 years, to pay a fine of P-**,***.**, and the costs.,A Appellant seasonably filed a )otice of Appeal elevating the case to this %ourt.,+ As the trial court meted a penalty of life imprisonment, the case "as transferred to the %ourt of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition pursuant to our ruling in People v. Dateo.-* :n ,A :ctober ,**., the %ourt of Appeals rendered the no" assailed decision affirming in toto the decision of the trial court.-$ Appellant is again before us proclaiming his innocence.-, Appellant assigns the follo"ing errors9

T(? T' A@ %:#'T &'A8?@I ?''?4 ) & 8 )& 5#@@ 5A T( A)4 %'?4?)%? T: T(? T?ST D:) ?S :5 T(? P':S?%#T :) < T)?SS?S A)4 ) %:)8 %T )& T(? A%%#S?4-APP?@@A)T 5:' 8 :@AT :) :5 S?%T :)S . A)4 $$, A'T %@? :5 '?P#1@ % A%T ):. +$2..

T(? T' A@ %:#'T &'A8?@I ?''?4 ) 5 )4 )& T(? A%%#S?4APP?@@A)T &# @TI 1?I:)4 '?AS:)A1@? 4:#1T :5 T(? :55?)S?S %(A'&?4.-Appellant claims that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (e faults the trial court for giving =full faith and credence to the GtestimoniesH of the prosecution "itnesses=-3 even "hen he had categorically denied the occurrence of any buy-bust operation. (e also assails his arrest by the 1aguio %ity Police as it "as carried out "ithout a valid "arrant.-. As his arrest "as illegal, it follo"s that the search conducted by the police upon his person "as similarly unla"ful.-2 AppellantCs arguments fail to persuade. t is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts "hich are factual in nature and "hich involve the credibility of "itnesses are accorded respect "hen no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this, being, that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of "itnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.-7 The rule finds an even more stringent application "here said findings are sustained by the %ourt of Appeals as in this case.-A %onsidering, ho"ever, that at stake is no less than the liberty of appellant, "e thoroughly examined the entire records of this case. #nfortunately for appellant, "e failed to identify any error committed by the trial court both in its appreciation of the evidence presented before it and in the conclusion it reached. n the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of the statute, it is necessary that the follo"ing elements be established9 /$0 the identity of the buyer and seller, ob;ect, and consideration; and /,0 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.-+ <hat is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled "ith the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.3* n this case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established. The "itnesses for the prosecution "ere able to prove that the buy-bust operation indeed took place and the shabu sub;ect of the sale "as brought and duly identified in court. The poseur-buyer /P:, 4el-ong0 positively identified appellant as the one "ho sold to him a packet of "hite crystalline substance3$ "hich "as later confirmed by t"o chemical examinations to be shabu.3, As recalled by the P:, 4el-ong, the designated poseur-buyer, the events that led to the apprehension of appellant are as follo"s9 K <hen the male %ivilian nformant "ent to your office and gave those informations, "hat happened nextL A Acting on said information and "ith supervision of our %hief of office, Police %hief nspector &arcia formed our team to conduct )arcotics buy-bust operation against the suspect, Sir.

K <hat "as your role in that buy-bust operationL A Poseur-buyer to be introduced by the %ivilian nformant to the suspect, Sir. K 4id you use buy-bust moneyL A Ies, Sir. K (o" muchL A n the amount of P$.*.**, Sir. K 4id you have any xerox copy of that money authenticated prior to the buy-bust operationL A Ies, actually "hen "e "ill conduct the buy-bust operation, our %hief of office handed to P:, 1ulalit one /$0 piece of one hundred peso bill and one /$0 piece of fifty peso bill to be photocopied and have it authenticated to the %ity ProsecutorCs :ffice, Sir. P':S. 8?'&A'A9 Day "e kno" from the defense if they admit this authenticated copy to be a true and faithful reproductionFcopy of the originalL ATTI. DA'ADAT9 <eCll ;ust have to see the original, your (onor. xxxx K <ould you be able to identify the authenticatedFxerox copyL A Ies, Sir. K %onsidering that the /sic0 you "ere the poseur-buyer and the P$**.** peso bill P.*.** bill "ere handed to you as buy-bust money, "ill you please tell the (onorable %ourt if this authenticated xerox copy represents the P$**.** peso bill and P.*.** peso bill that "ere used as buy-bust moneyL A Ies, Sir. P':S. 8?'&A'A9 Day "e pray that that document be marked as ?xhibit =%,= your (onor. %:#'T9

Dark it, please. P':S. 8?'&A'A9 K After the P$.*.** "as authenticated by :fficer 1ulalit, "hat happened nextL A At about ,9** p.m. of the same date together "ith the %ivilian nformant proceeded at :tek Street, 1aguio %ity particularly at 8illacor 1illiard (all "hile the rest of the group follo"ed us secretly, Sir. K About "hat time "as the authentication madeL A 1et"een $9-* to ,9**, Sir. K t "as early afternoon of August A, ,**, "hen your %ivilian nformant came to your officeL A Ies, Sir. K And before ,9** oCclock the authentication "as madeL A Ies, Sir. K At about ,9** you proceeded to conduct the buy-bust operationL A Ies, Sir. xxxx K Iou said that at about ,9** p.m. of August A, ,**, you proceeded to the 8illacor 1illiard (all, "here is that establishment locatedL A :tek St., 1aguio %ity, Sir. K <ho "ere "ith you in proceeding to that placeL A The %ivilian nformant, Sir. K <ho elseL A The rest of the group follo"ed us secretly, Sir. K <ere you able to reach the placeL A Ies, Sir. xxxx

K <ith that situation after you and the %ivilian nformant arrived at the billiard hall, "hat happened nextL A #pon arrival at the said place, a male person "earing a black bull cap and gray s"eatshirt "ith collar approached us outside the said billiard hall, Sir. P':S. 8?'&A'A9 K <hat happened after that person approached you and the %ivilian nformant outside of the 8illacor billiard hallL A The %ivilian nformant introduced me to the suspect as an interested buyer of shabu, Sir. K After you "ere introduced, "hat happened nextL A The alleged suspect asked me ho" much "ill buy, Sir. K <hat "as your responseL A told him that have only P$.*.** and handed to him immediately, Sir. K After you handed to him the P$.*.**, "hat happened nextL A (e got the P$.*.** and put it inside of his left front pocket, Sir. K After that "hat happened nextL A And then he got something from his right front pocket a small sachet and handed it to me, Sir. K After he handed that to you, "hat did you doL A ascertained the content of it and found out that the small plastic heat sealed sachet contains "hite crystalline substance, shabu, Sir. K After you found out that the contents "ere suspected shabu, "hat happened nextL A After the completion of the deal, made the pre-arranged signal by scratching my head using my left hand, Sir. K After you scratched your head, "hat happened nextL A The back-up operatives rushed to our place and informed him of his constitutional rights and the violation, Sir.3-

These pronouncements "ere corroborated on their material points by P:, 1ulalit and P:Aguirre "hose respective testimonies "ere ;ust as straightfor"ard and candid as that of P:, 4elongCs. 5or his part, appellant could not offer any viable defense except to claim that he "as a victim of frame-up and extortion by the police officers. (o"ever, like alibi, "e vie" the defense of frameup "ith disfavor as it can easily be concocted and is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from illegal sale of drugs.33 5or the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.3. Appellant failed to substantiate his claim that he "as an unfortunate prey to a supposed ploy concocted by the police. 1y all indications, he did not kno" anyone of the members of the buybust team "hich apprehended him. There "as, therefore, no motive for them to frame him up. Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse him of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court "ith respect to the credibility of "itnesses shall prevail over appellantCs bare allegation that he "as framed-up.32 n other "ords, the categorical and convincing testimonies of the policemen, backed up by physical evidence, overcome the unsubstantiated claim of ill-motive by appellant. n this ;urisdiction, the conduct of buy-bust operation is a common and accepted mode of apprehending those involved in illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs. t has been proven to be an effective "ay of unveiling the identities of drug dealers and of luring them out of obscurity. Thus, unless the defense could persuade us other"ise, "e are inclined to confer full credit and faith to the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team as regards the conduct of their operation.1awphi1.net AppellantCs claim that his "arrantless arrest "as invalid is similarly devoid of merit. The rule is settled that an arrest made after an entrapment does not re!uire a "arrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid "arrantless arrest pursuant to 'ule $$-, Section ./a0 of the 'ules of %ourt37 "hich states9 S?%. .. Arrest "ithout "arrant; "hen la"ful. J A peace officer or a private person may, "ithout a "arrant, arrest a person9 /a0 <hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. As the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is beyond !uestion, the subse!uent "arrantless arrest as "ell as the "arrantless search and sei6ure "as permissible, thus9 This interdiction against "arrantless searches and sei6ures, ho"ever, is not absolute and such "arrantless searches and sei6ures have long been deemed permissible by ;urisprudence in instances of /$0 search of moving vehicles, /,0 sei6ure in plain vie", /-0 customs searches, /30 "aiver or consented searches, /.0 stop and frisk situations /Terry search0, and search incidental to a la"ful arrest. The last includes a valid "arrantless arrest, for, "hile as a rule, an arrest is

considered legitimate GifH effected "ith a valid "arrant of arrest, the 'ules of %ourt recogni6e permissible "arrantless arrest, to "it9 /$0 arrest in flagrante delicto, /,0 arrest effected in hot pursuit, and /-0 arrest of escaped prisoners.3A /?mphasis supplied.0 (aving established the guilt of the appellant for the crimes charged, "e shall no" proceed to a determination of the appropriate penalties to be imposed upon him. The unauthori6ed sale of shabu carries "ith it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from 5ive hundred thousand pesos /P.**,***.**0 to Ten million pesos /P$*,***,***.**0.3+ :n the other hand, the unauthori6ed possession of less than five grams of said substance is penali6ed "ith a prison term of t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to t"enty /,*0 years and a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos /P-**,***.**0 up to 5our hundred thousand pesos /P3**,***.**0..* Section +A, Article E of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. expressly provides for the limited application of the provisions of the 'evised Penal %ode on said la". This section reads9 S?%. +A. @imited Applicability of the 'evised Penal %ode. J )ot"ithstanding any la", rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the 'evised Penal %ode /Act )o. -A$.0, as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. <here the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. #nder the aforesaid section, the provisions of the 'evised Penal %ode shall no longer apply to the provisions of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. except "hen the offender is a minor. Thus, Article 2-/,0 of the 'evised Penal %ode shall not be used in the determination of the penalty to be imposed on the accused. Since Section +A of the said la" contains the "ord =shall,= the nonapplicability of the 'evised Penal %ode provisions is mandatory, sub;ect only to the exception in case the offender is a minor. <ith the advent of 'epublic Act )o. +$2., the %ourts, in determining the appropriate minimum and maximum of the penalty to be meted out to offenders, shall be guided solely by the pertinent part of the ndeterminate Sentence @a", to "it9 S?%T :) $. xxx; and if the offense is punished by any other la", the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of "hich shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said la" and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. n the imposition of the proper penalty, the courts, taking into account the circumstances attendant in the commission of the offense, are given discretion to impose either life imprisonment or death, and the fine as provided for by la". n light, ho"ever, of the effectivity of 'epublic Act )o. +-32 entitled, =An Act Prohibiting the mposition of 4eath Penalty in the Philippines,= the imposition of the supreme penalty of death shall only be life imprisonment and fine. (ence, the penalty of life imprisonment imposed on appellant in %riminal %ase )o. ,*33$' is proper. <e, ho"ever, find the fine of P$,***,***.** to be excessive and hereby reduce the

same to P.**,***.** considering that the records do not reveal any prior arrest or conviction of appellant for a drug-related offense. <e like"ise affirm the conviction and penalty of imprisonment of t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to fifteen /$.0 years and the fine of P-**,***.** meted out by the trial court "ith respect to %riminal %ase )o. ,*33,-'. <(?'?5:'?, premises considered, the 4ecision dated ,A :ctober ,**. of the %ourt of Appeals in %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. **$73, affirming, in toto, the 4ecision of the 'egional Trial %ourt of 1aguio %ity, 1ranch 2$ is hereby A55 'D?4 "ith D:4 5 %AT :) in that the fine imposed on appellant in %riminal %ase )o. ,*33$-' is reduced to P.**,***.**. )o costs. S: :'4?'?4. $INITA %. !HI!O"NA#ARIO Associate Bustice Foo&'o&e(
$

Penned by Associate Bustice ?lie6er '. de los Santos /no" deceased0 "ith Associate Bustices ?ugenio S. @abitoria and Bose %. 'eyes, Br., concurring. 'ollo, pp. --$$.
,

Penned by Budge Antonio %. 'eyes. 'ecords, 8ol. , pp. $7+-$A7.

S?%. .. Sale, Trading, Administration, 4ispensation, 4elivery, 4istribution and Transportation of 4angerous 4rugs andFor %ontrolled Precursors and ?ssential %hemicals. J The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from 5ive hundred thousand pesos /P.**,***.**0 to Ten million pesos /P$*,***,***.**0 shall be imposed upon any person, "ho, unless authori6ed by la", shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give a"ay to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the !uantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
3

'ecords, 8ol. , p. $. Sec. $$. Possession of 4angerous 4rugs. J x x x. xxxx /-0 mprisonment of t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to t"enty /,*0 years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos /P-**,***.**0 to 5our hundred thousand pesos /P3**,***.**0, if the !uantities of dangerous drugs are less than five /.0 grams of opium, morphine, heroine, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, mari;uana resin or mari;uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or =shabu,= or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, D4DA or =ecstasy,= PDA, TDA, @S4, &(1, and those similarly designed or ne"ly

introduced drugs and their derivatives, "ithout having any therapeutic value or if the !uantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic re!uirements; or less than three hundred /-**0 grams or mari;uana.
2

'ecords, 8ol. , p. $. d. at $A. d. at ,,. TS), $. Banuary ,**-, p. -. d. at 3. d. at .. d. at 7. d. at A-+. ?xhibit =?= for the prosecution; records, 8ol. , p. ,7. ?xhibits =&= and =&-,= for the prosecution; id. at ,+. TS), $. Banuary ,**-, p. $3. TS), ,+ Buly ,**-, p. $*. d. at -. d. at 2. d. at .. d. at 2-7. d. at A. d. at 7. d. at A. d. at +. TS), $* September ,**-, p. A.

$*

$$

$,

$-

$3

$.

$2

$7

$A

$+

,*

,$

,,

,-

,3

,.

,2

,7

d. 'ecords, 8ol. , p. $A7. d. at $+*. &.'. )os. $3727A-A7, 7 Buly ,**3, 3-- S%'A 23*. 'ollo, pp. $*A-$$2. d. at $-3. d. at .3. d. at 2*. d. at $,*. d. at $,$. People v. Bulian-5ernande6, 3,- Phil. A+., +$* /,**$0. Teodosio v. %ourt of Appeals, &.'. )o. $,3-32, A Bune ,**3, 3-$ S%'A $+3, ,*-. People v. @ee (oi Ding, 3.+ Phil. $A7, $+- /,**-0. People v. Padasin, 33. Phil. 33A, 32$ /,**-0. TS), $. Banuary ,**-, p. $*. ?xhibits =?= and =&= for the prosecution; records, 8ol. , pp. ,7, ,+. TS), $. Banuary ,**-, pp. 3-+. Supra note -+ at $+.. Supra note -A at ,*3. People v. 1ongalon, 3,. Phil. +2, $$2 /,**,0. Supra note -A at ,*7. Supra note -7 at +$,-+$-. Section ., Article of 'epublic Act )o. +$2..

,A

,+

-*

-$

-,

--

-3

-.

-2

-7

-A

-+

3*

3$

3,

3-

33

3.

32

37

3A

3+

.*

Section $$ /-0, id.

