1

FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 133568

July 24, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BETTY CUBA y LUBON a.k.a. "Betty," CESAR SANTOS y LUCIA a.k.a. "Cesar," SALVACION CAPARAS y DE
CASTRO a.k.a. "Cion," accused.
SALVACION CAPARAS y DE CASTRO a.k.a. "Cion," accused-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Accused-appellant Salvacion Caparas y De Castro a.k.a. "Cion" (hereafter CAPARAS) seeks the reversal of the 23 March 1998
decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95, in Criminal Case No. Q-97-70944, finding her guilty of the crime
of illegally transporting and selling marijuana under Section 4, Art. II of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended. The other accused, Betty Cuba y Lubon a.k.a. "Betty" (hereafter BETTY) and Cesar Santos y Lucio a.k.a. "Cesar"
(hereafter CESAR) were acquitted.
CAPARAS, BETTY and CESAR were indicted under an information2 filed on 2 May 1997, with the violation of Section 4, Art. II of R.A.
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
That on or about the 29th day of April 1997 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping one another not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport and
distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully and feloniously transport, deliver, and offer for sale 39, 735.00 grams
of marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug to poseur-buyer SPOIII VENUSTO T. JAMISOLAMIN, in violation of said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
At their arraignment on 14 May 1997,3 each of the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
The prosecution presented police officers Venusto Jamisolamin and Joselito Dominguez. By virtue of the agreement and admissions
during the pre-trial, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Alexis Guinanao was dispensed with.
The evidence for the defense consisted of the testimonies of the accused BETTY, CAPARAS, and CESAR.
The narration of facts and evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense as summarized by the trial court in its decision is
hereby quoted verbatim:
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
On June 2, 1997, the prosecution and the accused stipulated on the subject matter of the testimony of the forensic analyst, Alexis
Guinanao, to the effect that on April 30, 1997, he received a letter-request (Exh. "A") from a certain Supt. Pedro Ongsotto
Alcantara addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory Services stating therein the request for the examination of specimens marked
as Exhs. "A", "B", & "C" which were duly received by the said laboratory. The parties further stipulated that the forensic analyst,
upon receipt of the said specimens, conducted an examination and the result of which were stated down in his Initial Laboratory
Report dated April 30, 1997 (Exhs. "B" to "B-4). He likewise prepared his Physical Science Report No. D- 277-97 (Exh. "C" to
"C-3") indicating his findings that the submitted specimens, namely: one (1) blue plastic bag labeled "DUTY FREE
PHILIPPINES" containing fourteen (14) bricks of marijuana, which had a total weight of 15, 445.00 grams (Exhs. "D" to "D14"); one (1) box labeled "LUCKY ME PANCIT CANTON" containing twelve (12) bricks of marijuana, with a total weight of
11, 880.00 grams (Exhs. "E" to "E-12"); and one (1) box labeled "MAGGI RICH MAMI" containing thirteen (13) bricks of
marijuana, with a total weight of 12, 420.00 grams (Exhs. "F" to "F-12") were all found positive to the test for marijuana, a
prohibited drug; that the specimens examined in the Initial Laboratory Report were the same specimens and results/findings in

2
the Physical Science Report. Finally, the parties stipulated that the specimens submitted by the Chemist were each wrapped in
newsprint and further placed inside big boxes labeled as MAGGI RICH MAMI and LUCKY ME PANCIT CANTON and a blue
shopping bag labeled as DUTY-FREE PHILIPPINES.
Aside from the above stipulations, the prosecution presented SPO3 Venusto Jamisolamin and P/Insp. Joselito Dominguez, both
from the Narcotics Group Command, Central Narcotics District at EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, whose testimonies may be
summed up as follows:
After receiving and verifying the information from their civilian informant that a certain female supplier/courier is capable of
delivering big bulks of marijuana in Metro Manila, P/Supt. Pedro Alcantara instructed Team Leader Bravo, P/Insp. Joselito
Dominguez, to conduct a possible test-buying operation and surveillance which designated SPO3 Venusto Jamisolamin as the
poseur-buyer. Thus, on April 18, 1997, P/Insp. Dominguez availed of a room at West Avenue Hotel in West Avenue, Quezon
City, as evidenced by the Official Receipt dated April 18, 1997 (Exh. "H") in preparation to the initial meeting between the
female supplier/courier accompanied by the civilian informant and Jamisolamin, the poseur-buyer. The following day at around
8:30 in the morning, the civilian informant and a certain woman by the name of Cion arrived and she was introduced to
Jamisolamin. After the negotiation, Jamisolamin and Cion reached an agreement wherein Cion would deliver 30 to 50 kilos of
dried marijuana fruiting tops within 10 days at P1,000.00 per kilogram. On April 27, 1997, sometime in the afternoon, the
civilian informant called up P/Insp. Dominguez and informed him that Cion and a certain female supplier/owner will only be
bringing around 41 kilos of marijuana stuff and that they will be coming from Baguio City. Since they were scared of commuting
by bus, P/Insp. Dominguez instructed the informant to use his white Nissan Sentra car for their transportation. Thus, P/Insp.
Dominguez proceeded to Baguio City together with SPO3 Jamisolamin and PO3 Rolando Duazo using a red car. While in
Baguio City, P/Insp. Dominguez was in constant communication with the civilian informant pertaining to the loading of the
marijuana inside the white car. When informed that the car was already loaded with the stuff, P/Insp. Dominguez, in company
with the other two police officers, started tailing the white car. From Baguio City to Quezon City, the team tailed the white car
and with the woman, Cion, the supplier of drugs named Betty Cuba, her four-year old son, and the courier Cesar Santos as
passengers. The white car arrived at the West Avenue Hotel at around 4:30 in the afternoon and they were met by SPO3
Jamisolamin. Cion alighted from the car and a short conversation took place between SPO3 Jamisolamin and Cion. Not long
after, Cion opened the trunk of the car and showed the marijuana stuff to SPO3 Jamisolamin. Upon seeing and confirming that
indeed there was marijuana stuff inside the trunk of the car placed in a shopping bag of Duty Free Philippines that contained 14
bricks of marijuana leaves (Exhs. "D" to "D-14") and in a big box labeled "Lucky Me Pancit Canton" that contained 12 bricks of
marijuana leaves (Exhs. "E" to "E-12") and a second box labeled "Maggi Rich Mami" that contained 13 bricks of marijuana
leaves (Exhs. "F" to "F-13"), SPO3 Jamisolamin immediately gave a pre-arranged signal to his team by lighting a cigarette.
Heeding the signal, P/Insp. Dominguez and a certain PO3 Duazo approached the car and introduced themselves as NARCOM
agents. After which, they effected an arrest on the persons of Salvacion Caparas alias "Cion", Betty Cuba and Cesar Santos for
illegal possession of a prohibited drug.1avvphil On the other hand, the little boy believed to be the child of Betty Cuba was freed
for humanitarian reason. Thereafter, the police officers executed their affidavit of arrest (Exhs. "G" to "G-2").
EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSED
The defense presented accused Betty Cuba, the alleged supplier, accused Salvacion Caparas, the alleged middleman; and accused
Cesar Santos, the alleged courier; to rebut the allegations thrown against them, and their testimonies may be summarized as
follows:
On April 28, 1997, Cesar Santos met a neighbor named Soso at the market and the latter asked if he knew somebody who can
sell cheap vegetables to him. Since Santos knew Salvacion Caparas or Aling Cion for short, Santos accompanied Soso to her.
After the introduction and negotiation, they closed a deal. The following day at around 7:00 in the morning, Aling Cion visited
the house of Betty Cuba, a vegetable andtocino vendor, to see the latter's sister Melba since they were intending to go to the
Trading Post. However, since her sister Melba was not around Beta Cuba agreed to go with her since they would be passing by
Tarlac. Thus, Betty and her son accompanied Salvacion. They boarded in a waiting car with three males who were unknown to
Betty. The three male passengers were later identified as Cesar Santos, Soso and a certain Jessie. As they proceeded to Tarlac, an
old maroon car suddenly crossed their path. Two unidentified men alighted from the old car and approached them. After a few
conversations, Soso and Jessie stepped out of the car, took a tricycle and went away. On the other hand, the two unidentified men

