No.

8
G.R. No. 156408. January 31, 2005.*
ANDRES S. SUERO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO; the CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE of Davao
City; and Hon. EMMANUEL C. CARPIO, in His Capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 16, Davao City, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
The defense of double jeopardy places upon the accused the burden of proving the following
three requisites: (1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first
jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be for the same
offense as that in the first; or the second offense is necessarily included in the first. The same
act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct offenses. No double jeopardy attaches as
long as there is a variance between the elements of the two offenses charged. What is
forbidden is another prosecution for the same offense.

Facts:
Petitioner Suero was earlier accurse, together with Granad, another accused the crime of
Falsification of Public Documents. Tat on or about Feb. 12, 1992, the accused as the
Administrative Office and Property Inspector falsified and undated Inspection Report making it
appear that various furniture purchases have all been delivered and inspected, justifying the
release of the payments.

The respondent City Prosecutor commenced the trial but the trial was later on suspended when
the court granted the Joint Motion to Suspend filed by the Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor.
The reason for the motion to suspend was that the Asst. City Prosecutor interposed no
opposition to the motion of the accused and the special prosecutor to suspend and to allow the
Sandiganbayan to proceed with the hearing of another criminal case. They averred that the two
accused charged for falsification of documents are also charged in the Sandigandbayan for
violation of Section 3€ of RA 3019 (anti graft and corrupt practices) arising from the same
transaction; that the primordial issue under which these cases were filed are the same although
filed in different courts.

Respondent judge subsequently dismissed without prejudice the falsification case while the
Sandiganbayan case was decided by the same court and it acquitted the herein accused.
Thereafter, the Ombudsman expressed their decision in refiling the information and requested
that the same be entered in the docket with a new case number. Consequently, a new
information was filed and docketed as Criminal Case No. 48167-201. Petitioner then filed
motion to quash which was denied which caused the petitioner to file an MR. The RTC ruled
that the dismissal of the Sandiganbayan case did not bar the refiling of the new information
because the two offenses are separate and distinct and the dismissal of one would not
constitute Double Jeopardy.

Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution of the petition for falsification of public document would place
him twice in jeopardy.
.
Held:
Petitioner contends that the charge of falsification of public documents now pending the trial
court is necessarily inclusive or included in the earlier information filed with the Sandaganbayan
in Criminal Case No. 23518 for violation of Section 3€ of RA 3019. He claims that his acquittal

1
by the anti-graft court constitutes a bar to the present case under the doctrine of double
jeopardy.

We hold that the instant case does not constitute double jeopardy , for which the
following requisites must concur: (1) the first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
(2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second jeopardy must be
for the same offense as that in the first.

The test for the third element is whether one offense is identical with the other or is an
attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or whether one offense necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the other, as provided in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court

It is undisputed that the two charges stem from the same transaction. However, it has
been consistently held that the same act may give rise to two or more separate and distinct
offenses. No double jeopardy attaches, as long as there is a variance between the elements of
the offenses charged. The constitutional right against double jeopardy protects from a second
prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one.

Indeed, the crime under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 shares two common elements with the felony
under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code -- that the offender is a public officer and that the
act is related to the officer’s public position. However, the latter offense is not necessarily
inclusive of the former. The essential elements of each are not included among or do not form
part of those enumerated in the former. For there to be double jeopardy, the elements of one
offense should -- like the ribs of an umbrella -- ideally encompass those of the other. The
elements of a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 fall outside the realm of those of falsification
of a public document and vice versa. At most, the two offenses may be considered as two
conjoined umbrellas with one or two common ribs. Clearly, one offense does not include the
other.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED

Note.—There is no double jeopardy where, from a judgment of acquittal, an appeal was brought
to the Court of Appeals by the private complainant, elevating the civil aspect of the criminal
case. (Manantan vs. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 387 [2001]) Suero vs. People, 450 SCRA
350, G.R. No. 156408 January 31, 2005

2
No. 9

G.R. No. 146805. January 16, 2003.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RUEL EUGENIO y ANGELES and JIMMY
TAN y ABUCAY, appellants.

PANGANIBAN, J.:
The presentation in court of “buy-bust” money is not indispensable to the prosecution of illegal
drug cases. Neither is prior surveillance by the police. It is enough that the elements of the
crime arc proven by credible witnesses and other pieces of evidence

PANGANIBAN, J.:
The presentation in court of “buy-bust” money is not indispensable to the prosecution of illegal
drug cases. Neither is prior surveillance by the police. It is enough that the elements of the
crime arc proven by credible witnesses and other pieces of evidence

Facts:
Both appellants had been caught in flagrante delicto selling and delivering a marijuana brick
weighing 1,034.5 grams to the poseur-buyer, PO3 Piggangay, during a legitimate buy-bust
operation. After their failure to present clear and convincing evidence that would overcome the
testimonies of the police team that had conducted the operation, the RTC rejected their
assertion that they had merely been framed up. The policemen positively identified them as the
sellers of marijuana. Since no ill motive on the part of the former was shown by the defense,
their testimonies could not be disregarded by the court a quo. The presumption of regularity in
their performance of official duties remained. Moreover, the trial court opined that the allegation
of frame up was a desperate attempt, an afterthought on the part of appellants, to extricate
themselves from the drug charge against them.

Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses and totally disregarding the evidence for the defense.

Held: Appellants contend that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were implausible
and unreliable. They further assert that what actually transpired was a mere frameup, not a buy-
bust operation.

Frameup, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive
and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions
of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. In the case at bar, the allegation of appellants that
they had been framed up cannot prevail over the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who,
not having any reason to testify falsely against them, positively identified them as drug
dealers.1We find these testimonies consistent, unequivocal and worthy of credence.

Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the policemen as public officers were presumed to have
performed their official duties with regularity and in accordance with law. This presumption
remained steadfast after the defense had failed to present clear and convincing proof to the
contrary

3
We cannot sustain appellants’ contention that the buy-bust operation was a sham, simply
because no prior surveillance was conducted, and the entire operation lasted only for several
hours. After a careful consideration of all the events that transpired before, during and after the
arrest, we agree with the lower court that the account of the prosecution witnesses were
plausible. There is nothing in their testimonies that would engender any suspicion that the
operation was a deception.

Furthermore, the officers were not ordinary policemen. They were operatives of the 14th
Narcom group, which specifically operated to curtail illegal drug activities.

There is no requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation
can be undertaken especially when, as in this case, the policemen are accompanied to the
scene by their civilian informant. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an
entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting
one We have held that when time is of essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior
surveillance.

In sum, the prosecution established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs
against appellants.

Note.—The absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the
prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug
subject of the transaction is presented before the court. (People vs. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA
193 [1997).

4
No. 9

G.R. No. 186227. July 20, 2011.*

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA,
accused-appellant.

Facts:
Task Forcer Regional Anti-Crime Emergency Response (RACER) in Butuan City received a
report that Mantalaba who was 17 yrs old was selling shabu. After a buy-bust operation, two
informations was filed against Mantalaba which was later on consolidated. Mantalaba pleaded
not guilty.

RTC found Mantalaba guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was penalized of reclusion perpetua
to death and fine of 500k for selling shabu and (2) for illegally possessing shabu, Mantalaba
was penalized, in application of the ISL, 6 yrs and 1 day as minimum and 8 yrs as maximum of
prision mayor and fine of 300k. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Thus, the present
appeal.

Mantalaba: the lower court gravely erred in convicting him and that there was no evidence of
actual sale between him and the poser-buyer during the buy-bust operation. He also claims that
the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not established.

Issue: Whether Mantalaba is guilty of drug trafficking and possession.

Ruling:
The petition is without merit.

The buy-bust operation was valid, establishing the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefore. From the above testimony of the prosecution witness, it was well established that the
elements have been satisfactorily met. The seller and the poseur-buyer were properly identified.
The subject dangerous drug, as well as the marked money used, were also satisfactorily
presented. The testimony was also clear as to the manner in which the buy-bust operation was
conducted.

Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there
is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-
compliance will not render an accused arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.

As to his minority, Mantalaba was minor during the buy-bust operation but was of legal age
during the promulgation of the decision. It must be noted that RA 9344 took effect after the
promulgation of the RTC's decision against Mantalaba. The RTC did not suspend the sentence
in accordance with PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law that were applicable at the time of the promulgation of the judgment. However, as
ruled in People vs Sarcia, suspension of sentence can still be applied but NOT when the
offender upon the promulgation of judgment is 21 yrs old. or older. Mantalaba is now 21 yrs old,
therefore his suspension of sentence is already moot and academic.

5
But as to the penalty, CA must have appreciated Mantalaba's minority as privileged mitigating
circumstance in fixing the penalty. Thus, applying the rules stated above, the proper penalty
should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which is reclusion temporal, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority having been appreciated. Necessarily, also applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken from the penalty
next lower in degree which is prision mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from the
medium period of reclusion temporal, there being no other mitigating circumstance nor
aggravating circumstance.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 31, 2008 of the Court of Appeals 9165 is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION

Note.—Prior surveillance is not necessary especially where the police operatives are
accompanied by their informant during entrapment; Buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act
of committing an offense. (People vs. Dumangay, 566 SCRA 290 [2008])

It is well-settled that the testimony of an informant in drug-pushing cases is not essential for
conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on the same. (People vs. Padua,
625 SCRA 220 [2010])