G.R. No. 17101* February 23, 2007 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.RAFAEL STA. $ARIA y IN ON, Appellant. 4?% S :) GAR!IA, J.: #nder consideration is this appeal by 'afael Sta. Daria y ndon from the 4ecision$ dated )ovember ,,, ,**. of the %ourt of Appeals /%A0 in %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. **A*,, denying his earlier appeal from and affirming the Day ., ,**3 decision, of the 'egional Trial %ourt /'T%0 of 1ulacan, 1ranch ,*, "hich found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section .,- Article of 'epublic Act )o. +$2., other"ise kno"n as the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,. The indicting nformation,3 docketed in the 'T% as %riminal %ase )o. --23-D-,**,, alleges9 That on or about the ,+th day of )ovember, ,**,, in the municipality of San 'afael, province of 1ulacan, Philippines, and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the above-named accused, "ithout authority of la" and legal ;ustification, did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give a"ay, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one /$0 heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methylampetamine hydrochloride "eighing *.*3$ gram. %ontrary to la". 4uly arraigned on Banuary ,-, ,**-, appellant pleaded =)ot &uilty= to the crime charged. Trial ensued thereafter. The prosecutionCs version of events "hich led to appellantCs arrest and subse!uent prosecution under the aforementioned nformation is as follo"s9 :n )ovember ,7, ,**,, at around $*9** oCclock in the morning, PF%hief nsp. )oli Pacheco, %hief of the Provincial 4rug ?nforcement &roup of the 1ulacan Provincial :ffice based at %amp Ale;o Santos, Dalolos, 1ulacan received an intelligence report about the illegal drug activities in Sitio &ulod, 1arangay Pantubig, San 'afael, 1ulacan of a certain =5ael,= "ho later turned out to be appellant 'afael Sta. Daria. PF%hief nsp. Pacheco formed a surveillance team to

look for a police asset to negotiate a drug deal "ith appellant. n the morning of )ovember ,+, ,**,, the surveillance team reported to PF%hief nsp. Pacheco that a confidential asset found by the team had already negotiated a drug deal for the purchase of P,** "orth of shabu from appellant at the latterCs house at )o. $,- Sitio &ulod, 1arangay Pantubig, San 'afael, 1ulacan bet"een 79** and 79-* in the evening of )ovember ,+, ,**,. The surveillance team then prepared for a buy-bust operation, "ith P:- ?nri!ue 'ullan as team leader, and P:$ 'hoel 8entura, "ho "as provided "ith t"o /,0 marked P$**-bills, as poseur-buyer. At the appointed time and place, P:$ 8entura and the confidential informant proceeded to appellantCs house and knocked at the door. Appellant opened the door and the confidential informant introduced to him P:$ 8entura as a prospective buyer. P:$ 8entura later handed the t"o /,0 marked P$**-bills to appellant "ho, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. Thereupon, P:$ 8entura sparked his cigarette lighter, "hich "as the pre-arranged signal to the other members of the buy-bust team that the sale "as consummated. Appellant "as arrested and the t"o marked P$**-bills recovered from him. Also arrested on that occasion "as one >edric dela %ru6 "ho "as allegedly sniffing shabu inside appellantCs house and from "hom drug paraphernalia "ere recovered. #pon laboratory examination of the item bought from appellant, the same yielded positive for methylampetamine hydrochloride or shabu "eighing *.*3$ gram. The defense gave an entirely different account of "hat allegedly transpired prior to and at the time of appellantCs arrest on that evening of )ovember ,+, ,**,.1awphi1.net Appellant testified that on )ovember ,+, ,**,, he "as at home "ith a certain >edric dela %ru6 "ho "as allegedly offering him a cellphone for sale and collecting payment on a loan of his "ife. At that time, his "ife "as out of the house to pay their electric bill. <hile "aiting for his "ife, he and >edric "atched television "hen they heard the barking of dogs. mmediately, three /-0 men suddenly barged into the house and announced that they "ere police officers "hile three other men stayed outside the house. The police officers frisked him and >edric and searched the house. (e tried to complain about "hat they "ere doing but the police officers got mad and accused him of selling shabu. (e replied that he does not kno" anything about drugs. After"ards, he and >edric "ere brought out of the house and handcuffed. <hile on board the police vehicle, the police officers "arned them to cooperate. The police officers also asked him to be their asset and "hen he said that he does not kno" anything about it, they told him that they could file a case against him. The police officers also offered to buy drugs from him but he refused the offer because he kno"s that it is only a plan for them to arrest him. n a decision. dated Day ., ,**3, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, and accordingly sentenced him, thus9 <(?'?5:'?, premises considered, ;udgment is hereby rendered as follo"s9 $0. xxx ,0. xxx -0. n %riminal %ase )o. -,23-D-,**,, the %ourt finds accused 'A5A?@ STA. DA' A I )4:) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 8iolation of Section ., Article of

'epublic Act +$2.. (e is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and is ordered to pay a fine of 5ive (undred Thousand Pesos /P.**,***.**0. The dangerous drug and drug paraphernalia submitted as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Philippine 4rug ?nforcement Agency /P4?A0. S: :'4?'?4. 5rom the aforesaid decision, appellant "ent directly to this %ourt. Pursuant to our pronouncement in People v. Dateo,2 "hich modified the pertinent provisions of the 'ules of %ourt insofar as they provide for direct appeals from the 'T% to the Supreme %ourt in cases "here the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the %ourt transferred the appeal to the %A for appropriate action and disposition, "hereat it "as docketed as %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. **A*,. :n )ovember ,,, ,**., the %A promulgated the herein assailed 4ecision7 denying the appeal and affirming that of the trial court, to "it9 xxx The %ourt sees no reason to disturb the finding of trial court. The evidence presented by the prosecution proves to a moral certainty appellantCs guilt of the crime of selling illegal drugs. <hat is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled "ith the presentation in court of the substance sei6ed as evidence. <(?'?5:'?, the appeal is 4?) ?4. The decision of the 'egional Trial %ourt is hereby A55 'D?4. %osts de oficio. SO OR ERE . The case is again "ith this %ourt follo"ing its elevation from the %A, together "ith the case records. n his 1rief, appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him because his guilt "as not proven beyond reasonable doubt. (e maintains that instigation, not entrapment, preceded his arrest. (e also faults the appellate court in not finding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution "as obtained in violation of Sections ,$ and A2 of 'epublic Act )o. +$2.. t is appellantCs submission that "hat transpired on that fateful evening of )ovember ,+, ,**, "as instigation and not a valid buy-bust operation. (e "ould make much of the fact that the transaction bet"een him and the police informant occurred on )ovember ,7, ,**,, "hile the buy-bust operation took place on )ovember ,+, ,**,. To appellant, the informant, by pretending that he "as in need of shabu, instigated or induced him to violate the anti-dangerous drugs la". (e adds that the prosecution "as not able to prove that at the time of the police surveillance, he "as indeed looking for buyers of shabu, and that "ere it not for the inducement of the informant that the latter "ould buy shabu, he "ould not have produced the same on )ovember ,+, ,**,. <e are not persuaded.

n entrapment, the entrapper resorts to "ays and means to trap and capture a la"breaker "hile executing his criminal plan. n instigation, the instigator practically induces the "ould-bedefendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. n entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. n instigation, the la" enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused "ho adopts the idea and carries it into execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal from liability. nstigation does.A (ere, the mere fact that the agreement bet"een appellant and the police informant for the purchase and sale of illegal drugs "as made on )ovember ,7, ,**,, "hile the buy-bust operation "as conducted on )ovember ,+, ,**,, is of no moment. <ithout more, it does not prove that said informant instigated appellant into committing the offense. f at all, the earlier agreement and the subse!uent actual sale suggest that appellant "as habitually dealing in illegal drugs. t is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission "ere purposely placed in his "ay, or that the criminal act "as done at the =decoy solicitation= of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act "ere present and apparently assisting its commission. ?specially is this true in that class of cases "here the offense is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct.+ As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utili6ed by the police merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs. They duly acted on it by utili6ing an informant to effect a drug transaction "ith appellant. There "as no sho"ing that the informant induced appellant to sell illegal drugs to him. t is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation.$* n this case, apart from appellantCs self-serving declaration that he "as instigated into committing the offense, he did not present any other evidence to prove the same. A perusal of the records readily reveals that the police operatives "ho took part in the buy-bust operation, namely, P:$ Alexander Ancheta, P:$ 'hoel 8entura and P:- ?nri!ue 'ullan, clearly and convincingly testified on the circumstances that led to appellantCs arrest. n a credible manner, they narrated in open court the details of the buy-bust operation they conducted on )ovember ,+, ,**, in Sitio &ulod, 1arangay Pantubig, San 'afael, 1ulacan. <e thus !uote "ith approval the trial courtCs findings on this matter9 P:$ Ancheta, P:$ 8entura and P:, 'ullan testified on the aforementioned circumstances concerning the drug buy-bust operation that led to the arrest of accused Sta. Daria, follo"ing the purchase from him of P,** "orth of shabu by P:$ 8entura posing as poseur-buyer. The testimonies of these officers, as summari6ed above, are essentially clear credible and convincing. )ot"ithstanding minor inconsistencies, their declarations in %ourt dovetail and corroborated one another on material points, and are generally consistent "ith the narrations contained in their =Boint Affidavit of Arrest= /?xh. =4=0 executed on 4ecember ,, ,**,. Dore significantly, there

is no credible sho"ing that the aforementioned police officers "ere impelled by any improper motive or intention in effecting the arrest of accused Sta. Daria and in testifying against him in %ourt. The %ourt also takes ;udicial notice of the fact that accused Sta. Daria had other criminal cases before other branches of this %ourt for involvement in drug activities. (e "as charged "ith and convicted by 1ranch ,$ of this %ourt of 8iolation of Section $2, Article of the 'epublic Act of 23,., as amended, also kno"n as the =4angerous 4rugs Act of $+7,,= follo"ing a voluntary plea of guilty in %riminal %ase )o. -3$-D-,**$. (e "as like"ise charged "ith 8iolation of Sections $. and $2 of the same la" before 1ranch A$ under %riminal %ases )os. .+-D-,*** and 2*-D-,***, "hich "ere dismissed on mere technicality because of non-appearance of the arresting officers. The %ourt is not persuaded by the defense of denial interposed by accused Sta. Daria. According to him, the police officers ;ust barged into his house on )ovember ,+, ,**, "hile he "as "atching television together "ith co-accused 4ela %ru6. (e said, he "as frisked and his place searched, and he "as arrested for no reason at all by the police officers. The %ourt rules that the version bandied about by accused Sta. Daria is purely self-serving. t cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the police officers regarding the drug buy-bust operation and purchase from him of shabu. To reiterate, there is no sho"ing that said police officers "ere actuated by any ill or improper motive or intention in effecting the arrest of the accused Sta. Daria and in testifying against him in %ourt. /See People v. 4ela %ru6, ,,+ S%'A 7.3; People v. Persiano, ,-- S%'A -+-0. $$ Appellant "ould next argue that the evidence against him "as obtained in violation of Sections ,$ and A2 of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. because the buy-bust operation "as made "ithout any involvement of the Philippine 4rug ?nforcement Agency /P4?A0. Prescinding therefrom, he concludes that the prosecutionCs evidence, both testimonial and documentary, "as inadmissible having been procured in violation of his constitutional right against illegal arrest. The argument is specious. Section A2 of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. reads9 S?%. A2. Transfer, Absorption, and ntegration of All :perating #nits on llegal 4rugs into the P4?A and Transitory Provisions. J The )arcotics &roup of the P)P, the )arcotics 4ivision of the )1 and the %ustoms )arcotics nterdiction #nit are hereby abolished; ho"ever they shall continue "ith the performance of their task as detail service "ith the P4?A, sub;ect to screening, until such time that the organi6ational structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the P4?A Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves9 Provided, That such personnel "ho are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the P4?A or remain "ith their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel "ho are transferred, absorbed and integrated in the P4?A shall be extended appointments to positions

similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their respective positions in their original mother agencies. The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect "ithin eighteen /$A0 months from the effectivity of this Act9 Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five /.0 years to finally decide to ;oin the P4?A. )othing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative po"ers of the )1 and the P)P on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic la"s9 Provided, ho"ever, That "hen the investigation being conducted by the )1 , P)P or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the P4?A shall be the lead agency. The )1 , P)P or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the P4?A9 Provided, further, That the )1 , P)P and the 1ureau of %ustoms shall maintain close coordination "ith the P4?A on all drug related matters. %ursory read, the foregoing provision is silent as to the conse!uences of failure on the part of the la" enforcers to transfer drug-related cases to the P4?A, in the same "ay that the mplementing 'ules and 'egulations / ''0 of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. is also silent on the matter. 1ut by no stretch of imagination could this silence be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest "ithout the participation of P4?A illegal nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. t is a "ell-established rule of statutory construction that "here great inconvenience "ill result from a particular construction, or great public interests "ould be endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that such construction "as not intended by the makers of the la", unless re!uired by clear and une!uivocal "ords.$, As "e see it, Section A2 is explicit only in saying that the P4?A shall be the =lead agency= in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore, other la" enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the P4?A as long as illegal drugs cases "ill eventually be transferred to the latter. Additionally, the same provision states that P4?A, serving as the implementing arm of the 4angerous 4rugs 1oard, =shall be responsible for the efficient and effective la" enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug andFor controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in the Act.= <e find much logic in the Solicitor &eneralCs interpretation that it is only appropriate that drugs cases being handled by other la" enforcement authorities be transferred or referred to the P4?A as the =lead agency= in the campaign against the menace of dangerous drugs. Section A2 is more of an administrative provision. 1y having a centrali6ed la" enforcement body, i.e., the P4?A, the 4angerous 4rugs 1oard can enhance the efficacy of the la" against dangerous drugs. To be sure, Section A2 /a0 of the '' emphasi6es this point by providing9 /a0 'elationshipF%oordination bet"een P4?A and :ther Agencies J The P4?A shall be the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act, "hile the P)P, the )1 and other la" enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct anti-drug operations in support of the P4?A xxx. Provided,

finally, that nothing in this '' shall deprive the P)P, the )1 , other la" enforcement personnel and the personnel of the Armed 5orces of the Philippines /A5P0 from effecting la"ful arrests and sei6ures in consonance "ith the provisions of Section ., 'ule $$- of the 'ules of %ourt. Appellant next argues that the prosecution failed to sho" compliance "ith Section ,$ of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. regarding the custody and disposition of the evidence against him. Appellant demands absolute compliance "ith Section ,$ and insists that anything short of the adherence to its letter, renders the evidence against him inadmissible. Pertinently, Section ,$ of the la" provides9 S?%. ,$. %ustody and 4isposition of %onfiscated, Sei6ed, andFor Surrendered 4angerous 4rugs, Plant Sources of 4angerous 4rugs, %ontrolled Precursors and ?ssential %hemicals, nstrumentsFParaphernalia andFor @aboratory ?!uipment. J The P4?A shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as "ell as instrumentsFparaphernalia andFor laboratory e!uipment so confiscated, sei6ed andFor surrendered, for proper disposition in the follo"ing manner9 /$0 The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after sei6ure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the personFs from "hom such items "ere confiscated andFor sei6ed, or hisFher representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the 4epartment of Bustice /4:B0, and any elected public official "ho shall be re!uired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 'egrettably, the pertinent implementing rules, Section ,$ of the '', states9 Section ,$. a. xxx Provided further, that non-compliance "ith these re!uirements under ;ustifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the sei6ed items are properly preserved by the apprehending officerFteam, shall not render void and invalid such sei6ures of and custody over said items. t is beyond !uibbling then that the failure of the la" enforcers to comply strictly "ith Section ,$ "as not fatal. t did not render appellantCs arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible. The la" excuses non-compliance under ;ustifiable grounds. (o"ever, "hatever ;ustifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying "ith Section ,$ "ill remain unkno"n, because appellant did not !uestion during trial the safekeeping of the items sei6ed from him. ndeed, the police officersC alleged violations of Sections ,$ and A2 of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. "ere not raised before the trial court but "ere instead raised for the first time on appeal. n no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there "ere lapses in the safekeeping of sei6ed items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. :b;ection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; "hen a party desires the court to re;ect the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of ob;ection. <ithout such ob;ection he cannot raise the !uestion for the first time on appeal.$-

To recapitulate, the challenged buy-bust operation, albeit made "ithout the participation of P4?A, did not violate appellantCs constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest. There is nothing in 'epublic Act )o. +$2. "hich even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an arrest made "ithout the participation of the P4?A illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Doreover, the la" did not deprive the P)P of the po"er to make arrests. <(?'?5:'?, the appeal is 4?) ?4 and the appealed decision of the %A, affirmatorary of that of the trial court, is A55 'D?4. )o pronouncement as to costs. SO OR ERE . !AN!IO !. GAR!IA A((o+,a&e -u(&,+e Foo&'o&e(
1

Pe''e. by A((o+,a&e -u(&,+e Ar&uro G. Taya/ 0,&1 A((o+,a&e -u(&,+e( -o(e L. Sab,o, -r. a'. -o(e !. $e'.o2a, +o'+urr,'/3 Ro44o, 55. 3"18.
2

!A Ro44o, 55. 16"33.