3
boarded the white vehicle and proceeded to Manila while the old maroon car was tailing them. However, they stopped at
McArthur Highway at Tarlac, Tarlac and the men went behind and opened the trunk of the car. After 30 minutes, they boarded
the car again and proceeded straight to NARCOM Office at Kamuning, Quezon City for investigation. After 30 minutes, they
were called in the office again and were compelled to admit ownership over the seized marijuana stuff which were placed on the
table. When they refused ownership, they were whisked into the detention cell and were charged with the instant case. 4
The trial court found sufficient evidence that CAPARAS committed the crime charged and is guilty thereof. Per testimony of poseurbuyer Jamisolamin, CAPARAS agreed to sell marijuana for a price of P1,000.00 per kilo and to deliver the contraband at the designated
time and place. Their agreement was consummated on 29 April 1997 when, on such date, CAPARAS arrived at West Avenue Hotel,
Quezon City, and showed to Jamisolamin the stack of marijuana loaded at the trunk of her car.5
The trial court struck down CAPARAS' defense of denial because of the positive and forthright assertions of the witnesses for the
prosecution who, being peace officers, were presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.6
However, the trial court was unconvinced of the criminal culpability of BETTY and CESAR as there was no competent evidence to show
that the former was the supplier and that the latter participated in the loading and selling of the forbidden merchandise. The trial court did
not give credence to the prosecution's theory that the accused conspired in the commission of the illicit activity as it considered the
character of evidence against them purely speculative.
Thus, in the decision of 23 March 1998, the trial court decreed as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Salvacion Caparas y De Castro a.k.a. "Cion," GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Sec.4, Republic Act 6425, as amended, and, there being no mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of P500, 000.00.
The period within which the accused Salvacion Caparas y De Castro a.k.a. "Cion" was detained at the City Jail shall be credited
to her in full as long as she agrees in writing to abide by and follow strictly the rules and regulations of the said institution.
The other two accused, Betty Cuba y Lubon a.k.a. "Betty" and Cesar Santos y Lucia a.k.a. "Cesar" for failure of the prosecution
to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, are hereby ACQUITTED. The said two accused are hereby ordered released from
detention unless they are being detained for another charge or lawful cause.
The bricks of marijuana (Exhs. "D" to "D-14"," Exhs. "E" to "E-12" and Exhs. "F" to "F-13") are hereby forfeited in favor of the
government. The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to safely deliver or cause the safe delivery of the said marijuana to the
Dangerous Drugs Board for safekeeping until the final disposition of this case.
The accused Salvacion Caparas y De Castro is hereby ordered to pay the costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.7
CAPARAS filed a notice of appeal on 7 April 1998.8 We accepted the appeal.
In her Appellant's Brief, CAPARAS assails the trial court's judgment of conviction because there was no showing that a sale of prohibited
drug took place. In support thereof, she argues that the prosecution has failed to establish that money or specifically "marked money" was
paid or exchanged hands between her and the supposed poseur-buyer. She theorizes that in a contract of sale the payment of the contract
price is essential to consummate the transaction. In this case, considering that there was no payment made, the contract of sale was not
consummated and inevitably the accused-appellant can not be convicted for the illegal sale of prohibited drug.
The prosecution prays that the conviction of CAPARAS be affirmed. It asserts that the undisputed facts on record sufficiently established
that on 29 April 1997 CAPARAS transported and delivered the marijuana to poseur-buyer Jamisolamin. Her argument that the nonpayment of the purchase price precludes the consummation of the transaction which thereby justifies her acquittal is untenable. Under
Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the law punishes the sale, transportation and delivery of prohibited

4
drugs. It is inconsequential that no payment of money was made to the seller, CAPARAS, by the poseur-buyer, Jamisolamin. Stated
differently, it is not a requisite to be convicted under the aforementioned law that the drug trafficker's act of selling is coupled with the
actual payment in money of the agreed consideration since the act of offering to sell a prohibited drug is per se punishable by law. At any
rate, it cannot be disputed that a completed sales transaction transpired between CAPARAS and the poseur-buyer Jamisolamin since there
was an agreement for the former to sell and deliver 39 kilos of marijuana for a cost of P1,000.00 per kilogram and the latter to buy the
marijuana at the agreed price. There was, therefore, a concurrence on the minds of the parties on the object and cause which thereby
perfected the contract of sale.
The appeal is without merit.
CAPARAS was charged with and convicted of the offense of transporting, delivering and selling prohibited drug defined and penalized
under Section 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The section reads:
SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. -- The penalty ofreclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Under this Section the act of selling or acting as broker in a sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime. 9 More
specifically, it punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by
the seller.10 It has been consistently ruled that the absence of 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. In every
prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of illicit
drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer.11 Thus, contrary to the theory of CAPARAS, proof of actual payment of money is
not an indispensable requisite to support a conviction for sale of prohibited drug. What is material in the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence.12
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove the fact of sale. The poseur-buyer Jamisolamin declared that on 19 April 1997
CAPARAS agreed to sell and deliver bricks of marijuana at P1,000 per kilo. On 29 April 1997, CAPARAS, pursuant to said agreement,
transported marijuana from Baguio City and delivered the same to Jamisolamin in Quezon City.13 The articles seized from CAPARAS per
results of the forensic examination were found positive for marijuana.14
The conviction of CAPARAS is therefore unassailable. He was caught red-handed or flagrante delicto of the prohibited articles. The
incriminatory evidence on record adequately established her guilt beyond moral certainty for the sale, transport and delivery of
marijuana.
It is apropos to mention that CAPARAS had not at anytime put in issue the validity of her arrest and the seizure of the contraband from
her possession. Neither did CAPARAS raise as an issue the identity of the prohibited articles proffered as incriminatory evidence against
her. CAPARAS relied heavily on her defense of denial in that she had not at anytime agreed to deliver or cause the delivery of the
marijuana to police officer Jamisolamin. She denied her meetings with him in spite of the positive and forthright testimony of the latter on
this point. Moreover, the insinuation that she was allegedly framed-up for the purpose of extorting a large sum of money is
unsubstantiated and cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of her criminal complicity.
At the bottom then of CAPARAS' assignment of error is the issue of credibility of witnesses. On this point, prudence and practical
considerations dictate that we, in the absence of a compelling reason showing that the trial court overlooked certain significant facts
which if considered would suffice to alter the result of the case, hesitate to lightly set-aside its evaluation and assessment on the credibility
of witnesses inasmuch as such undertaking is well within the province of the trial court.15 Finally, we find no cogent reason to be wary
about the truthfulness of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who are police officers and thus have in their favor the presumption
that they have performed their duties in a regular manner.16

5
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of 23 March 1998 of Branch 95, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q97-70944 convicting SALVACION CAPARAS y CASTRO is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 130836

August 11, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ARNEL C. MONTANO, accused-appellant.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City, finding accused-appellant Arnel C. Montano
guilty of violation of Art. III, 15 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P2 million and the costs of the suit.
The information 2 against accused-appellant alleged
That in the afternoon of (the) 22nd of January, 1996, in the municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
knowingly sell, distribute and/or deliver 229.7 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as 'shabu' which is a
regulated drug, without the corresponding license and/or legal authority to sell, distribute and/or deliver the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, whereupon he was tried.
The presentation of the testimony of the first witness for the prosecution, Forensic Chemist Demelen Dela Cruz of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), was dispensed with, as the defense entered into a stipulation with the prosecution concerning the following facts: (1)
that 229.7 grams of a white crystalline substance was submitted to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division for laboratory examination to
determine if it was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; (2) that a forensic examination was performed by the witness on the
substance submitted; (3) that the substance was found to be positive for shabu; and (4) that the substance was the same 229.7-gram
substance submitted for forensic examination by NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano. Accused-appellant denied, however, that the shabu had been
seized from him.3
The prosecution presented evidence showing that the shabu had been seized from accused-appellant, thus:
Sometime in the second week of January 1996, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano received a tip from a female confidential informant that the
accused-appellant was engaged in the distribution of shabu in Taguig, Metro Manila.4 Agent Rejano and the informant, therefore,
conducted a "test-buy" operation on January 18, 1996 at accused-appellant's residence at 104 N. P. Cruz St., Barangay Ususan, Taguig,
Metro Manila.5 When they arrived at the place, the female informant went inside the gate as Agent Rejano stayed behind. After thirty
minutes, the informant asked Agent Rejano to come in, and the two then proceeded along a roofed alley with concrete walls on both sides.
They entered a second gate where a store with a long bench was located. A woman, whom Agent Rejano came to know was accusedappellant's mother, tended the store.
At the gate, the informant introduced Agent Rejano to accused-appellant as a Chinese drug-user and a big-time buyer of shabu. While
Agent Rejano waited at the store, the informant went with accused-appellant in front of the latter's house about 15 meters away and

6
transacted business with him on the porch. Agent Rejano saw them sniffing something while seated on the metal chairs. After thirty
minutes, the informant returned to Agent Rejano and secretly told him that she already had the stuff from the accused-appellant.
Thereafter, they left and returned to the NBI office in Taft Avenue, Manila.1wphi1.nt
The stuff was submitted for forensic examination and was found to be shabu. After Agent Rejano reported to his superiors what transpired
during the operation, he was directed to conduct with the informant another "test-buy' operation on the accused-appellant in order to gain
the latter's trust and confidence. The plan was eventually to make him sell a larger amount of shabu to them.6
On January 19, 1996, Agent Rejano, together with the female informant and another intelligence agent, returned to accused-appellant's
house to purchase more shabu. Again, it was the informant who transacted with accused-appellant while Agent Rejano and the
intelligence agent stayed at the store. After half an hour, the informant returned and discreetly told them that she had with her the stuff
from accused-appellant and that the latter was willing to deliver 200 grams of shabu on January 22, 1996. Then, they left.
Upon arriving at the NBI, Agent Rejano made a request7 for the forensic examination of the crystalline substance purchased from
accused-appellant. Forensic Chemist II Emilia Andeo-Rosaldes issued a certification, 8 dated January 19, 1996, stating that the substance
submitted was shabu.9
On January 22, 1996, a team of NBI agents proceeded to Taguig, Metro Manila aboard three vehicles. About 100 meters away from the
target area, the buy-bust team, composed of Agent Reynaldo Esmeralda, Agent Regner Peneza, and the informant, took a tricycle to
accused-appellant's house, while the rest of the NBI operatives waited for a signal at a distance. Accused-appellant and his mother met the
buy-bust operatives. The informant informed accused-appellant that they already had the money and were ready to buy 250 grams
of shabu. Accused-appellant then led the group to an alley towards the kitchen outside his house. The informant introduced Agent Peneza
as her husband and Agent Esmeralda as the bodyguard of her employer, the Japanese financier. Accused-appellant's mother then served
the group some snacks, consisting of leche flan and softdrinks. Accused-appellant left them and, after a few minutes, returned with Hector
Tinga. Accused-appellant told the group to follow him. Accused-appellant's mother was left behind. They passed through a dark narrow
alley leading to an enclosed space at the back of accused-appellant's house. Tinga brought out two plastic packets of a white crystalline
substance and handed them to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant gave the packets to the informant who tested the contents by burning
a small amount using an improvised tooter. When the informant confirmed that the substance was shabu, accused-appellant asked for the
money.
Agent Esmeralda handed accused-appellant bundles of P100 bills. While the accused-appellant and Tinga were counting the money,
Agents Esmeralda and Peneza announced the arrest and handcuffed the two. Esmeralda radioed the other members of the NBI team to
proceed to the area.10 After the team secured the house, Agent Auralyn Pascual served the search warrant to the mother of accusedappellant. With two barangay officials as witnesses, the NBI agents recovered from the search, besides the two packets of white
crystalline substance, a tooter, a burner, aluminum foil, a pair of scissors, and a match. 11 The items were listed in the inventory of articles
seized which was signed by Agent Pascual and attested to by the barangay officials.12 Agent Pascual gave the mother of the accusedappellant a copy of the inventory.
The NBI team brought accused-appellant and Tinga to NBI Taft where they were booked and their photographs and fingerprints
taken.13 The two packets of white crystalline substance,14 marked as AM-1 and AM-2 respectively, and the improvised tooter15 seized
during the search were forwarded to the forensic chemistry laboratory for examination. 16 Accused-appellant and Tinga were brought to the
Department of Justice for inquest and then detained at the NBI Taft. The report on the forensic examination showed that the crystalline
substance, weighing 229.7 grams, was shabu. The tooter, however, was negative for shabu.17 Later, the Department of Justice, through
Prosecutor Ferdinand Abesamis, issued a Resolution, dated February 1, 1996,18 recommending the filing of an information only against
accused-appellant on account of the insufficiency of evidence against Tinga.19 HCacTI
Accused-appellant denied that there were "test-buy" operations conducted on him on January 18 and 19, 1996. His version of the incident
is as follows:
In the afternoon of January 18, 1996, while he was cleaning the passenger jeepney he was driving, a woman arrived and introduced
herself as "Solly." As she was looking for the residence of Hector Tinga, accused-appellant pointed to her the direction to the said house.
After a few minutes, Solly returned and told him that the gate was closed. She requested him to fetch Tinga. Accused-appellant said he

7
acceded to the request and that, after a while, Tinga came to meet the stranger. According to accused-appellant, Solly told him that she and
Tinga met in a nightclub in Ermita, and that she worked for a Japanese employer. Accused-appellant said that he got interested, because he
wanted to work abroad, and the stranger might be able to help him get employment overseas.
Accused-appellant testified that, on January 22, 1996 at around 2 p.m., Solly returned to his house with her husband and the bodyguard of
her Japanese employer. They proceeded directly to the "dirty" kitchen of his house without knocking at the unlocked gate. Accusedappellant said he did not inquire into the purpose of their visit because he assumed it was about his application for overseas employment.
They allegedly assured him that they would help him. He introduced them to his mother, who served them leche flan and softdrinks. Then,
his mother left to fetch his children and his nephew from school. After eating, Solly and her companions moved to the garden, also inside
the compound. Solly requested him to call Tinga. He was about to go, but he saw Tinga coming. Accused-appellant assumed that they
agreed to meet at his house. After greeting Tinga and telling him that Solly was waiting for him in the garden, he went inside the kitchen
to wash the dishes used by his visitors. Tinga and the visitors went inside his house and joined his children in watching television.
Accused-appellant asked Tinga if he could help him in securing an overseas job and Tinga told him he would. He claims that he went out
to get an electric fan for his visitors but, when he returned, he saw them already in the storage room at the back of his house. He stated
that he saw Tinga handing two bags of shabu to the "bodyguard," who turned out to be NBI Agent Esmeralda. According to accusedappellant, he told Tinga and the visitors that he might be implicated in the transaction, and that his mother would get angry because she
did not know that they were transacting shabu in his house. They assured him, however, that they would take care he did not get involved
in the deal. Then, he saw Solly's "husband," whom he later learned was Agent Peneza, handing over a bag of money to Tinga. It was then
that the NBI agents identified themselves and ordered him and Tinga, at gun point, to lie face down on the floor. He and Tinga were
handcuffed. He allegedly said, "Iyan na nga ba ang sinasabi ko tapos ito pa ang mapapala ko, kawawa naman ako." Accused-appellant
claimed he was kicked and was told that he would be "taken care of."
Aurora Montano, accused-appellant's mother, arrived and found her grandchildren running around. One of them told her that accusedappellant was handcuffed and lying face down on the floor. When his mother saw him and the NBI agents, she exclaimed, "Bakit ganito
ang nangyari? Akala ko ba tutulungan ninyo ang anak ko, ngayon ito pa ang mapapala namin." The NBI agents repeated to his mother
that they would "take care of him." Then, another group, presumably with the NBI team, arrived and took pictures of them. Accusedappellant and Tinga were brought out of the storage room. Still another group arrived with the barangay chairman, showed his mother a
search warrant, and conducted a search on the house. According to him, nothing was recovered from his house. He and Tinga were taken
to the NBI office for fingerprinting. Again, he was told that he would be "taken care of." He and Tinga were detained separately at the
NBI Taft. Later, he said he was surprised to learn that Tinga was released. Subsequently, he was transferred for detention to MMRC,
Camp Ricardo Papa, Bicutan.20
On cross-examination, accused-appellant testified that Solly approached him on January 18, 1996 because there was nobody else at that
time she could ask for direction to Tinga's house.21 He said he was not investigated at the NBI office but was only asked by Agent
Esmeralda as to who was the owner of the shabu.22
Aurora Montano, accused-appellant's mother, also testified for the defense. She stated that, on January 18, 1996, she was at their house
taking care of her grandchildren, but she denied that they had visitors that day. Likewise, she denied having any visitor at their house on
January 19, 1996. According to her, on January 22, 1996 at around 2 p.m., she went out of the house and saw her son, two men, and a
woman seated on the bench of their "dirty" kitchen along the passageway. She described the passage as 140 meters long, 2 1/2 meters
wide, six feet in height, with concrete walls on both sides, a roof, and three gates. According to her, the "dirty" kitchen was located 40
meters from their house and 100 meters away from the first gate. Her son introduced her to the visitors and requested her to prepare some
snacks for them. She overheard them talking about a recruitment agency in Japan. She remembered one of them was named "Boyet."
After serving them leche flan and softdrinks, she said she went out to fetch her grandchildren from school. When she arrived, her son and
his companions were not in sight. Then, a group of around twenty armed persons arrived and kicked their main and middle gates, shouting
"shabu, shabu." She told them there was no shabu in the house. After driving these people away, she went inside to look for her
grandchildren. Some of them were at the back of their house where their storeroom was located. She went to the storeroom through
another passage and found her son and Tinga with their arms raised. The visitors were also there and introduced themselves as NBI
operatives. The other NBI agents arrived after a few minutes. Her son and Tinga were brought to the porch and handcuffed. Afterwards,
another group arrived with the barangay chairman and showed her a search warrant. They conducted a search throughout the house but
they allegedly did not find anything. Then, the two were taken to the NBI office in Taft Avenue. 23

8
On cross-examination, she testified that she did not know the reason why her son, Tinga, and their visitors went to their storage room on
January 22, 1996. She did not even notice them going there but only found out that they did when she went and saw her grandchildren in
the storeroom. She testified that nobody could enter the storeroom without her son's permission. Aurora Montano admitted that she knew
Tinga was selling shabu but claimed that she could not forbid her son from associating with Tinga because they were neighbors. She said
she was surprised why Tinga was released while her son remained in detention and was the only one charged in court. She stated that
Tinga is the cousin of Congressman Dante Tinga.24
On August 29, 1997, the trial court rendered a decision,25 the dispositive portion of which reads:26
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Arnel C. Montano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Section 15, in relation to Section 20, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972. Said accused is hereby sentenced to: (a) suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, (b) pay a fine in the amount of Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), and (c) pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him (1) "despite its findings that the prohibited drug subject matter of
(the) case did not originate from appellant but from Hector Tinga"; (2) "despite the fact that he was singled out for prosecution in
violation of his right to equal protection of laws"; and (3) "on the basis of an alleged buy-bust operation when it was shown to have been
resorted to harass, extort and abuse."27 In the alternative, he prays that this Court find him guilty as an accomplice only, because he merely
handed to the poseur-buyers the drug which Tinga produced.28
We find these contentions without merit.
First. This Court has held that the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.29
Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, the evidence for the prosecution establishes these elements beyond reasonable doubt. NBI
Agents Esmeralda and Peneza positively identified accused-appellant as the person who, together with Tinga, sold to them two plastic
packets of a white crystalline substance.30 Accused-appellant was thus caught in flagrante delicto in the buy-bust operation conducted by
the NBI. The corpus delicti of the crime charged, i.e., the 229.7 grams of shabu, was duly established before the trial court.31 In fact,
accused-appellant, through his counsel, even admitted the same.32 He delivered the drug to the buy-bust team and payment for it was
made. The fact that the drug originally came from Tinga is immaterial. As held by this Court, proof of ownership of the drug is not
necessary in the prosecution of illegal drug cases. It is sufficient that it was found in accused-appellant's possession. 33
Indeed, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be denied that accused-appellant had possession of the 229.7 grams
of shabu. It was he who delivered the same to the NBI operatives after it was handed to him by Tinga. 34 After making the delivery, he and
Tinga asked for the payment.35
Second. Accused-appellant invokes the defense of alibi. He claims that he went out of his house to get an electric fan and only witnessed
the illegal transaction after his return and that he was merely implicated by the arresting, officers.
This defense is uncorroborated. Accused-appellant's mother testified that she too was out of the house at the time the buy-bust operation
was being conducted and that, when she came back, she saw her son and Tinga already under arrest.
We have consistently held that the defense of alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is weak, self-serving, and
without weight in law, and thus undeserving of consideration by the courts. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
prosecution witnesses who have no reason or ill motive to testify falsely against the accused-appellant. 36 In this case, the testimonies for
the prosecution are consistent, unequivocal, and replete with details of the transaction with accused-appellant, and, therefore, merit our
full faith and credence.37