SE!. 7. Sa4e, Tra.,'/, A.8,',(&ra&,o', ,(5e'(a&,o', e4,9ery, ,(&r,bu&,o' a'. Tra'(5or&a&,o' o: a'/erou( ru/( a'.;or !o'&ro44e. Pre+ur(or( a'. E((e'&,a4 !1e8,+a4(. < T1e 5e'a4&y o: 4,:e ,85r,(o'8e'& &o .ea&1 a'. a :,'e ra'/,'/ :ro8 F,9e 1u'.re. &1ou(a'. 5e(o( =P700,000.00> &o Te' 8,44,o' 5e(o( =P10,000,000.00> (1a44 be ,85o(e. u5o' a'y 5er(o', 01o, u'4e(( au&1or,2e. by 4a0, (1a44 (e44, &ra.e, a.8,',(&er, .,(5e'(e, .e4,9er, /,9e a0ay &o a'o&1er, .,(&r,bu&e, .,(5a&+1 ,' &ra'(,& or &ra'(5or& a'y .a'/erou( .ru/, ,'+4u.,'/ a'y a'. a44 (5e+,e( o: o5,u8 5o55y re/ar.4e(( o: &1e ?ua'&,&y a'. 5ur,&y ,'9o49e., or (1a44 a+& a( a bro@er ,' a'y o: (u+1 &ra'(a+&,o'(.
4

!A Ro44o, 5. 8. Su5ra 'o&e 2. G.R. No(. 147678"87, -u4y 7, 2004, 433 S!RA 640. Su5ra 'o&e 1. Peo54e 9. $ar+o(, G.R. No. 83327, $ay 8, 1**0, 187 S!RA 174, 164. Peo54e 9. Lua !1u a'. )y Se T,e'/, 76 P1,4. 44 =1*31>.

10

-,8e'e2 9. NLR!, G.R. No. 116*60, A5r,4 2, 1**6, 276 S!RA 84. RT! e+,(,o', 55. 13"14.

11

12

Se(breAo 9. !e'&ra4 Boar. o: A((e((8e'& A55ea4(, e& a4., G.R. No. 106788, 270 S!RA 360 =1**7>.
13

Peo54e 9. Ra8o' !1ua )y, G.R. No. 128046, $ar+1 7, 2000, 327 S!RA 337.

APRIL
'epublic of the Philippines S)PRE$E !O)RT Danila S?%:)4 4 8 S :) G.R. No. 1737*7 A5r,4 4, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. LOI A R. SORIANO a'. $AN)ELITA L. $IG)EL, Appellants. 4?% S :) TINGA, J.: :n appeal is the 4ecision$ of the %ourt of Appeals promulgated on ,2 Day ,**2 affirming the conviction by the 'egional Trial %ourt, /'T%0 of appellants @oida '. Soriano /@oida0 and Danuelita @. Diguel /@ita0 for violation of Section ., Article of 'epublic Act /'.A.0 )o. +$2. and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a P.**,***.** fine each. Appellants "ere arrested and charged follo"ing a =buy-bust= operation. The accusatory portion of the nformation against appellants reads9 :n or about April A, ,**-, in Pasig %ity and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, not being la"fully authori6ed to sell, possess or other"ise use any dangerous drug, did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously sell, deliver and give a"ay to Police :fficer Banet Sabo, a police poseur buyer, one /$0 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing "hite crystalline substance "eighing nine /+0 centigrams /*.*+ grams0, "hich "as found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride /shabu0, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said la". %ontrary to la".<hen arraigned, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued. The prosecution presented as "itnesses, P:$ Banet Sabo /Sabo0, "ho acted as poseur-buyer, P:, Arturo San Andres /San Andres0, a back-up operative "ho assisted Sabo, and P:$ Aldrin Dariano /Dariano0, "ho transmitted the drug specimen confiscated from appellants to the Philippine )ational Police /P)P0 %rime @aboratory. Their testimonies sought to establish the follo"ing facts9

Acting on a tip from an informant that a certain =@oida,= =@ita= and =1angkay= "ere openly selling drugs in 1ukid, 1arangay 1ambang, Pasig %ity, Police nspector 'odrigo 8illaruel formed a buy-bust team on A April ,**- composed of Sabo as poseur-buyer, San Andres, SP:3 Danuel 1uenconse;o, P:- Amillasan Salisa, Dariano and P:$ Alan Panis. Sabo "as then given t"o /,0 :ne (undred Peso bills to be used as buy-bust money. At about ,9-* p.m. of the same day, the team proceeded to the site of operation. After parking their vehicle at the corner of B.P. Diguel in 1rgy. 1ambang, Sabo and the informant "ent to the house of @oida. The informant knocked at the door and one female person came out, later identified as @ita. (e introduced Sabo to @ita as the one "ho "anted to buy shabu "orth P,**.**. Sabo then gave @ita the P,**.** marked money. @ita, in turn, gave the P,**.** to another lady inside the house, later identified as @oida. @oida handed a plastic sachet to @ita. @ita approached Sabo and gave it to the latter. #pon inspection of the sachet containing the suspected shabu, Sabo sent her pre-arranged signal to the other police officers by combing her hair "ith her fingers.3 San Andres approached and directed @oida to empty her short pants pocket of its contents. @oida obliged and handed t"o /,0 pieces of P$**.** bills to San Andres. (e later confirmed that the t"o bills bearing the serial numbers 5%$33+,, and BT33+-A* respectively sei6ed from @oida "ere the same bills previously photocopied and marked "ith letters B and S inside the t"o /,0 6eroes of the P$**.** bills.. The shabu "as brought by Dariano2 to the P)P %rime @aboratory for examination, "hich yielded a positive result for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.7 n their defense, appellants denied the charge against them. They commonly narrated that at around ,9** p.m. on A April ,**-, they "ere conversing in front of their house "hen one Bun;un Paulino /Bun;un0, "ho "as ac!uainted "ith @oida, approached them. Bun;un "as asking for their help in selling his pieces of ;e"elry. Suddenly, several police officers in civilian clothes arrived and shouted, =<alang tatakbo.= Bun;un ran a"ay and the other police officers failed to catch up "ith him. Thereafter, they "ere forcibly brought to the police station for in!uest. @ita "as asked by the police officers to pinpoint a big-time drug pusher. #nable to extract information from her, she "as charged "ith the instant offense.A @oida, on the other hand, alleged that upon arriving at the police station, the police officers brought out shabu on the table and informed them that they got the said drug from them.+ :n ,- Buly ,**3, the 'T% rendered a 4ecision finding appellants guilty of violation of Section ., Article of '.A. )o. +$2. and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a P.**,***.** fine each. The trial court gave credence to the prosecutionOs evidence in accordance "ith the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions accorded to police officers.$* nitially, the appeal "as brought before us. %onformably "ith People v. Dateo$$ ho"ever, this %ourt in a 'esolution$, dated ,A 5ebruary ,**. resolved to transfer the instant case to the %ourt of Appeals for intermediate revie". :n ,2 Day ,**2, the appellate court affirmed the ;udgment of the 'T%. The appellate court held that the prosecution "as able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer in the

buy-bust operation and the seller, the ob;ect and the consideration as "ell as the delivery of the sold shabu and the payment of P,**.**.$- t observed that the prosecution evidence presented a complete picture detailing the transaction of the buy-bust operation - from the initial contact bet"een Sabo and appellants, to the offer to purchase shabu by the poseur-buyer, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the consummation of the sale by delivery by appellants to Sabo of the shabu.$3 Appellants appealed their conviction before this %ourt, adopting the same arguments in their 1rief before the %ourt of Appeals. Appellants essentially maintain that the prosecutionOs evidence failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They lament that the trial court failed to give "eight to their direct testimonies, "hich "ere clearly more credible than the version of the prosecution.$. t is ;urisprudential that factual findings of trial courts especially those "hich revolve on matters of credibility of "itnesses deserve to be respected "hen no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or "here no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.$2 The evaluation of the credibility of "itnesses and their testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its uni!ue opportunity to observe the "itnessesO deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.$7 After a painstaking revie" of the records, "e agree "ith the trial courtOs finding that the guilt of the appellants "as established beyond reasonable doubt. n every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the follo"ing elements must be sufficiently proved9 /$0 the identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob;ect and the consideration; and /,0 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.$A ndeed, all these elements "ere duly established. Appellants "ere caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by members of the DayorOs Special Action TeamF%ity (all 4etachment of Pasig %ity. The poseur-buyer, Sabo, positively testified that the sale took place and appellants "ere the authors thereof, thus9 K9 <hen you reached the house of alias @oida, "hat happened nextL A9 The informant knocked at the door, sir. K9 After knocking, "hat happened next, madam "itnessL A9 :ne female person came out, sir. K9 4id you come to kno" later the identity of this female person "ho came outL

A9 Ies, sir. K9 <ho is sheL A9 Danuelita Diguel y @eyva, sir. K9 <ould this be the same person "hom your informant said to be that one earlier then identified as alias @itaL xxxx A9 Ies, sir. K9 f you see this alias @ita, "hom you identified as Danuelita Diguel, "ill you be able to identify her againL A9 Ies, sir. K9 <ill you please look inside the court room and tell us if she is hereL A9 Ies, sir. K9 <ill you please step do"n from the "itness stand and tap her left or right shoulder in order to identify herL %:#'T )T?'P'?T?'9 <itness tapped the shoulder of a female person, "ho, "hen asked, identified herself as Danuelita Diguel. K9 <hen this alias @ita or accused Danuelita Diguel came out after the informant knocked on her door, "hat else happenedL A9 She asked, "hy and "hat "e needed, sir. K9 <ho did she askL A9 :ur asset, sir. K9 And "hat "as the reply of your asset, if anyL A9 The asset said that, = have a companion "ho "anted to score,= sir. K9 <hat do you mean by score, madam "itnessL A9 To buy shabu, sir.

K9 And "hen your asset said that, =Day kasama ako na gustong mag-iskor ng shabu.= <ho is this =kasama=L A9 "as the one, sir. K9 <ere you ever introduced as the person interested in buying shabuL A9 Ies, sir. K9 After you "ere introduced to said alias @ita, "hat else happened, if anyL A9 "as asked ho" much "ould "ant to buy. So said, "ill buy shabu "orth P,**.**. =Panggamit lang,= sir. K9 And "hat happened nextL A9 She took my money, sir. K9 'eference in the P,**.** pesos that your %hief earlier gave youL A9 Ies, sir. K9 And after certain @ita took the P,**.** from you, "hat else happened, if anyL A9 She talked to another female person to "hom she gave the P,**.**, sir. K9 <here "as this second lady at the time that you "ere transacting "ith alias @itaL A9 The other lady "as inside the house, sir. K9 <ere you able to see plainly that this @ita talked "ith the second ladyL A9 Ies, sir. K9 <hat transpired next, if anyL A9 sa" @ita handed the t"o /,0 P$**.** bills to the other lady. n return, the other lady gave "hat believe "as a plastic sachet of shabu to @ita, sir. K9 After the second lady handed this alleged shabu to @ita, "hat happened nextL A9 @ita again approached me and gave me the shabu, sir. K9 After @ita handed to you shabu, "hat happened next, if any, madam "itnessL

A9 looked at the sachet, and "hen sa" that it "as the suspected shabu, sent my companions my pre-arranged signal, sir.$+ @oida produced the plastic sachet containing shabu and gave it to @ita, "ho in turn, handed it to the poseur-buyer in exchange for P,**.**. This transaction "as "itnessed by San Andres "ho acted as back-up. (e corroborated SaboOs attestation in his o"n testimony before the %ourt9 K9 And "ould you kno" if Banet Sabo "as in fact able to buy shabu from the target personL A9 Ies, sir. K9 Iou personally sa" the transaction, Dr. <itnessL A9 Ies, sir. K9 And "hat did you do after the transaction, if any, Dr. <itnessL A9 After P:$ Sabo sent her pre-arranged signal, thatOs "hen "e approached them, sir. K9 And "hen you approached them, "hat particularly did you doL A9 P:$ Banet Sabo personally told me that the buy-bust money "ent to a certain @oida, sir. K9 And "hen you "ere informed about this by Sabo, "hat did you do, if anyL A9 immediately "ent to a certain @oida and re!uested her to empty her pockets, sir. K9 And did she comply "ith your re!uest, Dr. <itnessL A9 Ies, sir. She voluntarily opened her pockets and from there, sa" the t"o pieces of one hundred peso bills, sir.,* The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride on the "hite crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated from appellants.,$ The report containing the findings of the forensic chemist, together "ith the plastic sachet of shabu sub;ect of the sale, "as admitted by the parties in the stipulation of facts.,, The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.,- This "as further corroborated by the presentation of the marked money in evidence.,3 The defense of appellants is predicated on bare denial, nothing more. They claimed that Bun;un approached them peddling his pieces of ;e"elry "hen the police officers arrived and arrested them. They "ere brought to the police station. @ita alleged that she "as told to point to a big-

time drug pusher. <hen she denied any kno"ledge thereof, she "as charged for violation of Sec. . of '.A. )o. +$2.. 4enial or frame-up, like alibi, has been vie"ed by the court "ith disfavor for it can ;ust as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the 4angerous 4rugs Act.,. The defense of frame-up or denial in drug cases re!uires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the la" enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.,2 1are denials of appellants cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the three police officers.,7 Doreover, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers "ho conducted the buy-bust operation to falsely testify against appellants. The presumption of innocence accorded the accused had been overturned by the evidence presented by the prosecution. %ontrary to appellantsO assertion, the prosecution had convincingly proved beyond reasonable doubt that the crime "as committed. The inability of the accused to predicate their defense on anything other than their "ords alone ultimately condemns them to prison, especially in the light of the prosecutionOs evidence and "itnesses, "hich appellants had been incapable of impeaching. n fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellants sold shabu. #nder Sec. ., Article of '.A. )o. +$2., the penalty of life imprisonment to death and fine ranging from P.**,***.** to P$,***,***.** shall be imposed upon any person, "ho, unless authori6ed by la", shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give a"ay to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the !uantity and purity involved. (ence, the trial court, as affirmed by the %ourt of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P.**,***.**. <(?'?5:'?, the decision dated ,2 Day ,**2 of the %ourt of Appeals convicting appellants for violation of Section ., Article of '.A. )o. +$2. and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each to pay a fine of P.**,***.** is hereby A55 'D?4. S: :'4?'?4. ANTE O. TINGA Associate Bustice Foo&'o&e(
$

Penned by Associate Bustice %elia %. @ibrea-@eagogo, and concurred in by Associate Bustices 'enato %. 4acudao and @ucas P. 1ersamin.
,

Presided by Budge Pablito D. 'o;as, 1ranch 7*, 'T%, Pasig %ity.

'ecords, p. $. TS), . August ,**-, pp. .-$*. TS), ,$ Banuary ,**3, pp. .-7. TS), A Darch ,**3, pp. +-$*. 'ecords, p. +. TS), . Day ,**3, pp. 3-+. TS), $2 Bune ,**3, p. 7. 'ecords, p. +2. &.'. )o. $3727A-A7, 7 Buly ,**3, 3-- S%'A 23*. %A rollo, pp. ,A-,+. 'ollo, p. $2. d. at ,.. %A rollo, p. 3A. People v. :campo, &.'. )o. $7$7-$, $$ August ,**2, 3+A+ S%'A .A$; d.

$*

$$

$,

$-

$3

$.

$2

$7

$A

People v. snani, &.'. )o. $--**2, + Bune ,**3, 3-$ S%'A 3-+, 33+, citing People v. Tan, &.'. )o. $,+-72, Day ,+, ,**,, -A, S%'A 3$+, 3-,, citing People v. >heng 1ai (ui, --A S%'A 3,* /,***0; People v. Tiu, &.'. )o. $3,AA., ,, :ctober ,**-, 3$3 S%'A $, 7.
$+

TS), . August ,**-, pp. 7-$*. Supra note .. Supra note 7. 'ecords, pp. -*--$. People v. 'a6ul, &.'. )o. $3237*, ,, )ovember ,**,, -+, S%'A ..-. 'ecords, p. 73.

,*

,$

,,

,-

,3

,.

People v. 4ulay, &.'. )o. $.*2,3, ,3 5ebruary ,**3, 3,- S%'A 2.,, 22,-22-, citing People v. 1arita, -,. S%'A ,,, -7 /,***0; People v. 8inecario, &.'. )o. $3$$-7, ,* Banuary ,**3, 3,* S%'A ,A*; People v. Ahmad, &.'. )o. $3A*3A, $. Banuary ,**3, 3$+ S%'A 277.
,2

People v. #y, &.'. )o. $,A*32, 7 Darch ,***, -,7 S%'A --., -.*, citing People v. 4ichoso, ,,- S%'A $73 /$++-0; People v. %onstantino, ,-. S%'A -A3 /$++30; People v. Tranca, ,-. S%'A 3.. /$++30.
,7

People v. @ee (oi Ding, &.'. )o. $3.--7, , :ctober ,**-, 3$, S%'A ..*; People v. Saludes, &.'. )o. $33$.7, $* Bune ,**-, 3*- S%'A .+*.