9
Third. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties in favor of the arresting officers had not been sufficiently
controverted by accused-appellant; hence, this Court is bound to uphold the same.38 Except for his self-serving statements, accusedappellant failed to present evidence to establish that the buy-bust operation was "resorted to harass, extort and abuse." In a vain attempt to
establish his inculpability, he even questioned the validity of his arrest on account of the absence of a warrant. The fact, however, is that
accused-appellant was apprehended in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation against him and his arrest falls within the ambit of
Rule 113, 5(a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on arrests without a warrant. Indeed, this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust
operation is "a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Law."39 The validity of the arrest in this case must be sustained.
Fourth. Nor is there merit in accused-appellant's assertion that, because of the release of Hector Tinga, he is entitled to an acquittal. No
principle of equality justifies setting free a man who is otherwise guilty just because his co-conspirator escaped prosecution. Accusedappellant's guilt is not dependent on whether or not Tinga was similarly charged with the same offense. As discussed above, the evidence
against accused-appellant sufficiently establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, it cannot be denied that Agents Peneza and Esmeralda testified that Tinga, who brought out the sachets from his pocket and
counted the purchase money with accused-appellant, also directly participated in the sale. What should be done, therefore, is to let a copy
of the decision be given to the Department of Justice so that it may review its resolution in the case of Hector Tinga.
Alternatively, accused-appellant prays that he be held guilty merely as an accomplice. This cannot be done. Art. 18 of the Revised Penal
Code defines an accomplice as a person who, not being a principal in the commission of a felony, cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts. On the other hand, Art. 17 thereof provides that principals are: (1) those who take a direct part
in the execution of the act; (2) those who directly force or induce others to commit it; and (3) those who cooperate in the commission of
the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.40
The evidence shows that accused-appellant was indeed a principal in the commission of the crime charged in this case. Though it was
Tinga who produced the two plastic packets of shabu, it was accused-appellant who delivered the same to the buy-bust team. He was the
one who asked for payment, who received the same, and who counted it in the presence of the buy-bust team. It is undeniable that
accused-appellant directly participated in the illegal sale of the shabu. Consequently, his conviction must be upheld.1wphi1.nt
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City is AFFIRMED in toto.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Honorable Secretary of Justice for whatever action he may deem necessary to take in the case
of Hector Tinga.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Bellosillo, J ., is on leave.

G.R. No. 143944

July 11, 2002

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
BASHER BONGCARAWAN y MACARAMBON, accused-appellant.
PUNO, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 27, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 06, in Criminal Case No.
06-7542, finding accused Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Article III of

10
Republic Act No. 64252 as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.1wphi1.nt
Accused Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon was charged in an Information which reads, thus:
"That on or about March 13, 1999, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and
control eight (8) packs of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug commonly known as Shabu, weighing
approximately 400 grams, without the corresponding license or prescription.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended by RA 7659."3
During the arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.
Evidence for the prosecution shows that on March 11, 1999, an interisland passenger ship, M/V Super Ferry 5, sailed from Manila to
Iligan City. At about 3:00 a.m. on March 13, 1999, the vessel was about to dock at the port of Iligan City when its security officer, Mark
Diesmo, received a complaint from passenger Lorena Canoy about her missing jewelry. Canoy suspected one of her co-passengers at
cabin no. 106 as the culprit. Diesmo and four (4) other members of the vessel security force accompanied Canoy to search for the suspect
whom they later found at the economy section.4 The suspect was identified as the accused, Basher Bongcarawan. The accused was
informed of the complaint and was invited to go back to cabin no. 106. With his consent, he was bodily searched, but no jewelry was
found. He was then escorted by two (2) security agents back to the economy section to get his baggage. The accused took a Samsonite
suitcase and brought this back to the cabin. When requested by the security, the accused opened the suitcase, revealing a brown bag and
small plastic packs containing white crystalline substance. Suspecting the substance to be "shabu," the security personnel immediately
reported the matter to the ship captain and took pictures of the accused beside the suitcase and its contents. They also called the Philippine
Coast Guard for assistance.5 At about 6:00 a.m., Lt. Robert Patrimonio, YN Aurelio Estoque, CD2 Phoudinie Lantao and RM3 Merchardo
De Guzman of the Philippine Coast Guard arrived and took custody of the accused and the seized items--the Samsonite suitcase, a brown
bag6 and eight (8) small plastic packs of white crystalline substance.7 When asked about the contraband articles, the accused explained
that he was just requested by a certain Alican "Alex" Macapudi to bring the suitcase to the latter's brother in Iligan City.8 The accused and
the seized items were later turned over by the coast guard to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). Chief
Inspector Graciano Mijares and his men brought the accused to the PAOCTF Headquarters,9 while the packs of white crystalline
substance were sent to the NBI Regional Office in Cagayan de Oro City for laboratory examination. NBI Forensic Chemist Nicanor Cruz
later confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," weighing 399.3266 grams. 10
The accused testified and proffered his own version. On March 11, 1999, at about 10:00 p.m., he was in Quiapo, Manila where he met
Alican "Alex" Macapudi, a neighbor who has a store in Marawi City. He was requested by Macapudi to bring a Samsonite suitcase
containing sunglasses and watches to Iligan City, and to give it to Macapudi's brother at the Iligan port. He boarded the M/V Super Ferry
5 on the same night, carrying a big luggage full of clothes, a small luggage or "maleta" containing the sunglasses and brushes he bought
from Manila, and the Samsonite suitcase of Macapudi.11 He stayed at cabin no. 106. At about 4:00 a.m of March 13, 1999, as the vessel
was about to dock at the Iligan port, he took his baggage and positioned himself at the economy section to be able to disembark ahead of
the other passengers. There, he met a friend, Ansari Ambor. While they were conversing, five (5) members of the vessel security force and
a woman whom he recognized as his co-passenger at cabin no. 106 came and told him that he was suspected of stealing jewelry. He
voluntarily went with the group back to cabin no. 106 where he was frisked. Subsequently, he was asked to get his baggage, so he went
back to the economy section and took the big luggage and Macapudi's Samsonite suitcase. He left the small "maleta" containing
sunglasses and brushes for fear that they would be confiscated by the security personnel. When requested, he voluntarily opened the big
luggage, but refused to do the same to the Samsonite suitcase which he claimed was not his and had a secret combination lock. The
security personnel forcibly opened the suitcase and found packs of white crystalline substance inside which they suspected to be "shabu."
They took pictures of him with the merchandise, and asked him to sign a turn over receipt which was later given to the Philippine Coast
Guard, then to the PAOCTF.12
On December 27, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:

11
"WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal
of the offense of violation of Section 16, Art. III, R.A. No. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659 and hereby imposes upon him the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Having been under preventive imprisonment since March 13, 1999 until the present, the period of such preventive detention shall
be credited in full in favor of the accused in the service of his sentence.
The 399.3266 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is hereby ordered delivered to the National Bureau of
Investigation for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED."13
Hence, this appeal where the accused raises the following assignment of errors:
"I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SO HOLDING THAT THE DRUG CONFISCATED IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
AGAINST THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SO HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT OWNED THE CONFISCATED EVIDENCE AND
THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM."14
On the first assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that the Samsonite suitcase containing the methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu" was forcibly opened and searched without his consent, and hence, in violation of his constitutional right against
unreasonable search and seizure. Any evidence acquired pursuant to such unlawful search and seizure, he claims, is inadmissible in
evidence against him. He also contends thatPeople v. Marti15 is not applicable in this case because a vessel security personnel is deemed
to perform the duties of a policeman.
The contentions are devoid of merit.
The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. 16Evidence acquired in violation of
this right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 17 Whenever this right is challenged, an individual may choose between
invoking the constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search and seizure. It should be stressed, however, that
protection is against transgression committed by the government or its agent. As held by this Court in the case of People v. Marti,18 "[i]n
the absence of governmental interference, liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State." 19 The
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary
and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.20
In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-appellant was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found
"shabu" inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the suitcase and the
contraband items was therefore carried out without government intervention, and hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable
search and seizure does not apply.
There is no merit in the contention of the accused-appellant that the search and seizure performed by the vessel security personnel should
be considered as one conducted by the police authorities for like the latter, the former are armed and tasked to maintain peace and order.
The vessel security officer in the case at bar is a private employee and does not discharge any governmental function. In contrast, police
officers are agents of the state tasked with the sovereign function of enforcement of the law. Historically and until now, it is against them
and other agents of the state that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures may be invoked.

12
On the second assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that he is not the owner of the Samsonite suitcase and he had no
knowledge that the same contained "shabu." He submits that without knowledge or intent to possess the dangerous drug, he cannot be
convicted of the crime charged.21
We are not persuaded.
In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, viz: (1) that the
accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 22 The first two elements were sufficiently proven in this case, and
were in fact undisputed. We are left with the third.
As early as 1910 in the case of United States v. Tan Misa,23 this Court has ruled that to warrant conviction, the possession of dangerous
drugs must be with knowledge of the accused, or that animus possidendi existed together with the possession or control of such
articles.24 It has been ruled, however, that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. 25 Hence, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.26
In this respect, the accused-appellant has utterly failed. His testimony, uncorroborated, self-serving and incredulous, was not given
credence by the trial court. We find no reason to disagree. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on
appeal.27 Moreover, evidence must be credible in itself to deserve credence and weight in law. In this case, the accused-appellant admits
that when he was asked to get his baggage, he knew it would be inspected.28 Why he got the Samsonite suitcase allegedly not owned by
him and which had a combination lock known only to the owner remains unclear. He also claims that he did not present his small
"maleta" for inspection for fear that its contents consisting of expensive sunglasses and brushes would be confiscated, 29 but he brought the
Samsonite suitcase which is not his and also contained expensive sunglasses, and even watches. 30
The things in possession of a person are presumed by law to be owned by him.31 To overcome this presumption, it is necessary to present
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, the accused points to a certain Alican "Alex" Macapudi as the owner of the
contraband, but presented no evidence to support his claim. As aptly observed by the trial judge:
"First, who is Alex Macap[u]di aka Ali[c]an Macap[u]di? Does he really exist or simply a figment of the imagination? He says
that Alex Macap[u]di is a friend and a fellow businessman who has a stall selling sunglasses in Marawi City. But no witnesses
were presented to prove that there is such a living, breathing, flesh and blood person named Alex Macap[u]di who entrusted the
Samsonite to the accused. Surely, if he does exist, he has friends, fellow businessmen and acquaintances who could testify and
support the claim of the accused."32
Mere denial of ownership will not suffice especially if, as in the case at bar, it is the keystone of the defense of the accused-appellant.
Stories can easily be fabricated. It will take more than bare-bone allegations to convince this Court that a courier of dangerous drugs is not
its owner and has no knowledge or intent to possess the same.1wphi1.nt
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 06, in Criminal Case No. 06-7542, convicting accusedappellant Basher Bongcarawan of violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, is AFFIRMED.
Costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

13
YOLLY

TEODOSIO y BLANCAFLOR, petitioner, vs.

PHILIPPINES, respondents.

COURT

OF

APPEALS

and

PEOPLE

OF

THE

DECISION
CORONA, J.:
Before us is a petition for review of the decision[1] dated February 28, 1995 of the Court of Appeals[2] affirming with modification the
decision[3] dated January 18, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 109, convicting herein appellant Yolly
Teodosio of violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended.
Appellant was charged with selling and delivering regulated drugs in an Information that read:
That on or about the 6th day of August 1992, in Pasay City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused Yolly Teodosio Y Blancaflor, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and
deliver to another Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.
Contrary to law.[4]
During his arraignment on August 19, 1992, appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: SPO1 Jeffrey Inciong, SPO1 Emerson Norberte, Julita de Villa and Marita
Sioson.
The evidence of the prosecution showed that, after four days of surveillance on the house of appellant, at around 8:00 p.m. on
August 5, 1992, Chief Inspector Federico Laciste ordered a team from the PNP Regional Office Intelligence Unit to conduct a buy-bust
operation on appellant who was suspected of peddling regulated drugs known as shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride). The team was
headed by SPO1 Emerson Norberte and composed of SPO1 Jeffrey Inciong, SPO3 Roberto Samoy, SPO3 Pablo Rebaldo and SPO1
Rolando Llanes.[5]
About midnight, the team and their informer proceeded to the appellants house in Solitaria Street, Pasay City. SPO1 Jeffrey Inciong
and the informer entered the open gate of appellants compound and walked to his apartment while the rest of the team observed and
waited outside. At 12:10 a.m., the informer introduced Inciong to the appellant as a shabu buyer. Appellant told them that a gram
of shabu cost P600. When Inciong signified his intention to buy, appellant went inside his apartment while Inciong and the informer
waited outside. A few minutes later, appellant came out and said Swerte ka, mayroon pang dalawang natira (You are lucky. There are
two [grams] left). When Inciong told appellant that he only needed one gram, the latter gave him one plastic packet. In turn, Inciong
handed to appellant P600 or six pieces of P100 bills earlier treated with ultraviolet powder. After verifying the contents of the packet
as shabu,[6] Inciong gave the signal to the other police officers who witnessed the transaction. After introducing himself as a police officer,
Inciong, together with his companions, arrested appellant.[7]
The marked money bills,[8] the other packet of shabu[9] recovered from appellants right front pants-pocket and the buybust shabu were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination by forensic chemists Julita de Villa and Marita Sioson. Appellant
was also taken to the said laboratory to determine the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder. The results were positive in appellants
hands, the marked money bills and the right front pocket of his pants. [10] The buy-bust shabu and the contents of the other packet
recovered from appellant were also confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. [11]
For his defense, appellant, a driver by profession, claims that police officers raided his house without a search or arrest warrant.
When they found no drugs, they took a bag containing a large sum of money. To support his defense, the following witnesses were
presented: the appellant himself, Ulysses Ramos (appellants neighbor), Marilyn Teodosio (appellants wife) and Paul Teodosio
(appellants 10-year-old son).

14
Appellant, Marilyn Teodosio and Paul Teodosio alleged that, on August 5, 1992, they were sleeping in their bedroom on the second
floor of their apartment when they were suddenly awakened by a noise downstairs. Appellant went down and, while on the third step of
the stairs, he met three policemen on their way up. Their guns were pointed at him. One of the three inquired from him where he kept
his shabu but he denied having any. The three then searched appellants room on the second floor but did not find any shabu. Instead, they
took an overnight bag from a locked cabinet which they forcibly opened. The bag contained $7,260 and approximatelyP40,000 belonging
to the appellants niece who was scheduled for a heart operation. After appellant was arrested by six police officers, he was dragged,
slapped and punched in the stomach. As he was being forcibly taken out of his apartment, SPO3 Samoy fired a gun near his ear. On their
way to his detention cell in Bicutan, Taguig, his hands were handcuffed behind his back. Appellant felt and saw the police officers
rubbing P100 bills on his hands.[12]
Defense witness Ulysses Ramos testified that, after the arrest of appellant, his wife called for police assistance. Two police officers
responded while appellants son Paul took pictures [13] of the broken door and their ransacked apartment. Thereafter, his wife and Marilyn
Teodosio went to the police station and formally reported the incident.[14]
On January 18, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which read:
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Yolly Teodosio guilty beyond reasonable doubt for (sic) violation of
Section 15, Art. III of RA 6425 as amended and hereby sentences him to life imprisonment.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride is hereby forfeited in favor of the government and the Clerk of Court of this Branch is hereby
ordered to transmit the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board thru the National Bureau of Investigation for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
Pasay City, January 18, 1993.[15]
In convicting appellant, the trial court relied on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were officers of
the law without any ill-motive to testify falsely against him. In the absence of proof to the contrary, there was a presumption of regularity
in the performance of their official functions. The trial court gave no credence to the claim that the police officers stole a bag containing a
large sum of money, considering the failure of appellants niece to file a case or even complain against the officers. Also, for the reason
that they were biased witnesses, the trial court junked the claim of appellants wife and son that the police officers illegally raided their
apartment.
Ramos testimony was given little weight because he did not actually see the police officers go in and out of the apartment.
Furthermore, the trial court dismissed appellants claim of a frame-up because this defense, like alibi, could be fabricated with facility and
was therefore an inherently weak defense unless proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also wondered how the appellant
could have seen the officers rubbing money on his handcuffed hands behind his back. It also took note of the fact that the appellant, a
driver by profession, attempted to cover up his ownership of the 190 square-meter lot and the three-door apartment thereon worth
about P300,000.[16]
In view of the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment, the appeal was originally brought to us. However, the Second Division
of this Court ordered the transfer of this case to the Court of Appeals in accordance with our ruling in People vs. Simon y
Sunga [17] wherein we held that RA 7659 which amended RA 6425, effective December 31, 1993, should be given retroactive application
in so far as the amended and reduced imposable penalties provided therein are favorable to the appellant. Section 17 of RA 7659 [18] states
that the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua, depending on the quantity of the drug. In the present case, the
amount of shabu sold by appellant was only 0.73 gram, thus the penalty of reclusion perpetua could not be imposed. Such being the case,
the appeal should have been filed in the Court of Appeals and not in this Court because we can only exercise exclusive appellate
jurisdiction over criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.[19]
The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated February 28, 1995, affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant but
modified the penalty imposed, as follows:

15
Finally, even as We agree on the findings of the lower court on the guilt of the appellant for a Violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic
Act 6425, as amended, considering the application of Section 17 of RA 7659, the penalty imposed should be reduced to Ten (10) years of
Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Twenty (20) Years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, except for the modification of the penalty, as above indicated (sic), the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED, in all
other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.[20]
Agreeing with the factual findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeals gave more weight to the prosecutions claim that the
entrapment operation in fact took place outside the appellants apartment. The appellate court gave no merit to appellants assertion that
no warrant was secured despite four days of surveillance. It described as minor the appellants observations of alleged inconsistencies in
the prosecutions version of events.
Hence, this appeal based on the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED CERTAIN MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS IN
ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDING THAT THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION CONDUCTED WITHOUT A SEARCH
WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER.
II
BOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION IN
ADMITTING THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE WHICH WAS EITHER PROCURED FROM AN ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS
RAID OR FABRICATED BY THE RAIDING POLICEMEN.
III
THE LOWER COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT SUBJECTION OF PETITIONER TO
ULTRA-VIOLET POWDER TEST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS VIOLATIVE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.
IV
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SAD TO SAY, DISREGARDED AND IGNORED THE INHERENT AND NATURAL
BIAS AND PREJUDICE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, HER HONOR, JUDGE LILIA LOPEZ, AGAINST PERSONS CHARGED OF (SIC)
DRUG OFFENSES AS DULY NOTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN PEOPLE VS. SILLO, 214 SCRA 74.
V
THE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONVICTION. [21]
In short, appellant insists that the police officers forcibly entered and searched his house without a warrant. When they did not find
any regulated drug, they instead took a bag containing a large sum of money. They also showed their brutality by slapping him and
punching him in the stomach. Thereafter, they framed up appellant by wiping ultraviolet powder on his palms.
We affirm appellants conviction.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are to be
respected when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned

16
from such findings.[22] Such findings carry even more weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar. The
alleged flaws pointed out by appellant are not enough for us to reverse the factual findings of the courts a quo.
The police officers were clear and categorical in their narration of how the entrapment operation was conducted. SPO1 Inciong,
acting as a poseur-buyer, was introduced by the informer to appellant in front of the latters apartment. Thereafter, appellant went inside
his apartment and came back with two packets of shabu. Inciong handed to appellant six pieces of P100 bills treated with ultra-violet
powder in exchange for one packet of shabu. Immediately after, Inciong gave the signal to the other policemen who then entered the
compound and effected appellants arrest. Recovered from appellant was the other packet of shabu and the six pieces of marked money.
The tests conducted on these pieces of evidence, appellants hands and right front pants-pocket showed that appellant was the same person
who sold the drugs to police officer Inciong. There was strong evidence therefore, certainly beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant was
engaged in drug-dealing.
The elements of the crime were duly proven. In the prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, what is material is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[23]
On the other hand, appellant insists he was framed up for possession of shabu after the search in his apartment produced no illegal
drugs. Frame-up, a usual defense of those accused in drug-related cases, is viewed by the Court with disfavor since it is an allegation that
can be made with ease. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption
that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[24]
However, appellant was unable to prove he was the victim of a frame up. First, appellant failed to show any motive why the police
officers would illegally raid his house. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the persons in authority
was never overcome. Second, if indeed they broke into his apartment and took an overnight bag containing a hefty amount, appellant or
any of his family members should have filed a criminal complaint against the supposed malefactors but they did not. This weakened the
defenses story that the police officers stormed and robbed appellants apartment. Third, appellant testified that, after the search
for shabu proved futile, the police officers dragged and slapped him, and punched him in the stomach. However, appellant never filed a
case for physical injuries against the arresting officers. No medical certificate was presented to show his alleged injuries. He never even
complained about it to anybody.
To prove his allegation that the arresting officers raided his apartment, appellant quoted officer Inciongs testimony that his
(Inciongs) informant introduced him to Yolly Teodosio specifically at the house of Yolly Teodosio. Appellants argument is misplaced.
The preposition at merely signifies that Inciong was within the vicinity of appellants apartment. There is nothing in it from which we
can infer that Inciong entered appellants abode. Moreover, the statement must be taken in conjunction with the rest of his testimony
which unequivocally showed that the transaction happened in front of the door of appellants apartment, not inside.
Appellant also cites in his defense the police blotter of the Investigation Branch of the Pasay City Police Station: [25]
xxx.
It was learned that on or about 11:45 p.m. 05 August 1992, a group of RPIU Operatives headed by SPO3 Emerson Norberte went inside
the room of 421-C Apartment by forcing to open it and the owner / occupant was brought with them, who was identified as YOLLY
TEODOSIO.
xxx.
Unfortunately for appellant, the police blotter does not support his version because entries in police blotters, although done in the
regular course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth stated in such entries and should not be given
undue significance or probative value. They are usually incomplete and inaccurate. Sometimes they are based on partial suggestion or
inaccurate reporting and hearsay, untested in the context of a trial on the merits.[26]
Appellant furthermore points out the discrepancies in the testimonies and the joint affidavit of arrest executed by officers Inciong
and Norberte. First, the affidavit stated that the second packet of shabu was recovered from appellants pants-pocket but the officers

17
testimony in court was that it was recovered from appellants hands. Second, the affidavit stated that the informer acted as the poseurbuyer but the policemen testified in court that Inciong was the poseur-buyer.
The established rule is that discrepancies between the affidavit of a witness and his testimony in court do not necessarily discredit
him because it is a matter of judicial experience that affidavits, being taken ex-parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate.
Besides, the testimonial discrepancies may be due to the natural fickleness of memory; this in fact tends to strengthen, rather than weaken,
credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[27]
In an attempt to weaken the prosecutions case, appellant also cites several inconsistencies in the narration of events.
According to appellant, SPO1 Norberte testified that it was SPO1 Inciong who knocked at the door, contrary to Inciongs own
testimony that it was the informer who knocked at the door. This is, however, a minor matter that does not affect the substance of the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Minor variances in the details of a witness account, more frequently than not, are badges of
truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony.[28]
Also, according to appellant, the prosecution witnesses testified that the total weight of the confiscated shabu was 2 grams but its
actual weight was only 0.73 grams. It must be remembered that during the drug deal, it was appellant who led officer Inciong to believe
that each packet of shabu he was selling weighed 1 gram. Inciong, under the circumstances, had no opportunity to verify the actual weight
of the drug. Thus, the discrepancy did not in anyway weaken the credibility of Inciongs testimony that appellant was selling a prohibited
drug.
Appellant likewise attacks SPO1 Norbertes credibility. Norberte claimed that he wrote the serial numbers of the marked money
bills after the operation; however, he later declared that he listed the numbers in the logbook before the buy-bust operation. There is no
contradiction. Norberte never said that he wrote the serial numbers after the operation. On the contrary, what he said was that he wrote the
numbers prior to the buy-bust.[29]
Appellant likewise points out several instances of improbable behavior in the prosecutions version of the facts. Appellant believes it
is not a discreet and wary behavior of a pusher to bring two packets of shabu after closing a deal for only one packet with an unknown,
newly-introduced buyer. Likewise, it is unnatural for a drug pusher to shout while being arrested. His natural tendency is to hush things up
so as not to attract the neighbors attention. Appellant also swears that he could not have held the money bills because the traces of the
powder were only in the thumb and forefinger. This means that he held some sort of a cylindrical object but not money. Moreover, it was
unnatural for SPO1 Inciong to be the poseur-buyer instead of the informant considering the caution practiced by pushers in selling only to
customers known to them. And, contrary to standard procedure, the police officers did not issue any receipt for the shabu and money bills
confiscated from appellant. Lastly, the police authorities had four days to secure a search and arrest warrant but they did not get one.
We dismiss all of appellants observations as pure nonsense and inanity that did not in anyway affect the clear and unequivocal
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. No physical or testimonial evidence was presented during the trial to support his allegations. If
there was anything such gratuitous statements proved, it was that appellant appeared to be extremely familiar with the intricacies and
practices of drug dealers.
As to his allegation that he never held any money bills treated with ultra-violet powder, we note his failure to rebut the unimpeached
testimony of forensic chemist Julita de Villa that the yellow ultraviolet powder in the money bills was the same yellow powder found in
his fingers.
His argument that the prosecutions case was weakened by the fact that the police officers did not issue a receipt for the confiscated
drugs and money bills, is stretching things too far. Issuing such a receipt is not essential to establishing a criminal case for selling drugs
as it is not an element of the crime.
On the argument that the officers had four days to secure a warrant but did not get one, the evidence was that the four-day period
was not enough to establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. All that the police authorities knew about appellant was the
information gathered from the informer and their surveillance of the area. Furthermore, no warrant was needed considering that the
mission was not a search but an entrapment. An arrest made after an entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a

18
valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. [30] Any search resulting from a lawful warrantless arrest
is valid because the accused committed a crime in flagrante delicto, that is, the person arrested (appellant in this case) committed a crime
in the presence of the arresting officers.[31]
On another constitutional issue, appellant alleges that his right against self-incrimination was violated when he was subjected to
ultra-violet powder test without the presence of a lawyer. We disagree. In People vs. Gallarde,[32] we held that:
The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not
included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not
required. (People vs. Olvis, et al., 154 SCRA 513 [1987]) The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion,
that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. (People vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992]; People vs. Tranca,
235 SCRA 455 [1994]; People vs. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 [1999]) Hence, it has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be
compelled to submit to physical examination to determine her pregnancy; (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 [1920]) and an accused may
be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for medical determination as to whether he
was suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim;(U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 [1912]) to expel morphine from his
mouth; (U.S. vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]) to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody footprints;
(U.S. vs. Salas, 25 Phil. 337 [1913]; U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 [1921]) and to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes
removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.(People vs. Otadora, et al., 86 Phil. 244 [1950])
Appellant also questions the impartiality of Judge Lilia Lopez who allegedly had an inherent bias against persons facing drug
charges. We seriously doubt the fairness of the accusation. Nevertheless, it is now too late for the appellant to raise this defense because
the good judges impartiality was never questioned during the trial and the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moreover, no evidence was
presented on any specific act manifesting partiality against appellant.
We now determine whether the appellate court imposed the proper penalty on appellant. In the 1994 case of People vs. Simon y
Sunga,[33] the proper penalties for drug-related crimes under RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, were clarified. The appropriate penalty
is reclusion perpetua if the quantity of the drug weighs 750 grams or more. If the drug weighs less than 250 grams, the penalty to be
imposed is prision correccional; from 250 grams to 499 grams, prision mayor; and, from 500 grams to 749 grams, reclusion temporal.[34]
Since appellant was caught selling 0.73 grams of shabu only, the proper penalty should be no more than prision correccional. There
being neither generic mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the penalty ofprision correccional shall be imposed in its medium period.
And applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree which
is arresto mayor. No fine is imposable in this case because appellants penalty is not reclusion perpetua or death.[35] Pursuant to our
jurisprudence on the sale of less than 1 gram of shabu,[36] we therefore impose the penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum to 4
years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 28, 1995 of the Court of Appeals convicting herein appellant Yolly Teodosio for the
sale of 0.73 grams of shabu is hereby AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATION that the penalty of imprisonment imposable on appellant
should be the indeterminate sentence of 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as
maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 131872-73

February 17, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CHEN TIZ CHANG and CHENG JUNG SAN a.k.a. Willy Tan, accused-appellants.