'epublic of the Philippines S)PRE$E !O)RT Danila S?%:)4 4 8 S :) G.R. No. 170836 A5r,4 4, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RI!AR O FERNAN O y $ONTIAS, Accused-Appellant. 4?% S :) !ARPIO $ORALES, J.: Accused-appellant, 'icardo 5ernando y Dontias /the accused0, "as charged for violation of 'epublic Act )o. +$2. /the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,0 in t"o nformations before the 'egional Trial %ourt /'T%0 of %aloocan on August ,A, ,**,. The first nformation, docketed as %riminal %ase )o. %-22$3+, for possession of dangerous drugs, "hich "as raffled to 1ranch $,7, alleged as follo"s9 xxxx That on or about the $+th day of August ,**,, in the %ity of %aloocan, Philippines and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the above named accused, being a private person and "ithout being authori6ed by la", did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously have in their GsicH possession, custody and control one /$0 heat sealed transparent plastic bag containing "hite crystalline substance "eighing *.*7 gram "hich substance "hen sub;ected to chemistry

examination gave positive results of Dethylamphetamine (ydrochloride other"ise kno"n as =shabu= "hich is a dangerous drug. x x x x$ The second nformation, docketed as %riminal %ase )o. %-22$.*, for selling dangerous drugs, "hich "as raffled to 1ranch $,* of the same court, alleged as follo"s9 xxxx That on or about the $+th day of August ,**,, in the %ity of %aloocan, Philippines and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the above named accused, being a private person and "ithout being authori6ed by la", did then and there, "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously in consideration of the sum of one hundred pesos /P$**.**0, sell and distribute to P:- 'odrigo Pagsolingan, "ho posed as buyer of one /$0 heat sealed transparent plastic bag containing "hite crystalline substance "eighing *.*7 gram "hich substance "hen sub;ected to chemistry examination gave positive results of Dethylamphetamine (ydrochloride other"ise kno"n as =shabu= "hich is a dangerous drug., xxxx The second case "as consolidated "ith the first.The evidence for the prosecution established the follo"ing version9 :n August $+, ,**,, an informant reported to the %hief of the %aloocan %ity Police, Senior nspector Bose 8alencia /8alencia0, that someone in %ottage $*th Avenue, %aloocan %ity "as selling drugs =to everyone and anyone.=3 8alencia thus formed a buy-bust team composed of P:- 'odrigo &arcia Pagsolingan /P:Pagsolingan0, P:$ Boseph delos Santos /P:$ 4elos Santos0, one P:- Antonio, one P:- &amit, and one P:- Dodina. 4esignated as poseur-buyer "as P:- Pagsolingan "ho "as given a P$** bill to be used as buy-bust money. P:- Pagsolingan thereupon marked the P$** bill "ith his initials ='&P.= The buy-bust team and the informant proceeded to %ottage $*th Avenue, %aloocan %ity and "hen they reached D. (i6on St., the informant, seeing the accused, pointed to /=nginuso=0 him. P:- Pagsolingan thus approached the accused, telling him =Pare, pa-iskor nga ng piso,= meaning he "anted to buy P$**.** "orth of shabu. As P:- Pagsolingan handed the P$** bill to the accused, the latter took out a sachet from his pocket.. P:- Pagsolingan immediately gave the pre-arranged signal that the transaction "as completed. P:$ 4elos Santos, "ho "as hiding nearby "ith the rest of the buy-bust team members, immediately approached and frisked the accused, retrieving from his pantsC pocket the P$** buybust money and a plastic sachet containing a "hite crystalline substance.2 The accused "as thus

arrested and P:$ 4elos Santos and P:- Pagsolingan turned over the marked money and the t"o sachets containing "hite crystalline substance to P:- (ector %astillo, "ho then marked the sachets and delivered them to the Philippine )ational Police %rime @aboratory for examination.7 The substance in the sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.A #pon the other hand, the accused, denying the charges, gave the follo"ing version9+ n the afternoon of August $+, ,**,, "hile he "as outside the house, near the "indo", of his friend Anthony 8illanueva "here a birthday party for the latterCs father "as going to be held and as he "as singing along "ith a videoke, one Antonio ran to"ards him, asked him "hat he "as doing there, frisked him and at the same time took P3** from the only pocket of his =garter short= GsicH, and then summoned his /AntonioCs0 companions. As the men "ere about to leave, he asked Antonio to give his money back. Apparently peeved, Antonio remarked =Putang ina mo, halika, makulit ka, sumama ka= and handcuffed him. A commotion ensued for =hindi tumagal ng ,* minutes= during "hich he "as mauled, even catching the attention of bystanders in the alley. (e "as thereafter boarded into an o"ner-type ;eep, brought to the 4rug ?nforcement #nit head!uarters "here his ring and =earring= "ere taken, mauled again, and detained. (e "as informed that his case "as =. and $$ and no bail,=$* and P:$ 4elos Santos advised him that if he "anted to be released, he should tell any visitor of his to settle his case monetarily. <hen his mother visited him, P:$ 4elos Santos asked her for money in exchange for settling the case, but his mother replied that she could not afford =that big amount= demanded.$$ 1y 4ecision$, of :ctober A, ,**-, 1ranch $,7 of the 'T% %aloocan convicted the accused in both cases, disposing as follo"s9 <(?'?5:'?, premises considered, and the prosecution having established beyond an iota of doubt the guilt of Accused ' %A'4: 5?')A)4: I D:)T AS, of the crimes charged, this %ourt hereby renders ;udgment as follo"s9 $. n %rim. %ase )o. 22$3+ for 8iol. of Sec. $$, Art. of 'A +$2. this %ourt, in the absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby sentences aforenamed Accused to a prison term of t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to fourteen /$30 years and eight /A0 months and to pay the fine of Three hundred thousand pesos /P-**,***.**0 "ithout any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; ,. n %rim. %ase )o. 22$.* for 8iol. of Sec. ., Art. of the same Act this %ourt, in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, hereby sentences the Accused to @ 5? DP' S:)D?)T and to pay the fine of 5ive hundred thousand pesos /P.**,***.**0 "ithout any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Sub;ect drug in both cases are hereby declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt "ith in accordance "ith la".

This %ourt ends "ith a note that it is not exactly happy at seeing a small-time drug pusher, suffer the severe penalty for @ 5? DP' S:)D?)T for the sale of illegal drug consisting merely of *.*7 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, ho"ever, that is the imposable penalty under 'A +$2., hence this %ourt has no option but to apply the same. Accused committed an offense in open defiance of the continuing and relentless campaign of the &overnment to rid society of the drug menace and its disastrous harmful social, economic and even spiritual effects, thus, he cannot escape the full clutches of the la". 4#'A @?E S?4 @?E.$:n the accusedCs filing a )otice of Appeal,$3 the records of the case "ere for"arded to this %ourt.$. n his 1rief filed before this %ourt,$2 the accused, arguing that his guilt "as not proven beyond reasonable doubt, dre" attention to contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution "itnesses P:- Pagsolingan and P:$ 4elos Santos, vi69 x x x P:$ delos Santos testified that there "as a pre-arranged sign that the transaction "as consummated, thus P:- Pagsolingan made a signal by scratching his head. P:G-H Pagsolingan, ho"ever, declared that after the plastic sachet containing the "hite crystalline "as delivered to him, he communicated the pre-arranged signal by placing a to"el on his right shoulder. xxxx @ike"ise, P:$ delos Santos testified that he recovered the plastic sachet containing the alleged shabu from the right pocket of the accused appellant. xxxx <hile, P:- Pagsolingan stated that the buy-bust money and the plastic sachet "ere recovered by P:$ delos Santos from the left pocket of the accused.$7 /?mphasis and underscoring supplied0 The case "as referred to the %ourt of Appeals, follo"ing People v. Mateo,$A for intermediate revie" of criminal cases imposing death penalty, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.$+ 1y 4ecision,* of :ctober ,2, ,**., the %ourt of Appeals found the contradictions in the testimonies of the t"o police authorities inconse!uential.,$ And it noted the "eakness of the defense of the accused, thus9 n the case at bar, x x x appellant failed to substantiate his defense of frame-up or =hulidap.= )o evidence "as adduced by the appellant to sho" that the buy-bust operation "as resorted to in order to harass, extort, or abuse him. Doreover, for the police officers to frame him up, they must have kno"n appellant prior to the incident. This is clearly not the case here for appellant himself admitted that he does not kno" any of the police officers "ho arrested him prior to the incident. Anent his allegation that he "as mauled by the police officers "hen he "as arrested and during his incarceration, <e like"ise find the same to be "ithout basis, considering that no medical

certificate "as presented by him to prove such claim. (e did not even bother to present his mother in the "itness stand to corroborate his claim. After all, he testified that GhisH mother regularly visited him during his confinement, hence, she "ould have surely seen the in;uries inflicted on him, if there "as any. Doreover, he did not file any case, administrative or criminal, against the police officers concerned. <hen asked "hy he did not file any case against the police officers "ho allegedly mauled him, he simply ans"ered that his mother failed to do so due to utter confusion. Such inaction by appellant runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one "ho feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.,, /#nderscoring supplied0 :n elevation to this %ourt of the case "hich accepted the same,,- both parties manifested that they "ere no longer filing supplemental briefs, proffering that their respective briefs filed before the %ourt of Appeals had already exhaustively discussed the pertinent issues.,3 The appeal is bereft of merit. As did the court a quo, this %ourt finds that the conflicting testimonies of prosecution "itnesses P:- Pagsolingan and P:$ 4elos Santos on the pre-arranged signal and from "hich pocket of the accused the sachet sub;ect of the case for illegal possession "as taken are inconse!uential.,. As this %ourt ruled in People v. Madriaga:,2 x x x Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecutionCs evidence as a "hole or reflect on the "itnessesC honesty. These inconsistencies, "hich may be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, even tend to strengthen rather than "eaken the credibility of the prosecution "itnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. <hat is important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts and that the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide "ith each other to make a consistent and coherent "hole.,7 /#nderscoring supplied0 Particularly relevant to the case at bar is this %ourtCs pronouncement in People v. Chang,A that =GtHo secure a reversal of the appealed ;udgment, the inconsistencies should have pertained to the actual buy-bust itself J that crucial moment "hen the appellants "ere caught selling or in possession of shabu J not to peripheral matters.=,+ The sachet confiscated and the sachet sold "ere identified and presented in court.-* The accused "as positively identified.-$ The accused did not present evidence to overcome the presumption that he had no authority to sell shabu.-, )or that he had animus possidendi.-- )either did he substantiate his defense of hulidap or extortion, nor present evidence that the prosecution "itnesses had motive to falsely charge him andFor that they did not perform their duties regularly. x x x G<Hell-settled is the rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers "ho conducted the =buy-bust= operation. This %ourt has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings. Thus, it relies heavily on the rule that the "eighing of evidence, particularly "hen there are conflicts in the testimonies of "itnesses, is best left to the trial court, "hich had the uni!ue opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct

and manner "hile testifying. (ence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any sho"ing that certain facts of "eight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.-3 xxxx The defense of frame-up, like denial and alibi, has invariably been vie"ed by the courts "ith disfavor, for it can easily be concocted. t is a common and standard ploy employed by the accused in prosecutions for violation of the 4angerous 4rugs Act. 1eing factual in nature, the tenability of this defense depends largely on the trial courtCs assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused.-. True, in some instances la" enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. (o"ever, "e also reali6e the disastrous conse!uences on the enforcement of la" and order, not to mention the "ell-being of society, if the courts J solely on the basis of policemenCs allegedly rotten reputation J accept in every instance this form of defense "hich can be so easily fabricated. (ence, for such defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing. x x x-2 xxxx x x x G Hn the absence of proof of motive for falsely imputing such a serious crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as "ell as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of "itnesses, shall prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up. <ith nothing to substantiate such malicious accusation, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution "itnesses because, being police officers, they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. %ertainly, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellantCs unfounded allegations.-7 /#nderscoring supplied0 <hile the accused, along "ith Anthony 8illanueva, substantiated his defense of hulidap, their testimonies leave much to be desired. As the trial court observed9 xxxx <ith respect to the charge for frame-up or =(#@ 4AP= GleveledH by the Accused against his arresting officers, the same "as not accorded any evidentiary value by this %ourt since Accused could not even identify this so called police officer "ho deprived him of his ring and earring. x x x n the same breath, this %ourt discards as shallo" the charge for attempted extortion cast by the Accused against P:$ 4?@:S SA)T:S since he /accused0 himself conceded that this particular matter including the amount being demanded "as brought up by P:$ 4?@:S SA)T:S to his mother "ho in turn relayed the information to him. n fine, the detail of this alleged attempt to extort money from the AccusedCs mother "as only told by the latter to her son, thus hearsay evidence. x x x -A

xxxx 'egarding the corroborative testimony offered by defense "itness, A)T(:)I 8 @@A)#?8A, the same "as given scant consideration by this court being the usual kind one could expect from oneCs friend and co-"orker for the past five /.0 years. 1esides, it is doubtful if he indeed "itnessGedH the incident considering that according to this A)T(:)I 8 @@A)#?8A, at the time of the incident he "as fixing the tables at the place "here the birthday party of his father "as to be held and per statement of the Accused the venue of the party "as at the vacant lot at the back of 8 @@A)#?8ACs house "hich could not be seen in front. x x x xxxx <ithal, if "e "ere to believe the declaration of the Accused, it is not possible for A)T(:)I "ho "as said to be at the back of their house to see the actual apprehension of the Accused.-+ /#nderscoring supplied0 A "ord more. &iven the claim of the accused that on being accosted, a commotion ensued for less than ,* minutes "ithin the vie" of bystanders nearby, "hy he did not present any of them should render the falsity of his defense more pronounced. BHEREFORE, the appeal is ENIE and the decision appealed from is AFFIR$E . SO OR ERE . !ON!HITA !ARPIO $ORALES Associate Bustice Foo&'o&e(
$

'ecords, p. ,. d. at $,. d. at ,3. TS), 5ebruary $A, ,**-, p. .. d. at A-$*. TS), 4ecember 3, ,**,, p. A.

TS), 4ecember -, ,**,, pp. 3-A; TS), 4ecember 3, ,**,, pp. +-$*; TS), 5ebruary $A, ,**-, pp. $*-$,; ?xhibits for the Prosecution, p. -.
A

?xhibits for the Prosecution, p. 3.

TS), Darch $*, ,**-, pp. ,-$$; TS), Darch $,, ,**-, pp. --$,. TS), Darch $,, ,**-, p. -. d. at 3. 'ecords, pp. $-,-$.3. d. at $.--$.3. d. at $.7. d. at $.A; %A rollo, p. $; vide 'ules of %ourt, 'ule $,,, Section -9 Section -. How appeal taken xxxx /c0 The appeal to the Supreme %ourt in cases "here the penalty imposed by the 'egional Trial %ourt is death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, or "here a lesser penalty is imposed but for offenses committed on the same occasion or "hich arose out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for "hich the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed, shall be by filing a notice of appeal in accordance "ith paragraph /a0 of this section.

$*

$$

$,

$-

$3

$.

$2

%A rollo, pp. ..-2+. d. at unnumbered page after p. 23 up to p. 2.. &.'. )os. $3727A-A7, Buly 7, ,**3, 3-- S%'A 23*. d. at 2.2-2.A.

$7

$A

$+

,*

Penned by Associate Bustice Dartin S. 8illarama, Br., "ith the concurrences of Associate Bustices ?duardo Sundiam and Bapar 4imaampao. %A rollo, pp. $,,-$3*.
,$

d. at $-2. d. at $-+. d. at $33-$32; rollo, p. ,,. !ollo, pp. ,--,2.

,,

,-

,3

,.

8ide People v. Dadriaga, &.'. )o. A,,+-, Buly ,-, $++,, ,$$ S%'A 2+A, 7*+-7$,; People v. Mariano, &.'. )o. A22.2, :ctober -$, $++*, $+$ S%'A $-2, $3A /disparities bet"een testimonies as to the pre-arranged signal in a buy-bust operation are inconse!uential0.
,2

Supra. d. at 7$,-7$-. -A, Phil. 22+ /,***0. d. at 2+3.

,7

,A

,+

-*

'ecords, pp. A$-A,, A3; ?xhibits for the Prosecution, pp. --+; TS), 4ecember -, ,**,, pp. --2; TS), 4ecember 3, ,**,, pp. $,-$-; TS), 5ebruary $A, ,**-, pp. $*-$,; vide People v. Nimura, &.'. )o. -*A*., April ,7, ,**3, 3,A S%'A .$, 2$9 = n all prosecutions for violation of the 4angerous 4rugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of violation of the 4angerous 4rugs Act.=
-$

TS), 4ecember 3, ,**,, p. $-; TS), 5ebruary $A, ,**-, pp. +-$*. 8ide People v. Danalo, &.'. )o. $*72,-, 5ebruary ,-, $++3, ,-* S%'A -*+, -$A--$+. 8ide People v. 1ongcara"an, 3-- Phil. +$A, +,A /,**,0. People v. Sy, 3-A Phil. -A-, -+7--+A /,**,0. d. at 3*-. d. at 3*3. d. at 3*.. 'ecords, p. $3+; vide TS), Darch $,, ,**-, p. +. 'ecords, pp. $.*-$.$; vide TS), Darch $*, ,**-, pp. A-+; TS), Day $,, ,**-, p. A.