19
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Because prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the "buy-bust"
operation, the Court relies on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the
discretion of the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying. Hence, its
factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements
of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. Once the elements of the crime are established, the hackneyed defense
of frame-up or "hulidap" must be clearly proven by the appellants. Again, the defense being factual, its tenability depends largely on the
trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused. In the present appeal, the defense has failed to
convince us that the trial court's Decision should be disbelieved or modified, much less reversed. On the contrary, we believe that the said
Decision is clear, convincing and correct.1wphi1.nt
The Case
Before the Court is an appeal by Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San, also known as Willy Tan,1 challenging the October 16, 1997
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 95) in Criminal Case No. Q-96-68250-51, finding them guilty
of illegal possession and sale of shabu3 and sentencing each of them to two counts of reclusion perpetua. The decretal portion of said
Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the following:
1. In Crim. Case No. Q-96-68250, the Court finds both accused, Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San a.k.a. Willy Tan, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of [v]iolation of Sec. 15, Rep. Act 6425, as amended by Rep Act. 7659, and hereby
sentences each one of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a FINE of one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos each; and,
2. In Crim. Case No. Q-96-68251, the Court finds both accused, Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San a.k.a. Willy Tan, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of [v]iolation of Sec. 16, Rep. Act 6425, as amended by Rep. Act. 7659 and hereby
sentences each one of them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a FINE of one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos each.4
On November 4, 1996, two separate Informations were filed5 against both appellants. The first, charging them with selling or offering to
sell shabu, is reproduced below:
The undersigned accuses CHEN TIZ CHANG and CHEN JUNG SAN a.k.a. WILLY TAN [of] violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, in
rel. to Sec. 2 (e), (f), (m), to), Art. I of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by P.D. No. 1683, committed as follows:
That on or about the 31st day of October, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any
regulated drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale 2,017.7 grams [of] white crystalline substance
known as "SHABU" containing methampethamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.6
The other Information indicted them for possession and/or use of shabu and is worded as follows:
The undersigned accuses CHEN TIZ CHANG and CHEN JUNG SAN [of] violation of Sec. 16, Art. III in relation to Section 2
(e) (2), Article 1 of R.A. 6425, committed as follows:
That on or about the 31st day of October, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating with and
mutually helping each other did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess and/or use 943.5 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) a regulated drug, without the necessary license and/or prescription therefor, in violation
of said law.7

20
When arraigned on November 12, 1996, appellants pleaded8 not guilty.9 The Motion for Bail, filed on November 27, 1996,10 was denied
by the court a quo on February 17, 1997.11 In an Order dated June 23, 1997,12 it also denied their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
After due trial, it promulgated its assailed Decision.
Hence, this appeal.13
The Facts
The Prosecutor's Version
In its Brief,14 the Office of the Solicitor General presents the prosecution's version of the facts in this wise:
Prior to October 31, 1997, Police Superintendent Allan Purisima, commander of Task Force Spider, NCRPO, Camp Bagong
Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila received reliable information about illegal activities of Chinese nationals, particularly the sale of
shabu. Upon receipt of such classified information, Police Superintendent Purisima ordered the surveillance of two (2) Chinese
nationals who were reportedly members of a drug syndicate. With the assistance of an informant, members of Task Force Spider
were able to establish contact with suspected members of the drug syndicate (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 7), two (2) of whom
are herein appellants.
In the early morning of October 31, 1996, through the informant, members of Task Force Spider were able to get in touch with
appellants with a use of a cellular phone and negotiate a drug deal with them. Appellant agreed to deliver and sell two (2) kilos of
shabu at the parking lot of the Maalikaya Health Palace located at Quezon Avenue, Quezon City (Ibid., 7).
PO2 Hilarion Juan, a member of Task Force Spider, testified that on October 31, 1996, at 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Police
Superintendent Allan Purisima conducted a briefing at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila. The subject of the briefing
was the buy-bust operation involving the sale of shabu by appellants at the Maalikaya Health Palace parking lot at Quezon City
(Ibid., 5-7; TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 4). The members of the task force were assigned to observe and monitor the suspects at
Maalikaya Health Palace (TSN, December 16, 1998, p. 3-4). The briefing, which lasted for around 30 minutes, was attended by
four police officers, namely: PO2 Hilarion Juan, SPO2 Jesus Bernal Camacho, SPO2 Bernardino Lagdameo and PO2 Jose
Bernadino Jr. (Ibid., 5-6). PO2 Hilarion Juan was designated to act as the poseur-buyer together with the informant, while the
three (3) other police officers were tasked to position themselves at some distance from the poseur-buyers and assist in the buybust operation (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 7).
After the briefing, the members of the team prepared the buy-bust money made of genuine P100.00 peso bills and P500.00 peso
bills in the amount P700,000.00, while the rest were photocopied money (Ibid., 7), all of which totaled P2,000,000.00 (TSN,
April 8, 1997, p. 9). From their office at Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila, they proceeded to the Maalikaya Health Palace, in
Quezon City.
At 11:00 o'clock that morning, PO2 Juan, the informant and other police officers positioned themselves at the Maalikaya Health
Palace parking area. After thirty (30) minutes, a red-colored Daihatsu Feroza bearing plate No. TBU-479 (Exhibits "L" to "L-3")
(hereinafter described as Feroza) arrived with the appellants on board (TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 5). PO2 Juan and the
informant approached appellants who were then on board the Feroza. Appellants conversed with PO2 Juan (TSN, December 16,
1996, p. 6) and the informant introduced PO2 Juan to appellants as an interested buyer (TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 8). Chen
Jung San left the place and drove the Feroza towards EDSA while Chen Tiz Chang was left behind (TSN, December 16, 1996,
pp. 6-7). Later, the Feroza reappeared (Ibid., pp. 5-7). Appellant Chen Tiz Chang emerged from the Feroza and initiated
conversation about the sale of shabu (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 11).
The informant instructed PO2 Juan to hand over the suitcase containing buy-bust money to Chen Tiz Chang (Ibid., pp. 11-12)
which Juan did and in return Chen Tiz Chang handed to PO2 Juan a black bag (Exhibit "D") which contained 2 plastic
transparent bags of shabu (Ibid., 12). (Exhibits "E" and "F"). After the exchange, PO2 Juan opened the black bag (Exhibit "D"),
examined the two (2) plastic bags (Ibid., id) and signaled his companions to approach him. PO2 Juan introduced himself as a
police officer (Ibid., 13) and tried to arrest appellant Chen Tiz Chang who, after Juan took hold of him, resisted (Ibid., 13-14).

21
Appellant Chen Tiz Chang was able to free himself from PO2 Juan and ran towards a nearby car about five (5) meters away from
where the buy-bust operation took place, and passed the suitcase containing the buy-bust money to an unidentified person on
board (Ibid., 14). Then, the car sped away with the buy-bust money (ibid., id; TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 7). Due to Chen Tiz Chang's
attempt to evade arrest (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 14) a commotion ensued prompting the three (3) other members of the team
to respond in order to assist PO2 Juan in subduing Chen Tiz Chang (TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 7, 16). The three (3) other police
officers who were positioned about 5 to 10 meters away (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 13), after announcing themselves as police
officers (TSN, December 16, 1996, pp. 8-9), helped PO2 Juan in affecting the arrest of Chen Tiz Chang by handcuffing him
(TSN, December 18, 1998, p. 14). The police officers could not pursue the person [i]n the vehicle with the buy-bust money,
because the team was only composed of four members (TSN, December 18, 1998, p. 15) and between the money and the shabu
recovered from appellants, the police officers chose to ensure the custody of the shabu which would be used as evidence against
appellant (TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 18). PO2 Juan observed that the unidentified person who fled with the buy-bust money was
already at the parking area when the members of the Task Force Spider arrived for the buy-bust operation (TSN, December 18,
1998, p. 15). As PO2 Juan and SPO2 Camacho took Chen Tiz Chang to the Feroza, the other members of the team, namely,
SPO2 Bernardito Lagdameo and PO2 Jose Bernardito Jr., were posted by the Feroza to guard the other passenger, appellant Chen
Jung San, who himself had been arrested (TSN, December 18, 1996, 15). The police officers searched the Feroza and found
underneath the driver's seat another plastic bag containing shabu weighing 943.5 grams [Exhibit "G"] (Ibid., 16). Whereupon,
appellants, the seized shabu and the Feroza were brought to the office of the Task Force Spider (Ibid., 17) for investigation. The
team turned over appellants to SPO2 Lagdameo. Then, the police officers executed a Joint Affidavit of Apprehension (Exhibits
"K" to "K2") and prepared the routine Booking Sheet Information Sheet and Arrest Report (Exhibits "M" to "M-1" and "N" to
"N-1"). The following day they prepared the corresponding letter to the NBI requesting examination of the shabu they had
recovered (Exhibits "E", "F" and "G").
Aida Pascual, Forensic Chemist in the Forensic Chemistry Division of the National Bureau of Investigation, testified that on
November 1, 1996, at 1:10 p.m., she received from the Task Force Spider headed by Police Superintendent Purisima a letter
request dated November 1, 1996, (Exhibit "B", "B-1", TSN, December 9, 1996, pp. 9-10) with [the] stamp mark of the Forensic
Chemistry Division indicating that the following specimens had been received for examination (Ibid., 9-11): two (2) kilos of
white crystalline substance placed in transparent plastic packs marked CTC-1, (Exhibit "E") to CTC-2 (Exhibit "F"), and
approximately one (1) kilo of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu contained in one (1) transparent plastic pack
marked CJS (Exhibit "G") placed in a black bag (Exhibit "D") (Ibid., 13) which was in turn wrapped and sealed in an improvised
brown bag with the markings DD-96-5012, DD-96-5013 re: Chen Tiz Chang; Chen Jung San; 11/1/96 (Ibid., 11). The letter
request was delivered to the NBI by PO2 Jose Bernardino, Jr. (Exhibit "B-2").
Aida Pascual weighed each of the specimens and recorded them as follows: Exhibit "E"-971.7 grams; Exhibit "F"-1,946 grams,
Exhibit "G".-943.5 grams (Ibid., 16), all of which were subjected to chemical and chromatographic examination by extracting
representative samples from each specimen and spotting it on a chromatographic plate (Ibid., 17), and then comparing it with the
chromatographic plate spotted with a known methamphetamine hydrochloride (Ibid., 32). On the same date, she issued her
Certification (Exhibits "H" to "H-2") detailing her findings on the specimens which were found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug. On November 6, 1996, she issued Dangerous Drugs Report No. Dd-96-5012 (Exhibit "I" to "I4"; Ibid., 21) indicating therein her findings that the substance contained in the two (2) transparent plastic bags with a total
weight of 2,017.7 grams (Exhibits "E" and "F") and respectively marked as CTC-1 and CTC-2 were found positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. She also issued Dangerous Drugs Report No. DD-96-5013 (Exhibits "J" to
"J-4") where she indicated that the substance found in the transparent plastic bag marked as CJS (Exhibit "G") which weighed
943.5 grams was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.15
The Defense's Version
On the other hand, the appellants16 narrated the facts in this manner:
The cases at bar involve the much talked about and most commonly utilized method of apprehending alleged drug users and
pushers by the law enforcing personalities, the so-called "buy-bust" operation.