-,

--

-3

-.

-2

-7

-A

-+

-)NE
'epublic of the Philippines S)PRE$E !O)RT Danila THIR G.R. No. 177864 -u'e 8, 2007 I%ISION

ANISAH I$PAL SANG!A, petitioner, vs. THE !ITC PROSE!)TOR OF !EB) !ITC a'. THE PRESI ING -) GE, Re/,o'a4 Tr,a4 !our&, Bra'+1 78, !ebu !,&y, respondents. E!ISION CNARES"SANTIAGO, J.D :n Banuary 3, ,**7, petitioner Anisah mpal Sangca filed the instant petition praying for the issuance of a "rit of habeas corpus and the release of @ovely mpal Adam "ho "as detained in the %ebu %ity Bail for alleged violation of Section ., Article , of 'epublic Act /'.A.0 )o. +$2., other"ise kno"n as the 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,. The facts are as follo"s9 n the first "eek of Buly ,**2, the Philippine 4rug ?nforcement Agency /P4?A0, 'egional :ffice 8 , received information that Adam "as engaged in illegal drug trafficking activities in %ebu %ity and neighboring cities and municipalities. After evaluating the information, Police %hief nspector Bosefino @igan, P4?A 8 Asst. 'egional 4irector for AdministrationF:peration, together "ith 5:$ 'ayford A. Iap and P:, 4indo D. Tuliao, planned an entrapment operation. The events leading to the arrest of Adam, as summari6ed in the 'esolution of the 4epartment of Bustice dated )ovember $*, ,**2, are as follo"s9 :n Buly 7, ,**2, at about ,9** P.D., Iap and Tuliao "ere able to contact the informant and in!uired from him if he "as really sincere "ith his "ords and the latter replied affirmatively. @igan immediately composed a team and planned for an entrapment operation against respondent and her cohorts. A short briefing "as conducted "here Iap "as tasked to receive the shabu "hile Tuliao "ould be the back up and at the same time the arresting officer. They prepared a Pre-:peration 'eport and the same "as coordinated "ith the Tactical :peration %enter of %ebu %ity Police :ffice. The prearranged signal in the operation "as that Iap "ould miscall them once the transaction is consummated. x x x

:n or about +9-* P.D. of the same day, the team, including Iap, Tuliao and the informant, proceeded to 5uente :smePa, %ebu %ity for the said purpose. #pon arrival thereat, Iap and the informant proceeded to Pi66a (ut "hile Tuliao stayed behind near the parking area and so "ith the members of the team closely "atching them. <hen Iap and the informant entered Pi66a (ut, respondent "as already there "aiting for them. They immediately approached her and the informant introduced Iap to respondent as his former customer. They had a short conversation and Iap asked respondent if she has "ith her the item. 'espondent told him that it is in her car at the parking area. 'espondent asked "here the money is. Iap told her no problem as long as she has the item, he "ill give her the money. 'espondent instructed Iap to go "ith her at the parking area so that she could give it to him and there, she got inside her car. She took the shabu inside the compartment of her Toyota 5ortuner "ith plate number I%E +2. and handed to him one /$0 packed medium si6e of heat sealed transparent plastic sachet filled "ith "hite crystalline substance believed to be shabu. #pon receiving the said item, Iap pressed it to determine if it "as really shabu or not and "hen he noticed that it "as shabu, he immediately miscalled the members of the team informing them that the transaction "as consummated and subse!uently held respondent. (e then introduced himself as P4?A 7 operative. Tuliao, "ho "as ;ust at the side of the car, assisted Iap in apprehending the suspect. They also sei6ed her cellular phone and the Toyota 5ortuner "hich she used in delivering and transporting illegal drugs. Thereafter, they informed her that she is under arrest for violation of Section ., Article , 'A +$2. and like"ise apprised her of the Diranda 4octrine in the language she kne" and understood but she opted to remain silent. After "hich, they asked her name and she introduced herself as @ovely Adam y mpal, ,+ years old, married, business"oman and a resident of %eliron, ligan %ity. They brought her along "ith the confiscated items to their office for proper disposition. @ater on, they found out that the item that Iap bought from respondent, marked =@A= dated *7-*7-*2 "ith IapCs signature, "eighing .*.,7 grams "hich "as submitted before the P)P %rime @aboratory for chemical analysis, yielded positive results for the presence of Dethamphetamine (ydrochloride or Shabu, a dangerous drug. 'espondent denies the charge against her. She claims that she is a trader of ready to "ear clothing. As such, she fre!uently travels to different Asian countries to buy goods for sale in %ebu and in Dindanao. She supplies various bouti!ues in %ebu %ity, including Salad 4ressing at SD, 4. 1la6., 1eauty @and and @ovelyCs %loset. She also operates a beauty parlor in Talamban. 'espondent claims that on Buly 7, ,**2, at around $*9** in the evening, she "as at Pi66a (ut, 5uente :smePa 1oulevard, together "ith her four children and their =yayas=. A friend of hers, Ana, had called her earlier in the day saying that she "ould pay off her loan to her /respondent0 at Pi66a (ut that evening. Ana arrived a short time later. They "ere eating "hen Ana received a call over her cellphone. 5rom the gist of it, Ana "as talking to a certain 'ose. 'espondent did not mind them because the conversation "as only bet"een Ana and 'ose. A short time later, a "oman, "ho "as introduced to her by Ana as a certain 'ose, arrived. Ana and 'ose then proceeded to talk "ith each other, and respondent did not mind them. A "hile after, respondent sa" Ana hand over a parcel to 'ose, and the latter, on the other hand, hand a green bag to Ana. 'ose then left. As

respondent "as about to leave, Ana re!uested that she be allo"ed to hitch a ride and respondent agreed. <hen they "ere outside, respondent noticed a vehicle blocking her car, making it impossible for her to back out into the road, "ithout hitting the car. She then beeped her car. nstead of moving their car, one of the men "ent do"n and thereafter, entered her vehicle and demanded for the bag that "as allegedly given to Ana by 'ose. 'espondent told them to ask Ana since they claimed that it "as given to Ana. (o"ever, the men pointed their guns at respondent, including her children, claiming that they "ere elements of P4?A and they "ere placing her under arrest for illegal drug trafficking. They then grabbed respondentCs green bag and from then on, she "as never able to recover the contents thereof, including the bag itself. Thereafter, respondent "as brought to the P4?A office "here a certain 'yan 'ubi "as also booked for alleged drug trafficking. 4uring her conversation "ith 'yan 'ubi, she found out that he "as arrested a fe" hours earlier like"ise by the P4?A, and during his alleged arrest, he "as re!uired to produce a drug trafficker in exchange for his release. (aving been unable to produce any, he "as charged. The name of 'ose cropped up, and he said that during his arrest, the police officers informed him that they "ere after 'ose. (is "ife "as out to raise money for his release, or to produce a drug trafficker so that he can be released. t "as further ascertained by 'yan 'ubi that this 'ose "as actually arrested by the police officers but "as conditionally released on condition that she "ould produce someone "ho "ould take her place. Thereafter, he claimed that he overheard them refer to a certain Ana, "ho said that she "ould also produce respondent to take her place. The circumstances of respondentCs arrest and that of the said 'yan 'ubi are closely intert"ined. n the police blotter, the vehicle pertaining to respondent, "hich is the Toyota 5ortuner "as ascribed to 'yan 'ubi, "hile the latterCs vehicle "as ascribed to her. x x x$ The in!uest prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case but "as disapproved by the %ity Prosecutor. %onse!uently, an information charging Adam "ith violation of Section ., Article , of '.A. )o. +$2. "as filed and docketed as %riminal %ase )o. %1#-77.2, before the 'egional Trial %ourt of %ebu %ity, 1ranch .A. :n petition for revie" before the 4epartment of Bustice, Secretary 'aul D. &on6ale6 found no probable cause to hold Adam liable for the offense charged, to "it9 A very thorough and careful scrutiny of the records, particularly the affidavit of arrest, reveals that no payment "as ever made by the police officers for the supposed ob;ect of the buy-bust operations. The police officers have not even alleged in their affidavits that payment "as made to respondent in exchange for the shabu. )o buy-bust money "as ever presented. The certificate of inventory does not sho" any buy-bust money. These stick out like a sore thumb in the case at bar. Suffice it to say that one of the essential elements to be established in the prosecution of the drug =buy-bust= cases, that is, =the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore= is "anting. t "as aptly said in the case of People v. Alilin, ,*2 S%'A 77-, that9 =To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the same must be clearly and unmistakably established.=,

The Bustice Secretary directed the %ity Prosecutor of %ebu %ity to "ithdra" the information.P4?A filed a motion for reconsideration but "as denied by the Bustice Secretary on 4ecember A, ,**2.3 n his %omment, Budge &abriel T. ngles, Presiding Budge of the 'egional Trial %ourt of %ebu %ity, 1ranch .A, stated that at the hearing of the motion to "ithdra" information on Banuary ., ,**7, it "as found that9 n the affidavit of 5:$ 'ayford A. Iap and P:, 4indo D. Tuliao, there is indeed no mention of their preparation of a buy bust money before, during or after their briefing prior to the alleged buy bust operation, nor is there any mention of the price or consideration of the sale. <hat is merely stated is that they had enough money. xxxx 5urther convincing this court that there "as no buy bust money prepared are the follo"ing9 a0 n the =Pre-:peration 'eport= dated Buly 7, ,**2, bearing %ontrol )umber *7*7-,**2-*-, there is no mention of the buy-bust money in the operational re!uirements; b0 n the =?xcerpt 5rom the 'ecords of the P4?A 7 1lotterF@ogbook bearing the same date and entry number *,3,,; c0 n another =?xcerpt 5rom the 'ecords of the P4?A 7 1lotterF@ogbook bearing the same date and entry number *,3,, there is a mention in =5acts of the %ase= the recovery of =- bundles of boodle money "ith t"o /,0 pieces of genuine five hundred peso bills "rapped "ith ne"spaper and packed "ith packaging tape.= (o"ever, "hile the name of the suspect is indicated in this excerpt is @ovely Adam y mpal and the evidence enumerated are as follo"s9 $0 one /$0 medium si6e of heat sealed transparent plastic sachet filled "ith crystalline substance believed to be shabu; ,0 one /$0 unit )okia cellphone; -0 one /$0 unit Toyota 5ortuner "ith plate number E%E +.2 registered under the name of @ovely Adam;= the narration of the facts of the case in said excerpt also included the follo"ing statement9 =@ike"ise, the apprehending officers sei6ed one /$0 unit cellular phone /Sony ?rickson0 and the Ditsubishi @ancer "ith plate number &(% color black registered under the name of 'oberto 'ubi, "hich "as used by the aforementioned suspects in transporting illegal drugs.=

This 'oberto 'ubi could not have been arrested together "ith accused herein because there is no mention of such fact in the Affidavit of :fficers Iap and Tuliao. n fact, the head of the arresting team of herein accused Bosefino 4. @igaGnH filed a Dotion to <ithdra" Said ?xcerpt because there "as an inadvertent interchange of facts in another case obviously against Dr. 'ubi. The problem, ho"ever, is that from the ?xcerpts presented, it is not clear to this court to "hich case the mention of boodle money applies. This court cannot merely assume or conclude that the boodle money has reference to the case of herein accused because as stated, no"here in the separate affidavits of officeGrHs Tuliao and Iap can one find any mention of such. t is not even mentioned in the other =?xcerpt= also dated Buly $*, ,**2 also submitted by the P4?A.. 5inding that Adam could not be held liable for the crime charged, Budge ngles issued an :rder on Banuary ,2, ,**7 granting the Dotion to <ithdra" nformation and ordering the release of the accused, unless other"ise held for another valid ground. The dispositive portion of the :rder reads9 Accordingly, the =Dotion to <ithdra" nformation= is hereby &'A)T?4 and the accused is ordered immediately released unless another valid ground exists for her continued detention. The prosecution andFor P4?A areFis ordered to turn over to this court "ithin three /-0 days from receipt hereof the dangerous drug described in the information "hich shall in turn be confiscated in favor of the state for proper disposition unless the prosecution intends to refile or file another case against the accused "hich it deems appropriate as double ;eopardy has not attached. S: :'4?'?4.2 A "rit of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention in "hich any person is deprived of his liberty, or in "hich the rightful custody of any person is "ithheld from the person entitled to it. ts essential ob;ect and purpose is to in!uire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve a person from it if such restraint is illegal. The singular function of a petition for habeas corpus is to protect and secure the basic freedom of physical liberty.7 n the instant case, records sho" that Adam has been released upon order of the trial ;udge on Banuary ,2, ,**7. Therefore, the petition has become moot.A BHEREFORE, the petition is IS$ISSE . SO OR ERE . "ustria-Martine#, Chico-$a#ario, $achura, %%., concur.

Foo&'o&e(
$

!ollo, pp. A-$$. d. at $,. d. at $3. d. at $*. d. at ,$-,3. d. at ,..

&n !e: "rguelles, %r. v. 'ala(adia, %r., &.'. )o. $27,$$, Darch $3, ,**2, 3A3 S%'A 2.-, 2.7.
A

&d.

JULY
'epublic of the Philippines S)PRE$E !O)RT Danila SE!ON G.R. No. 173071 -u4y 31, 2007 EFor8er4y G.R. No. 161678F THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. GERAR O ORTE#A, appellant. E!ISION TINGA, J.D &erardo :rte6a "as charged before the 'egional Trial %ourt of Tarlac %ity, 1ranch 23, "ith illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section ., Article of 'epublic Act )o. +$2.$ /'.A. )o. +$2.0. The nformation dated ,* )ovember ,**, against him reads9 )5:'DAT :) The undersigned Assistant Provincial Prosecutor /detailed0, upon his in!uest investigation, accuses &?'A'4: :'T?>A y :rte6a, a resident of 1lock +, San )icolas, Tarlac %ity and presently detained at %amp Dacabulos, Tarlac %ity of the crime of 8iolation of Section ., Article of 'epublic Act +$2., /4angerous 4rug of ,**,0, committed as follo"s9 That on )ovember $+, ,**,, at around +9** oOclock in the evening, at Tarlac %ity and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, accused, did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and criminally sell, dispense and deliver .*2- gram of Dethamphetamine (ydrochloride, kno"n as Shabu, a dangerous drug, to poseur buyer SP:$ 'odolfo 'amos for P$**.**, "ithout being authori6ed by la". %:)T'A'I T: @A<., #pon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.- 4uring trial, the prosecution adopted the Boint Affidavit of Arrest3 dated ,* )ovember ,**, executed by P:, Allan B. @agasca, P:4aniel . @ingsay, SP:$ 'odolfo @. 'amos, and SP:3 Pascual D. 4elos 'eyes as their testimonies. 4elos 'eyes and @agasca appeared in court and confirmed their statements in the Boint Affidavit.. I%ISION

According to the Boint Affidavit, a team comprised of the above-mentioned police officers "as formed to conduct a buy-bust operation at 1lock +, San )icolas, Tarlac %ity on $+ )ovember ,**, to apprehend suspected drug peddlers. The suspects have previously been under a "eeklong surveillance after the police officers received reports about their illegal activities.2 The team "ith its back-up arrived at the place at around nine oOclock in the evening of said date. The appointed poseur-buyer SP:$ 'amos, together "ith the informant, approached the t"o /,0 suspects @eng @eng and 1uboy "hile the back-up team positioned itself nearby. SP:$ 'amos purchased one /$0 sachet of shabu for :ne (undred Pesos /P$**.**0 from 1uboy. Then, SP:$ 'amos gave the pre-arranged signal. mmediately, the rest of the team rushed to the scene and placed the t"o /,0 suspects under arrest. After a body search, the marked money "as recovered from 1uboy and another sachet of shabu "as confiscated from @eng @eng. Thereafter, the suspects "ere brought to %amp Dacabulos "here 1uboy identified himself as &erardo :rte6a.7 @ater upon examination, ?ngr. Darcene Agala of the 'egional %rime @aboratory, %amp :livas, San 5ernando, Pampanga, confirmed that the t"o /,0 sachets recovered from the scene "ere positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.A As lone "itness for the defense, appellant testified that on $+ )ovember ,**, at around .9-* p.m., he "as about to enter the house "hen he "as halted by P:, @agasca. Then, @agasca allegedly forced him to go "ith him. @agasca supposedly asked appellant not to make a scene as he "ould be freed later on. Subse!uently, appellant "as taken to %amp Dacabulos. Appellant denied selling shabu. (e denied ever speaking to SP:$ 'amos, the poseur-buyer. (e also denied kno"ing a certain @eng @eng.+ After trial, the trial court rendered a 4ecision$* dated 3 April ,**,, disposing as follo"s9 <(?'?5:'?, premises above considered finding the guilt of the accused proven beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution for violation of Section ., Article of 'epublic Act G)o.H +$2., this %ourt sentences &erardo :rte6a y :rte6a to GaH penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from PhGPH.**,***.** to PhGPH$*,***,***.** cost against the accused. S: :'4?'?4.$$ The ;udgment of conviction "as elevated to the %ourt for automatic revie". n a 'esolution$, dated A )ovember ,**. of the %ourt in &.'. )o. $2$27A,$- the case "as transferred to the %ourt of Appeals pursuant to the %ourtOs ruling in People v. )*ren Mateo.$3 1efore the %ourt of Appeals, appellant argued that the trial court erred9 /$0 in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution "itnesses; and /,0 in finding him guilty of violating Section ., Article of '.A. )o. +$2.. $. ?xcept for some modifications, the %ourt of Appeals in a 4ecision$2 dated ,A 5ebruary ,**2, in %A-&.'. %' )o. *$A$-, affirmed the decision of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the decision reads9

BHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED save for a modification in the imposed penalty "hich is no" fixed at life imprisonment and a fine of P.**,***.**. S: :'4?'?4.$7 The %ourt of Appeals held that the re!uisites of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs "ere borne out by the evidence on record. The identity of appellant as the seller "as established by the positive testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team; the test conducted on the crystalline substance sold by appellant sho"ed that it "as positive for shabu; third, the exchange bet"een the poseur-buyer and appellant "as for a consideration and in fact the marked money "as recovered from appellant "hen a body search "as conducted on his person.$A Although the poseur-buyer "as not presented in court, the appellate court ruled that the uns"erving and compatible testimonies of the t"o members of the buy-bust team, "ho "ere eye"itness to the transaction, sufficed to pin do"n appellant.$+ Against these positive declarations, appellant only professed bare denials "hich cannot s"ay ;udgment "hen unsupported, the appellate court noted.,* The %ourt of Appeals ho"ever modified the penalty imposed considering the trial courtOs failure to specify the actual penalty to be suffered by appellant and the amount of fine he "as supposed to pay. nstead, it sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of P.**,***.**.,$ Appellant is no" before the %ourt reiterating his contention that the prosecution "as not able to establish "ith moral certainty the actual transaction or sale of shabu as a fact. (e maintains that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to this case as the t"o police officers "ho testified "ere, by their o"n admission, located at a distance and could not hear the alleged conversation bet"een appellant and the poseur-buyer.,, Through his Danifestation / n @ieu of Supplementary 1rief0 dated + August ,**2,,- appellant stated that he had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in his Accused-AppellantOs 1rief filed before the %ourt of Appeals and that the filing of a supplemental brief might result in a repetition of the same arguments. Thus, he manifested that he "as adopting the Accused-AppellantOs 1rief as Supplemental 1rief.,3 The :ffice of the Solicitor &eneral manifested that it "as no longer filing a supplemental brief.,. There is merit in the appeal. The %onstitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. t is the burden of the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the !uantum of evidence re!uired. %orollarily, the prosecution must rest on its o"n merits and must not rely on the "eakness of the defense. n fact, if the prosecution fails to meet the re!uired !uantum of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence in its o"n behalf. n "hich case, the presumption of innocence shall prevail and hence, the accused shall be ac!uitted. (o"ever, once the presumption of innocence is overcome, the defense bears the burden of evidence to sho" reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. 'easonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the "hole proof

and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest each upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the la" to convict a criminal charge, but moral certainty is re!uired as to every proposition of proof re!uisite to constitute the offense.,2 n a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the follo"ing must be proven9 /$0 that the transaction or sale took place; /,0 the corpus delicti or the illicit drug "as presented as evidence; and /-0 that the buyer and seller "ere identified. ,7 <hat is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled "ith the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction bet"een the entrapping officers and the accused.,A The %ourt believes that the prosecution "as not able to establish "ith certainty all the elements necessary for the conviction of appellant for illegal sale of shabu. 5irst, there appears nothing in the records sho"ing that police officers complied "ith the proper procedure in the custody of sei6ed drugs as specified in People v. +im,,+ i.e., any apprehending team having initial control of said drugs andFor paraphernalia should, immediately after sei6ure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and or his representative, "ho shall be re!uired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to comply "ith the re!uirement raises doubt "hether "hat "as submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court "as actually recovered from appellant. t negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. n People v. +a,a,-* "here the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated mari;uana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the %ourt held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the mari;uana. %onse!uently, the %ourt concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. The %ourt made a similar ruling in People v. -imura,-$ "here the )arcom operatives failed to place markings on the sei6ed mari;uana at the time the accused "as arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug. Dore recently, in .arraga v. People,-, the %ourt held that the material inconsistencies "ith regard to "hen and "here the markings on the shabu "ere made and the lack of inventory on the sei6ed drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. The %ourt thus ac!uitted the accused due to the prosecutionOs failure to indubitably sho" the identity of the shabu. Significantly, ?ngr. Agala, the chemical engineer "ho conducted the laboratory test on the t"o /,0 sachets, testified in part as follo"s9 :) %':SS-?EAD )AT :) 1I ATTI. A1'?) %A

xxxx K - @ike"ise, you did not conduct the fingerprint examination to find out or dusting of fingerprint on these sachets to find out if these indeed "ere handled by the accused &erardo :rte6a, correctL A - Ies, maOam.-Secondly, the %ourt observes that the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer "ho had personal kno"ledge of the transaction. n People v. /0,-3 the %ourt ruled that the nonpresentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eye"itness to the illicit transaction. This doctrine "as reiterated in People v. "mbrosio.-. n both cases, ho"ever, not only "ere there other eye"itnesses to the illegal sale, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer "as also satisfactorily explained. n People v. /0, the police officer "ho acted as the poseurbuyer at the time of the trial "as paraly6ed and confined in a hospital due to gunshot "ounds. n People v. "mbrosio, the poseur-buyer "as "orking on another buy-bust operation. The %ourt therein stated that to re!uire her to testify in open court "ould divulge her identity and expose her to danger considering that there "as another buy-bust operation going on. n this case, though, after the poseur-buyer, SP:$ 'amos, failed to appear in court despite having been subpoenaed six /20 times,-2 the prosecution did not even bother to offer any explanation for his non-appearance considering that he, a police officer, "as no different from the other "itnesses "ho "ere presented in the end by the prosecution. n 'amosOs place, the prosecution presented t"o other police officers, "ho although members of the back-up team of the buy-bust operation "ere, in the %ourtOs vie", not reliable eye"itnesses to the transaction. Pertinently, P:, @agasca feebly testified as follo"s9 :) %':SS-?EAD )AT :) 1I ATTI. A1'?) %A- %ounsel for the Accused K J Dr. <itness, this is your first time to see the accused GsicHL A J )o, maOam. K J <hat do you mean noGLH G(Have you seen him beforeL A J Ies, maOam. K J 4id you conduct surveillance on him, Dr. <itnessL A J Ies, maOam. K J Then you could have easily gotten a search "arrant or a "arrant of arrest for himG,H isnOt itGLH G:Hr you did not, did you, Dr. <itnessL

A J 1uy-bust operation, maOam. K J Prior to this, you have not arrest GsicH the accused, is that correctL AJ )ot yet, maOam. K J 4o you kno" SP:$ 'odolfo @indo 'amosL A J Ies, maOam. K J And you are the back-up in this incident or his arrestG,H Dr. <itness, or you are the poseur-buyerL A J "as the back-up, maOam. K J So as a back-up, you positioned yourself at a place "here you "ill not be seen by the accused, correctL A J <e can see then, maOam. K J 1ut he cannot see youL A J Ies, maOam. K J And it "as @indo 'amos "ho acted as a poseur buyerL A J Ies, maOam. K J )o" it "as only "hen this @indo 'amos gave a pre- arranged signal that you approached the accused, is that correctL A J Ies, maOam. K J So from a distance you can only see the signal, "hat "as that signal, Dr. <itnessL A J 1y "aving his right hand, maOam. K J So you cannot hear or "hat they "ere talking about, is that correctL A J Ies, maOam.-7 Doreover, the testimonies of the t"o police officers did not include any positive face-to-face identification in open court of appellant as the seller of shabu, an aspect "hich "as crucial to establish appellantOs role in the alleged transaction. t is like"ise unclear in the Boint Affidavit of Arrest, "hich "as adopted by the t"o police officers as their direct testimony, "hether the t"o had a clear and close vie" of the alleged sale of shabu to support the assertion that they "ere

eye"itnesses to it. The affidavit only stated that the back-up men ="ho "ere then placed in a strategically GsicH position near the vicinity are "atching the on going deal.=-A As such, the testimony of the poseur-buyer, in this case 'amos, "as pivotal as only he could testify on "hat had really transpired during the moment of the alleged sale of shabu. (is non-presentation in this case "as fatal, absent any explanation for his non-appearance and reliable eye"itness "ho could testify in his place. Another befuddling point "as the non-prosecution of @eng @eng for the same crime. t "as testified that both he and appellant participated in the illegal sale but records "ere silent as to "hy he "as not indicted for the crime especially since the amount of shabu mentioned in the information "as the total sum of the shabu found in the t"o /,0 sachets recovered from the scene, one from appellant and the other one from @eng @eng.-+ n addition, no proof of conspiracy "as adduced to hold appellant liable for the sale of both sachets. n fact, the second sachet "as never sold as it "as confiscated from @eng @eng after a body search. <hile Section ., Article , '.A. )o. +$2. prohibits and penali6es the illegal sale of shabu regardless of the amount, the paucity of evidence on these material points engender reasonable doubt on the credibility of the prosecutionOs theory. All told, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case did not support appellantOs conviction for violation of Section ., Article , '.A. )o. +$2., since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. Accordingly, the presumption of innocence should prevail and the exoneration of appellant declared as a matter of right. <(?'?5:'?, the 4ecision dated ,+ :ctober ,**- of the 'egional Trial %ourt of Tarlac %ity, 1ranch 23 in %riminal %ase )o. $,3,* is '?8?'S?4 and S?T AS 4?. Appellant &?'A'4: :'T?>A y :'T?>A is A%K# TT?4 of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately '?@?AS?4 from custody, unless he is being held for some other la"ful cause. The 4irector of the 1ureau of %orrections is :'4?'?4 to implement this 4ecision forth"ith and to )5:'D this %ourt, "ithin five /.0 days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant "as actually released from confinement. %osts de o*icio. SO OR ERE . 1uisumbing, Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, 2elasco, %r., %%., concur. Foo&'o&e(
$

:ther"ise kno"n as the =%omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,.= 'ecords, p. $. d. at +. d. at --3.

TS), ,* Day ,**-, pp. ,--; TS), ,. Buly ,**-, pp. --2. 'ecords, p. -. d. TS), ,2 August ,**-, pp. ,-.. TS), ,2 September ,**-, pp. ,-.. 'ecords, pp. .--2$; Penned by (onorable Dartonino '. Darcos. d. at 2*-2$. !ollo, p. ,. The docket number of the case "hen first elevated to the %ourt. &.'. )os. $3727A-A7, 7 Buly ,**3, 3-- S%'A 23*. %A rollo, p. 37.

$*

$$

$,

$-

$3

$.

$2

'ollo, pp. --+; Penned by Associate Bustice 1ienvenido @. 'eyes "ith the concurrence of Associate Bustices Arturo 4. 1rion and Dariflor Pun6alan %astillo.
$7

d. at +. d. at 2. d. d. at 7. d. at A-+. %A rollo, p. 3A. !ollo, pp. $$-$,. d. d. at $--$3. People v. #y, -+, Phil. 77-, 7A,-7A- /,***0. People v. 1andang, &.'. )o. $.$-$3, - Bune ,**3, 3-* S%'A .7*, .7+.

$A

$+

,*

,$

,,

,-

,3

,.

,2

,7

,A

People v. >eng (ua 4ian, &.'. )o. $3.-3A, $3 Bune ,**3, 3-, S%'A ,., -3.

,+

3-. Phil. 23*, 2.+ /,**,0, citing the 4angerous 4rugs 1oard 'egulation )o. -, Series of $+7+, as amended by 'esolution )o. ,, S. $++*.
-*

3$3 Phil. $.2 /,**$0 . &.'. )o. $-*A*., ,7 April ,**3, 3,A S%'A .$. &.'. )o. $2,*23, $3 Darch ,**2, 3A3 S%'A 2-+. TS), ,2 August ,**-, p. 3. -+, Phil. 77-, 7A2 /,***0. &.'. )o. $-.-7A, $3 April ,**3, 3,7 S%'A -$,, -,7. 'ecords, pp. $,, $., $7, ,,, ,7, and -,. TS), ,. Buly ,**-, pp. 2-+. ?mphasis supplied. 'ecords, p. -.

-$

-,

--

-3

-.

-2

-7

-A

-+

d. at -, 3$; :ne sachet contains .*-. gram of shabu "hile the other contains .*,A gram of shabu. The nformation states that :rte6a sold .*2- gram of shabu.

:%T:1?'
'epublic of the Philippines S)PRE$E !O)RT Danila THIR G.R. No. 174773 O+&ober 2, 2007 I%ISIONG

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. $ARILCN $IRAN A y RA$A, accused-appellant. E!ISION !HI!O"NA#ARIO, J.D 5or revie" is the 4ecision,$ dated -* Bune ,**2 of the %ourt of Appeals in %A-&.'. %' (.%. )o. **-+., "hich affirmed the 4ecision of the 'egional Trial %ourt /'T%0 of )ueva 8i6caya, 1ranch -7, in %riminal %ase )o. $A,2, finding appellant guilty of violation of Section ., 'epublic Act )o. +$2., other"ise kno"n as the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,., The nformation dated $2 5ebruary ,**3, charged appellant and her co-accused meldo %aoileas follo"s9 That on Banuary $,, ,**3, around 79** oCclock in the evening in 1arangay %alitlitan, Dunicipality of Aritao, Province of )ueva 8i6caya, Philippines and "ithin the ;urisdiction of the (onorable %ourt, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, caught in flagrante elicto /sic0, did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously sell, deliver and give a"ay to a la" enforcement agent "ho posed as a buyer of .,. gram methamphetamine hydrochloride /shabu0, a dangerous drug, contained in four small si6e heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets to the damage and pre;udice of the 'epublic of the Philippines.3 <hen arraigned on . Darch ,**3, both appellant and %aoile pleaded not guilty to the charge.. The prosecutionCs version is based mainly on the testimony of P:$ (enry 8alen6uela /P:$ 8alen6uela0, a member of the Provincial Anti- llegal 4rug Special :peration Task 5orce assigned at the police station in Alfonso %astaPeda, )ueva 8i6caya. According to him, in the afternoon of ,3 Banuary ,**3,2 he "as at the Aritao police station together "ith Police Senior nspector Prudencio 4ela %ru6 /PS 4ela %ru60, P:- Danolo @apePa /P:- @apePa0, SP:, 'ogelio :rero /SP:, :rero0, and P:$ 'odelia 8ergara /P:$ 8ergara0 discussing the conduct of the =buy-bust= operation "ithin the to"n of Aritao. 4uring the meeting, PS 4ela %ru6 designated him as the poseur buyer and gave him a P.**.** bill for use as buy-bust money.

5rom the Aritao police station, they proceeded to 'aranga0 1one for the execution of the first buy-bust operation "hich "as directed against a certain 'eynaldo Da6o /Da6o0. Apparently, the operation "as a success as they "ere able to apprehend Da6o and to bring him to the police station. <hile being intervie"ed by PS 4ela %ru6, Da6o allegedly revealed the identities of the other people involved in the drug trade in the area. And so, their team planned another buy-bust operation. This time, the sub;ect of their operation "as herein appellant "ho lived in 'aranga0 %alitlitan of the same to"n. Their team arrived at appellantCs house at around seven oCclock in the evening. #pon their arrival, Da6o, "ho they brought along for the purpose of the buy-bust operation, introduced P:$ 8alen6uela to appellant. Da6o told appellant that P:$ 8alen6uela needed to buy shabu. Appellant then sought the permission of %aoile for the transaction. The latter allegedly agreed and so appellant "ent inside a room. <hen she returned, she pulled heatsealed sachets from her pocket and handed them to Da6o "ho, in turn, gave appellant the marked P.**.** bill.7 Da6o then turned over to P:$ 8alen6uela the items he got from appellant. %onvinced that "hat appellant had given them "as shabu, P:$ 8alen6uela gave the prearranged signal to his companions "ho "ere then "ithin the vicinity of appellantCs house. P:$ 8ergara and Police %hief >aidee 4aculog /Police %hief 4aculog0, entered the house and identified themselves as police officers. P:$ 8ergara proceeded to frisk appellant and sub;ected her to a body search, but the procedure did not produce any contraband. 5or his part, P:$ 8alen6uela "ent up to %aoile to prevent the latter from giving any aid to appellant. P:- @apePa also helped Police %hief 4aculog in searching for more illegal drugs in the living room of appellantCs house. Again, the search yielded nothing. Appellant "as then taken to the Aritao police station. t "as there that P:$ 8ergara put the markings on the four plastic sachets allegedly sold by appellant. Another police officer, P:$ Dagdalena Alicum /P:$ Alicum0, took over the preparation of the re!uest for laboratory examination and transfer of the confiscated items to the provincial office of the P)P crime laboratory. <hen the prosecutor presented four marked plastic sachets, P:$ 8alen6uela identified them to be the ones they recovered from appellant in the course of the buy-bust operation. 5or its part, the defense presented %aoile, appellantCs boyfriend, as its first "itness. (e testified that on $, Banuary ,**3, he "ent to appellantCs house and found her resting on the bed. After taking a brief rest, the t"o of them "ent outside to buy meat at a nearby store. #pon their return, he immediately "ent to the kitchen to prepare their food, "hile appellant sat on the hammock. Thereafter, Da6o arrived together "ith another man "hom he identified as P:$ 8alen6uela. According to him, Da6o "as an ac!uaintance, as the latterCs family "as a customer of the store he used to "ork for. (e claimed that it "as appellant "ho talked to Da6o and the unidentified man "hile he remained in the kitchen and "as una"are of "hat the conversation "as all about. All of a sudden, more men barged inside appellantCs house and started searching the living room and the bedroom. P:$ 8alen6uela then told him that they had recovered shabu. Another police officer started frisking his front pocket but he slapped the latterCs hand as he thought evidence might be planted against him. (is back pocket "as like"ise searched and again, he slapped the police officerCs hand. (e claimed that he opted to tear up his back pocket and that he even offered to remove all his clothing to prove that he did not have any illegal drugs in his possession.

The police then invited appellant to the municipal police head!uarters and he insisted on coming along to make sure that =nothing "ill happen= to her. nstead of heading straight to the head!uarters, they first passed by the house of SP:, :rero at 1one South "here they "ere told to sit at the terrace "hile the police officers took a rest. 5rom there, they proceeded to the Aritao police station. %aoile added that he and appellant "ere not the only ones "ho "ere taken to the police head!uarters that night for according to him, t"o individuals, Sarmiento and 8alde6, "ere "ith them as "ell as Da6o himself.A Appellant also testified in her defense and her testimony corroborated that of %aoile. She claimed that she kne" Da6o because he "as one of the customers at the videoke bar "here she used to "ork. %ontrary to the statement of P:$ 8alen6uela that Da6o negotiated the sale of shabu "ith her on the evening of her arrest, appellant insisted that P:$ 8alen6uela merely asked her if she "as a"are of Da6oCs drug-related activities. After she denied any kno"ledge of said activities, about five men "earing short pants barged into her house and started conducting a search until one of them declared that he had found shabu. After the trial, the court a quo rendered its decision finding appellant guilty as charged, "hile %aoile "as ac!uitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the decision states9 <(?'?5:'?, the court finds the accused Darilyn Diranda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section ., 'epublic Act )o. +$2. or the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,, and hereby imposes upon her the penalty of life imprisonment plus a fine of 5ive hundred thousand pesos /P.**,***.**0, and to pay the costs. %onsidering the insufficiency of evidence, the court hereby ac!uits meldo %aoili on reasonable doubt. (e is hereby ordered released unless he is being held for some other valid cause or causes. The methamphetamine hydrochloride sub;ect of this case is hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government, to be destroyed in accordance "ith the aforesaid la". The clerk of court is directed to coordinate "ith the Philippine 4rug ?nforcement Agency for this purpose.+ n convicting appellant, the trial court declared that J The court believes, and so holds, that the specimen positively tested for methamphetamine hydrochloride by forensic chemist Alfredo Kuintero "as the same taken from the accused. %hemistry 'eport )o. 4-**--,**3 not only indicated the names of the suspects, meldo %aoili and Darilyn Diranda but also the markings ='%8= "ritten on the specimen examined. These initials "ere "ritten by P:$ 'odelia %. 8ergara in the presence of P:$ 8alen6uela. The latter also testified that the sachets "ere delivered to the crime laboratory and even identified the receipts evidencing such delivery. Dore importantly, he identified the sachets in court and the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine him on this point /Peo. v. 1abac, ,*3 S%'A +2A0. 5inally, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies to this case,

especially in the absence of any proof of any ulterior motive for the public officers to testify against the accused. The court therefore entertains no doubt that the sachets marked ='%8= "ere the very ones given by the accused Diranda to Da6o and 8alen6uela during the buy-bust operation.$* :n $+ :ctober ,**3, appellant filed a )otice of Appeal,$$ "hich "as granted by the trial court in its :rder,$, dated ,, :ctober ,**-, thereby elevating the case to the %ourt of Appeals. :n -* Bune ,**2, the %ourt of Appeals promulgated the herein assailed 4ecision affirming the appellantCs conviction, thus9 WHEREFORE, the appealed 4ecision of the 'egional Trial %ourt of )ueva 8i6caya /1ranch -70, dated :ctober +, ,**3, is AFFIRMED. %osts against the appellant.$The %ourt of Appeals reiterated the oft-cited rule that factual findings of the trial court especially on the credibility of "itnesses are accorded great "eight and respect because of the trial courtCs une!ualled opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the "itnesses. n this case, P:$ 8alen6uelaCs testimony "ith regard to the buy-bust operation "as found to be convincing, credible, and sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The %ourt of Appeals also held that "hen a police officer, such as P:$ 8alen6uela, "as not moved by ill motive to testify falsely against an accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty. The %ourt of Appeals like"ise brushed aside appellantCs argument that the evidenceCs chain of custody "as not established for it "as not sho"n that "hat "ere allegedly sold to the poseurbuyer and taken from appellant "ere the same ones actually for"arded to the crime laboratory. The %ourt of Appeals held that J <e note that "hile the marking of the sachets in this case "as not done by the arresting officers in strict compliance "ith Section ,$, Article of '.A. )o. +$2. /The %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,0, there is no doubt that the plastic sachets of shabu "ith the markings ='%8,= referring to the initials of arresting officer P:$ 'odelio %. 8ergara /P:$ 8ergara0, contained the same specimens recovered from the appellant. P:$ 8alen6uela affirmed that this /sic0 markings "ere made by P:$ 8ergara in his presence. (e also specifically narrated the incident from the time appellant turned over the plastic sachets to him until the time they "ere marked by P:$ 8ergara in his presence and finally "hen the same "as referred to the forensic chemist for !ualitative examination. As correctly noted by the trial court, P:$ 8alen6uela "itnessed the delivery of the sachets of shabu to the %rime @aboratory and even identified the receipts evidencing such delivery. There is no !uestion, therefore, that the identity of the prohibited drug in this case "as certainly safeguarded.$3 1ecause of the adverse ruling of the %ourt of Appeals, appellant no" seeks the revie" of her case by this %ourt. :n ,+ )ovember ,**2, "e re!uired the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs if they so desired.$.

:n ,- Banuary ,**7, appellant filed her Danifestation stating that she "as adopting her AppellantCs 1rief dated ,$ Bune ,**. filed before the %ourt of Appeals as her supplemental brief.$2 Appellant makes a lone assignment of error9 T(? %:#'T " 1/3 &'A8?@I ?''?4 ) %:)8 %T )& T(? A%%#S?4-APP?@@A)T :5 T(? %' D? %(A'&?4 4?SP T? T(? P':S?%#T :)CS 5A @#'? T: P':8? (?' &# @T 1?I:)4 '?AS:)A1@? 4:#1T.$7 Appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the elements of the crime she "as charged "ith. She points out that other than the testimony of the alleged poseur-buyer, the prosecution failed to present any other evidence that the alleged buy-bust transaction took place. Doreover, she contends that the only sub;ect of the police operation on that day "as Da6o, "hile the operation involving her arose only out of "hat Da6o had supposedly told the police officers. To bolster her claim of innocence, she also dra"s our attention to the fact that the "arrantless search of her house conducted by the police did not yield any incriminating evidence against her. She also contends that "hile the alleged buy-bust operation transpired at around seven oCclock in the evening, the excerpt from the police blotter sho"ed that it "as only at around nine oCclock of the same night "hen the alleged marked money used by the police "as recorded therein. Appellant also argues that the chain of custody of the four sachets of shabu purportedly recovered from her "as not established and that the prosecution failed to prove that the plastic sachets for"arded to the crime laboratory for examination "ere indeed the ones she =sold= to P:$ 8alen6uela. Thus, appellant contends that the police failed to prove that the contraband items "ere first "eighed before they "ere turned over to the crime laboratory. n its Supplemental 1rief, the :ffice of the Solicitor &eneral /:S&0 counters that the chain of custody over the confiscated drug "as duly established by the prosecution. t argues that the issue of the faithful handling of the shabu "as never raised during the trial of this case and that appellant is belatedly raising such issue on appeal. And even if said !uestion "ould be considered, the :S& opines that it should not affect the outcome of the case, for the chain of custody "as proven in that P:$ 8alen6uela testified regarding the conduct of the buy-bust, his transfer of the possession of the shabu to P:$ 8ergara, the latterCs marking of the plastic sachets, and P:$ AlicumCs preparation of the re!uest for laboratory examination and the turnover of the illegal drug to the crime laboratory. The :S& also insists that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving appellantCs guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the elements of the crime she "as charged "ith "ere established during the trial. At the outset, "e address the argument raised by the :S& that it is no" too late for appellant to raise the issue of chain of custody on appeal. Such stance clearly overlooks one of the distinctions bet"een a criminal case and a civil case. To reiterate, an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for revie". The revie"ing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial courtCs decision on grounds other than those the parties

raised as errors.$A )ot"ithstanding this, "e still find no cogent reason "arranting the ac!uittal of appellant in this case. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment "hereby "ays and means are employed for the purpose of trapping and capturing la"breakers in the execution of their plan.$+ t has become a familiar and much-resorted to procedure to apprehend la"less elements and to put a dent on the proliferation of criminal activities. n particular, its use has been proven effective in putting an end to the illicit business of drug peddlers "ho are susceptible to deal "ith anyone "illing to purchase their goods even if the prospective buyer is a total stranger. #nless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team "ere inspired by any improper motive or "ere not properly performing their duty, their testimonies "ith respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit.,* n this case, P:$ 8alen6uelaCs recollection of the buy-bust operation is as follo"s9 K9 Iou said that you planned another buy bust operation, "hen did you plan this buy bust operation against this Darilyn DirandaL A9 nitially "e planned this buy bust operation at the Aritao Police Station, Sir. K9 Iou said, initially, "hy initially you planned the buy bust operation at the Aritao police stationL A9 1efore "e conducted the buy bust operation, Sir, "e passed by at the area and "e again rehearsed at another area, Sir, before "e finally conducted the buy bust operation at the house of Darilyn Diranda, Sir. K9 <ho actually conducted the buy bust operationL A9 , Sir, P:$ 8ergara, P:- @apePa, the chief of police of Aritao and others, Sir, "hom cannot remember their names. K9 Around "hat time did you arrive at the house of Darilyn DirandaL A9 Around 79** oCclock P.D., Sir. K9 So, "hat happened upon the arrival at the house of Darilyn DirandaL A9 #pon arrival, 'eynaldo Da6o "ho "as then my companion introduced me to the suspect, Sir. K9 So, "hat happenedL A9 After he introduced me to the suspect, Dr. Da6o said that need a drug particulary shabu, Sir.

K9 <here did this introduction happened inside /sic0 the house or inside the houseL A9 nside the house, Sir. K9 So, "hat "as the reaction, if any, of the suspect that accused Darilyn Diranda in this case "hen Dr. Da6o said you needed drug particularly shabuL A9 talked to Dr. %aoile, Sir. K9 <ho talked to Dr. %aoile, Dr. "itnessL A9 Darilyn Diranda, Sir. K9 (o" far "ere you from them "hen they talkedL A9 About , to - meters, Sir. K9 <hat did they talk about, if you kno"L A9 Darilyn Diranda asked permission from Dr. %aoile, Sir. K9 <hat "as Darilyn Diranda asking permission aboutL A9 (e asked permission to sell shabu from Dr. %aoile, Sir. K9 So, "hat "as the result of that talkL A9 Dr. %aoile permitted by saying, =ikkam a nu adda.=,$ K9 <hat happened nextL A9 After that, Sir, Darilyn Diranda entered their room, Sir. K9 (o" far "as that room from the place that you "ere situatedL A9 - to 3 meters, Sir. K9 <hat happened nextL A9 After that, Sir, Darilyn Diranda got something from GherH pocket and gave it to Dr. Da6o, Sir. K9 <hat "as that something that Darilyn Diranda took from GherH pocketL A9 A heat sealed plastic sachet containing "hite crystalline substance, Sir.

K9 After GthatH "hat happened nextL A9 'eynaldo Da6o in return gave the P.**.** "hich gave him, Sir. K9 After GthatH "hat happened nextL A9 'eynaldo Da6o gave the plastic heat sealed to me and "hen notice that it "as a suspected shabu, gave the pre-arranged signal to my companions, Sir. K9 <here "ere your companions "hen this transaction happenedL A9 At the vicinity of the house of Darilyn Diranda, Sir. K9 After you gave the pre-arranged signal, "hat happened nextL A9 P:$ 8ergara and the chief of police entered the house and identified themselves as police officers, Sir.,, n our minds, P:$ 8alen6uelaCs testimony "as able to meet the re!uirement "e laid do"n in People v. 3ng,,- in that, he "as able to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation J from the initial contact bet"een the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug sub;ect of the sale.,3 (is testimony revealed ho" their team came to kno" about appellantCs drug trade; the manner of negotiation for the purchase of shabu among appellant, Da6o, and himself; the exchange of consideration bet"een Da6o and appellant; and Da6oCs handing over to him of the sub;ect of the sale. 5rom the foregoing, it is patently clear that the prosecution succeeded in establishing, "ith moral certainty, all the elements of the illegal sale of shabu, to "it9 /$0 the identity of the buyer and seller, ob;ect, and consideration; and /,0 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.,. The presence of these elements is sufficient to support appellantCs finding of guilt and is not negated by the policeCs failure to find any other contraband in her house. <e are neither persuaded by appellantCs contention that the buy-bust operation "as directed only at Da6o. <hile it is true that based on the testimony of P:$ 8alen6uela, the buy-bust team met at the Aritao police station to coordinate their entrapment of Da6o, this fact should not in any "ay affect the validity of the buy-bust operation conducted against her. To reiterate, her name and involvement in the illegal sale of shabu only became kno"n to the police after Da6oCs arrest. Thus, it "as only after Da6o revealed her identity to the police that she became the target of another entrapment operation and in her case, Da6o himself "as used as an intermediary by the buy-bust team. Doreover, appellant failed to present any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely impute to her such a serious and unfounded charge.,2 5rom her testimony, it can easily be discerned that she did not kno" any one of the members of the buy-

bust team "ho arrested her. She even referred to them as Da6oCs =companions.= This fact supports the %ourt of AppealsC holding that J Then too, the rule is settled that the testimony of a la" enforcer carries "ith it the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official functions. <hen a police officer has no motive for testifying falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duty. (ere, no evidence "hatsoever "as presented "hich "ould suggest any improper motive on the part of P:$ 8alen6uela. <e must accord great respect to and treat "ith finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of his credibility.,7 <e like"ise find no merit in appellantCs contention that the buy-bust operation "as tainted "ith irregularity by the belated recording of the buy-bust money in the records of the police. t is settled that the recording of marked money used in a buy-bust operation is not one of the elements for the prosecution of sale of illegal drugs. The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record "ill not necessarily lead to an ac!uittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is ade!uately proven.,A As to appellantCs insistence that the shabu confiscated from her "as not sufficiently established by the prosecution, the records "ill bear out that P:$ 8alen6uela positively identified in court the four plastic sachets containing shabu "hich they bought from her. <hile he did not put any markings on the items, he "itnessed his fello" member of the buy-bust team, P:$ 8ergara, put his initials ='%8= on the sachets. :bviously, the identity of the corpus delicti has been duly preserved and established by the prosecution in this case contrary to appellantCs protestation.,+ 1esides, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there is a sho"ing of bad faith, ill "ill, or proof that the evidence has been tampered "ith. The appellant in this case bears the burden to make some sho"ing that the evidence "as tampered or meddled "ith to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that public officers properly discharge their duties.-* BHEREFORE, premises considered, the 4ecision of the %ourt of Appeals in %A-&.'. %' (.%. )o. **-+. dated -* Bune ,**2, finding appellant Darilyn Diranda y 'ama, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section ., 'epublic Act )o. +$2., other"ise kno"n as the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,, is AFFIR$E in toto. )o costs. SO OR ERE . 4nares-5antiago, Chairperson, "ustria-Martine#, $achura, !e0es, %%., concur.

Foo&'o&e(
$

Penned by Associate Bustice Aurora Santiago-@agman "ith Associate Bustices Bosefina &uevara-Salonga and )ormandie 1. Pi6arro, concurring; rollo, pp. ,-$-.

5)C. 6. 5ale, 7rading, "dministration, 8ispensation, 8eliver0, 8istribution and 7ransportation o* 8angerous 8rugs and9or Controlled Precursors and )ssential Chemicals.- The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from 5ive (undred Thousand Pesos /P.**,***.**0 to Ten Dillion Pesos /P$*,***,***.**0 shall be imposed upon any person, "ho, unless authori6ed by la", shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give a"ay to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the !uantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to t"enty /,*0 years and a fine ranging from :ne (undred Thousand Pesos /P$**,***,***.**0 to 5ive (undred Thousand Pesos /P.**,***.**0 shall be imposed upon any person, "ho, unless authori6ed by la", shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give a"ay to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions. f the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug andFor controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires "ithin one hundred /$**0 meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case. 5or drug pushers "ho use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs andFor controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case. f the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug andFor a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed. The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person "ho organi6es, manages or acts as a =financier= of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section. The penalty of t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to t"enty /,*0 years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from :ne (undred Thousand Pesos /P$**,***.**0 to 5ive (undred Thousand Pesos /P.**,***.**0 shall be imposed upon any person, "ho acts as a =protectorFcoddler= of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
-

Sometimes spelled as =%aoili= in the records. 'ecords, p. $. d. at ,*.

Should be $, Banuary ,**3.

P:$ 8alen6uela claimed that he "rote his initials =(48= on the hand of 1enigno A!uino, Br.
A

n the Boint Affidavit of Arrest executed by SP:$ :rero, P:- @apePa, P:$ 8alen6uela, and P:$ 8ergara, they stated that in addition to Da6o, %aoile, and appellant, they also arrested 'uel Sarmiento, )ilo 8alde6 through a series of buy bust operations conducted on $, Banuary ,**3; 'ecords, p. ..
+

d. at 73-7.. d. at 7$. d. at 7A. d. at 7+. !ollo, p. $-. d. at $$. d. at $3. d. at $A-$+. %A rollo, p. -7. People v. %ubail, &.'. )o. $3-7$A, $+ Day ,**3, 3,A S%'A 37A, 3+$. People v. %ulian-:ernande#, 3,- Phil. A+., +$$ /,**$0. People v. +ee Hoi Ming, 3.+ Phil. $A7, $+. /,**-0. =Iou give if itCs available.= TS), ,2 April ,**3, pp. 7-+. &.'. )o. $-7-3A, ,$ Bune ,**3, 3-, S%'A 37*. d. at 3A.. People v. +ee Hoi Ming, supra note ,* at $+-. People v. Pacis, 3-3 Phil. $3A, $.A-$.+ /,**,0.

$*

$$

$,

$-

$3

$.

$2

$7

$A

$+

,*

,$

,,

,-

,3

,.

,2

,7

'ollo, p. $*. 5uson v. People, &.'. )o. $.,A3A, $, Buly ,**2, 3+3 S%'A 2+$, 7*.. People v. Manalo, &.'. )o. $*72,-, ,- 5ebruary $++3, ,-* S%'A -*+, -$A. ,+ Am Bur ,d, Q+37.

,A

,+

-*

4?%?D1?'
'epublic of the Philippines S)PRE$E !O)RT Danila FIRST I%ISION G.R. No. 16*877 e+e8ber 18, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANILO -O!SON y BA)TISTA, accused-appellant. E!ISION P)NO, C.J.D :n appeal are the 4ecision$ dated April ,+, ,**. and the 'esolution, dated September $-, ,**. of the %ourt of Appeals, in %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. **,3.. The %ourt of Appeals affirmed the decision of the 'egional Trial %ourt of %aloocan %ity in %riminal %ase )o. %-22*-3, convicting accused-appellant 4anilo Bocson of violation of Sections . and $$, Art. of '.A. )o. +$2., or the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,. :n the evening of August 7, ,**,, an informant reported to the office of the Station 4rug ?nforcement #nit, %aloocan %ity, a person referred to by the alias =Danong,= "ho "as allegedly selling shabu at the vicinity of 1.D.1.A., ,nd Ave., ?ast %aloocan %ity. <ith this information, Police %hief Senior nspector Bose 8alencia formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation, in "hich SP:$ Boseph delos Santos "as designated as the poseur-buyer. That same night, the team proceeded to the reported area. The informant, upon seeing =Danong,= approached the latter and introduced 4elos Santos as a customer. 4elos Santos then told =Danong,= =Pare, pabili ng piso,= and handed him the marked $**-peso bill "ith serial number #DA.2.+3. #pon receipt of the marked money, =Danong= took out from his pocket and handed 4elos Santos a plastic sachet containing "hite crystalline granules. 4elos Santos then scratched his left ear, signaling a positive bust. SP:- 'odrigo Antonio responded to the signal and came to the aid of 4elos Santos. They frisked =Danong= and found four more plastic sachets of "hite crystalline granules on his body. They also recovered the marked money from =Danong.= They then brought =Danong= to the police station for investigation. t "as only then that the police learned that =Danong= is 4anilo Bocson, herein accused-appellant. SP:$ 4elos Santos and SP:- Antonio also turned over to Police nvestigator 5erdinand Doran the plastic sachets and the marked money recovered from =Danong= upon arriving at the police station. Doran, in turn, marked the pieces of evidence. Then, the marked pieces of evidence "ere turned over to the )orthern Police 4istrict /)P40 crime laboratory for chemical analysis. Police nspector Buanita Sioson, a 5orensic %hemical ?ngineer, found the "hite crystalline granules, contained in five heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous

drug. 5urther, four of the five sachets "eighed *.*. gram each, and one sachet "eighed *.*3 gram. Accused-appellant Bocson "as charged "ith violations of Sections . and $$, Art. of '.A. )o. +$2., or the %omprehensive 4angerous 4rugs Act of ,**,, in t"o separate nformations9 %' D )A@ %AS? ):. 22*-3 That on or about the 7th day of August ,**, in %aloocan %ity, D.D. and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the above-named accused, "ithout having been authori6ed by la", did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously sell and deliver to one P:$ B:S?P( 4?@:S SA)T:S, "ho posed as buyer, *.*. gram of Dethylamphetamine (ydrochloride /Shabu0, for :ne (undred Pesos "ith S) #DA.2.+3 kno"ing the same to be a dangerous drug. %:)T'A'I T: @A<. %' D )A@ %AS? ):. 22*-. That on or about the 7th day of August ,**, in %aloocan %ity, D.D. and "ithin the ;urisdiction of this (onorable %ourt, the above-named accused, "ithout having been authori6ed by la", did then and there "illfully, unla"fully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control four /30 pcs. of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Dethylamphetamine (ydrochloride /Shabu0 "ith a total "eight GofH *.$+ gram, kno"ing the same to be a dangerous drug. %:)T'A'I T: @A<.The t"o criminal cases against accused-appellant "ere consolidated, and trial ensued. Accused-appellant Bocson denied the accusations against him. (e testified that on the night of his arrest, he "as at his residence at )o. $+, ,nd Avenue, &race Park, %aloocan %ity. <hile "atching a late-night television sho" "ith his mother and his $$-year old niece, SP:- Antonio entered his house, and upon seeing him, shouted =PositiveR= Thereafter, five other policemen entered the house, forced accused-appellant out of his bed and handcuffed him. The police officers then brought him to the police station "ithout informing him of the charges. n his testimony, accused-appellant denied selling shabu to the police poseur-buyer or possessing more !uantities of shabu. (e alleged that the charges against him "ere fabricated. ?leven-year old April Bane 1uenaobra, niece of accused-appellant, corroborated the latterCs testimony. 1uenaobra testified that on August 7, ,**,, at around eleven oCclock in the evening, "hile "atching television, her grandmother ans"ered a knock on the door. Suddenly, policemen barged into the house, grabbed her uncle and forcibly took him a"ay. :n April A, ,**-, the 'egional Trial %ourt of %aloocan %ity convicted the accused-appellant. The dispositive portion of the decision reads9

T(?'?5:'?, premises considered and the prosecution having established to a moral certainty the guilt of Accused 4A) @: B:%S:) y 1A#T STA of the crimes charged, this %ourt hereby renders ;udgment as follo"s9 $. n %rim. %ase )o. 22*-3 for 8iolation of Sec. ., Art. $$ of 'A +$2., this %ourt in the absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby sentences the aforenamed Accused to @ 5? DP' S:)D?)T; and to pay the fine of P.**,***.** "ithout any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; ,. n %rim. %ase )o. 22*-. for 8iolation of Sec. $$, Art. $$ of same Act, this %ourt in the absence of any modifying circumstance hereby sentences common Accused to a prison term of t"elve /$,0 years and one /$0 day to fourteen /$30 years and eight /A0 months and to pay the fine of three hundred thousand pesos /P-**,***.**0, "ithout any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Sub;ect drug in both cases are hereby declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt "ith in accordance "ith la". xxxxxx S: :'4?'?4.3 Accused-appellant Bocson appealed to this %ourt, "ith the follo"ing assignment of errors9

T(? T' A@ %:#'T &'A8?@I ?''?4 ) & 8 )& 5#@@ <? &(T A)4 %'?4?)%? T: T(? S?@5-S?'8 )& T?ST D:) ?S :5 P:@ %? :55 %?'S ':4' &: A)T:) : A)4 B:S?P( 4? @:S SA)T:S.

T(? T' A@ %:#'T &'A8?@I ?''?4 ) %:)8 %T )& T(? A%%#S?4APP?@@A)T :5 T(? %' D? %(A'&?4 4?SP T? T(? 5A @#'? :5 T(? P':S?%#T :) T: P':8? ( S &# @T 1?I:)4 '?AS:)A1@? 4:#1T. . This %ourt, ho"ever, referred the case to the %ourt of Appeals in conformity "ith the ruling in Peo54e 9. $a&eo.2 The %ourt of Appeals affirmed the decision of the 'egional Trial %ourt. t also denied accusedappellantCs motion for reconsideration. <e affirm the decision of the %ourt of Appeals. The testimony of SP:$ 4elos Santos "as spontaneous, straightfor"ard and categorical. 5urther, SP:- Antonio, back-up security of SP:$ 4elos Santos, corroborated the latterCs testimony on its

material points. :n the other hand, "e find no reason to believe the denials and self-serving allegation of accused-appellant that his arrest "as concocted out of thin air by the police officers. )o evidence "as presented to sho" any antagonism bet"een him and the police officers to explain "hy the police officers allegedly picked on him. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the 4angerous 4rugs Act, credence is given to prosecution "itnesses "ho are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.7 )one "as presented in the instant case. )either "ill the testimony of his $$-year old niece exculpate accused-appellant from the crimes charged against him. :n cross-examination, April Bane admitted that her grandmother impressed on her that her uncle "as arrested by the police even "hen he had done nothing "rong. As observed by the trial court, April Bane appeared to be a rehearsed "itness. 5urther, being a close kin of accused-appellant, her credibility is highly suspect. A portion of her testimony is as follo"s9 %':SS-?EAD )AT :) K Are you saying no" Dadam <itness that you G"ereH also discussing this case to /sic0 your motherL A Ies, sir. K <hen you discussed this case, Dadam <itness, do get you right that they "ere talking to you "ith respect GtoH ho" your uncle "as arrestedL A Ies, sir. K And, they G"ereH also discussing to /sic0 you that your uncle has not committed any "rongL A Ies, sir. K And, they "ere also discussing "ith you Dadam <itness, that "hat "as done by the policeman is also "rongL A Ies, sir.A The findings and conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of "itnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of "itnesses as they testify. n the process of converting into "ritten form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a "orld of meaning apparent to the ;udge present, "atching and listening, may escape the reader of the translated "ords.+ n the instant case, the police arrested accused-appellant in a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is one form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective "ay of

apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense.$* ?ntrapment has received ;udicial sanction "hen undertaken "ith due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.$$ <here the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person, acting as a decoy for the state, or that public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is permissible entrapment and the accused must be convicted.$, <hat the la" forbids is the inducing of another to violate the la", the =seduction= of an other"ise innocent person into a criminal career.$- <here the criminal intent originates in the mind of the state decoy, such as an undercover agent, and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is instigation, as "e call it in our ;urisprudence, and no conviction may be had.$3 n instigation, the instigator practically induces the "ould-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. n entrapment, the peace officer resorts to "ays and means to trap and capture the la"breaker in the execution of the latterCs criminal plan. nstigation is illegal and contrary to public policy. ?ntrapment is not.$. n the case at bar, the details of the transaction "ere clearly and ade!uately sho"n, vi6.9 /a0 the initial contact bet"een the poseur-buyer and the pusher; /b0 the offer to buy; /c0 the promise or payment of the consideration; and /d0 the delivery of the illegal drug sub;ect of the sale. The initial contact "as made through an informant. :n the day of the operation, the informant approached accused-appellant Bocson, a.k.a. =Danong,= and introduced him to SP:$ 4elos Santos, the poseur-buyer. 4elos Santos then offered to buy "hen he told =Danong,= =Pare, pabili ng piso.= The sale "as consummated after payment and delivery "hen SP:$ 4elos Santos handed =Danong= the marked $**-peso bill, and =Danong= took out from his pocket and handed SP:$ 4elos Santos a plastic sachet containing shabu. 5rom the moment SP:$ 4elos Santos received the prohibited drug from =Danong,= the illegal sale of the dangerous drug "as consummated.$2 =Danong= "as at once apprehended, and four more sachets of shabu "ere found in his possession. (aving established that the illegal sale took place bet"een the poseur-buyer and the seller, the prosecution like"ise presented the dangerous drug, i.e., the corpus delicti, as evidence in court. The illegal substance sold, including the four other sachets recovered from the pocket of accused-appellant, "as offered as evidence during the trial and properly identified by the prosecution "itnesses. The prosecution also accounted for the chain of custody of the sub;ect substances. 5rom accused-appellantCs possession, police officers 4elos Santos and Antonio sei6ed the sachets of shabu and turned them over to Police nvestigator Doran "ho marked the pieces of evidence. Then, Doran turned them over to the )P4 crime laboratory for chemical analysis, "here Police nspector Buanita Sioson, a 5orensic %hemical ?ngineer, found the "hite crystalline granules contained in five heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. IN %IEB BHEREOF, the petition is ENIE and the 4ecision and 'esolution of the %ourt of Appeals in %A-&.'. %'-(.%. )o. **,3., dated April ,+, ,**. and September $-, ,**., respectively, are AFFIR$E . SO OR ERE .

5andoval-;utierre#, Corona, "#cuna, +eonardo-de Castro, %%., concur.

Foo&'o&e(
$

'ollo, pp. --$-. %A rollo, p. $,+. d. at 7-A. 'ollo, p. -*. d. at 32. &.'. )os. $3727A-A7, Buly 7, ,**3, 3-- S%'A 23*. People v. 4ulay, &.'. )o. $.*2,3, 5ebruary ,3, ,**3, 3,- S%'A 2.,. %A rollo, pp. ,A-,+. People v. &amiao, &.'. )o. +$3+,, Banuary $+, $++., ,3* S%'A ,.3.

$*

People v. 4oria, &.'. )o. $,.,++, Banuary ,,, $+++, -*$ S%'A 22A, citing People v. 1asilgo, ,-. S%'A $+$ /$++30; People v. Iap, &.'. )os. +A,2,-2-, Banuary $*, $++3, ,,+ S%'A 7A7; People v. Dacasa, &.'. )o. $*.,A-, Banuary ,$, $++3, ,,+ S%'A 3,,.
$$

Supra, citing People v. (errera, ,37 S%'A 3-- /$++.0; People v. Tadepa, &.'. )o. $**-.3, Day ,2, $++., ,33 S%'A --+; People v. 1asilgo, &.'. )o. $*7-,7, August ., $++3, ,-. S%'A $+$.
$,

Supra, citing (oy v. State, .- Ari6 33*, +* P,d 2,-, 2,A-2,+ /$+-+0--bribery; see ,$ Am Bur ,d, supra, Sec. ,*,.
$-

Supra, citing People v. :utten, $37 )? ,d ,A3, ,A2, $- ll ,d ,$ /$+.A0. Supra, citing Sorrells v. #nited States, ,A7 #.S. 3-., 33,, 3.$-3., /$+-,0. People v. Tiu #a, +2 Phil. 7-A, 73$ /$+..0. People v. Simon, &.'. )o. +-*,A, Buly ,+, $++3, ,-3 S%'A ....

$3

$.

$2