22
Accused-appellant Chen Tiz Chang is a Taiwanese businessman engaged in the manufacture of watches and in the export and
import of rattan products and seafoods. Sometime in October, 1996, he came to the Philippines from Taiwan, for a business
venture and . . . he was to charter an airplane together with his business associates from Manila to Marshall Islands for the
purpose of looking for supplies of seafoods to be shipped to Japan and Taiwan. In support of these claims, he presented several
documents issued by the government of Taiwan (Exhs. "15" to "21" to inclusive of submarkings.)
The other accused-appellant, Chen Jung San, is a nephew of Chen Tiz Chang, and is likewise in the Philippines to pursue a
business of melting scrap coppers and mold[ing] the same into other products like water pipes. He started this business in 1993 in
association with some business partners but did not register his outfit in his name because of his Taiwan citizenship. He was
involved [a] great deal with the technical side of his business concerns, the management of the affairs of his business being
undertaken by his other partners. He had his company situs at Sta. Rosa, Marilao, Bulacan. He is married to a Filipina [with] the
name of Ma. Luisa Santos with whom he has a son and was living with her in Caloocan City up to the time of his arrest.
On October 30, 1996 at 11:00 a.m., the two accused-appellants went to the Maalikaya Health Complex along Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City on board a Feroza car which was borrowed from a friend of accused-appellant Chen Jung San. They were to have
lunch with a friend of Chen Tiz Chang, a certain Mr. Chua, who was at the nearby Mayflower restaurant along Timog Avenue,
Quezon City. Said Mr. Chua called up accused-appellant Chen Tiz Chang advising him to wait for him for a while. It was while
waiting for the arrival of Mr. Chua at the parking lot of Maalikaya Health Complex that three (3) unidentified males suddenly
arrived and poked their guns at the two accused-appellants. With nary a word, both accused-appellant[s] were handcuffed and
were forced to board a vehicle en route to the Anito Lodge along EDSA.
While they were held in captivity inside the motel, some of the valuables of the accused-appellants were taken by their captors
like an 18-karat gold Rolex watch studded with diamonds worth P3,000,000.00 belonging to accused-appellant Chen Tiz Chang,
a cell-phone of Chen Jung San, and some cash. Whereupon, these supposed arresting officers demanded P20,000,000.00 from
the two accused-appellants in exchange for their freedom, with the threat that should they fail, they [would] pursue the charges
against them.
In the afternoon of the following day, at about 4:00 p.m., after their plea for release was refused and their inability to produce the
demanded amount became more real, they were brought to the office of the Task Force Spider where they were ordered not to
talk to anybody, and if someone would ever ask what [was] their business in that office, they would just say, "to visit a friend".
Chen Tiz Chang was then ordered by these "officers" to call up his wife in Taiwan or anybody who could put up the necessary
amount demanded by the men of Task Force Spider to buy their freedom. But because the two accused-appellants could not
really come up with the demanded amount, they were told that they [would] be charged for violation of the Dangerous Drugs law
and were thereupon brought to a room where several media men with cameras feasted on them.
Thus, the two helpless and ill-fated accused were finally charged and brought to court to answer the charges they ha[d] never
probably dreamt of committing.17
The Trial Court's Ruling
In convicting appellants, the trial court relied on the testimonies of PO2 Hilarion Juan and SPO2 Jesus Camacho. It dismissed the
inconsistencies in their testimonies as trivial. It likewise excused the non-presentation in court of the buy-bust money, which was not
indispensable to the prosecution of the case. Upholding the prosecution, the lower court explained as follows:
Culled from the evidence, the Court rules that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
The prosecution witnesses, specifically PO2 Hilarion Juan, categorically and candidly related to the Court [the] circumstances
that led to the buy-bust operation involving the two (2) accused. Al[though] it may appear surprising that the P700,000.00 buybust money was never recovered as the same was allegedly taken away by another person riding in another vehicle, the same
does not in [any way] affect the credibility of PO2 Juan. Persons in illegal drug activities, in view of the risk and the large
amount of money involved, now adopt ways and means in order to ensure a successful operation and protect the buy money. It is

23
not, therefore, surprising for drug pushers to employ other persons (not usually known to would be buyers) who are tasked to
protect the buy-bust money in case something wrong might take place during the sale, like in these cases where the accused were
apprehended. In fact, newspaper accounts show that drug pushers, although already behind bars, are still able to continue to ply
their wares inside the detention cells with the use of cellular phones and even computers.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Furthermore, the non-presentation of the buy-bust money does in any way prejudice the cause of the prosecution. In a catena of
cases, the Honorable Supreme Court has ruled that the non-presentation of the buy-bust money is not indispensable in the offense
of "Drug Pushing" as long as there is actual delivery of the drugs as what happened in these case. . . .
The Court s not likewise persuaded that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution's principal witness. PO2 Hilarion
Juan, cast doubt on his credibility. For if indeed there were inconsistencies, the same refer to trivial matters not sufficient to
tarnish the credibility of his testimony in fact, they serve to strengthen the credibility of his testimony . . .
xxx

xxx

xxx

The seeming contradiction between the testimony of PO2 Hilarion Juan that accused Chen Tiz Chang was the one who delivered
the shabu and accused Chen Jung San remained in the vehicle and the testimony of PO2 Jesus Camacho that it was accused Chan
Tiz Chang who remained in the vehicle and accused Chen Jung San was the one who delivered the stuff, does not substantially
affect the credibility of PO2 Juan, the pos[eu]r-buyer. Except for this inconsistency, all the other material and substantial
testimonies of these two (2) witnesses corroborate each other. Hence, the above-stated statements of the two (2) prosecution
witnesses should not be considered to impair the credibility of each other's testimony considering that their testimonies are
identical in all other aspects and they establish the essential requirements/elements of the offenses with the two (2) accused
participating in the commission of the offenses.
xxx

xxx

xxx

The defense of denial of the accused cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses, as denial is a selfserving negative evidence.
xxx

xxx

xxx

The contention of the accused that their arrest was made on October 30, 1996 and not on October 31, 1996 is preposterous and a
last futile attempt to convince the Court that the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed. A telephone call thru the cellular
phone of accused Chen Jung San on October 30, 1996 as appearing in the billing statement (Exhs. "2" & "2-A") of said cellular
phone is not a conclusive evidence that the accused were actually arrested on October 30, 1996. For all we know, accused Chen
Jung San himself made the call on October 30, 1996, when he was not yet arrested, [to] somebody in the office of the Task Force
Spider. It is no longer unnatural for those involved in illegal drug activities to have friends within and outside police
establishments. Moreover, the accused could have asked for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum on this Filosopo to
compel him to testify and support the claim of both accused that he was one of the arresting officers [to] whom some of the calls
were made on October 30, 1996, as appearing on the said [billing].
It is interesting to note that the accused Chen Jung San, as admitted by him, has been using different names while in the country,
thus inviting reasonable suspicion that he did so for ulterior motive. If this accused, a Taiwanese citizen, who was afforded the
privilege of staying in the country to engage in business, can openly or brazenly disregard our laws pertaining to the use of
several names, it is not far-fetched for him to commit other violation[s] of Philippine laws and hide his true identity by the mere
expedient of using several names like Chen Jung San, Willy Tan, Chan Bim Seng and Philip Chan or Philip Chen.
The argument of the accused that the Task Force Spider has been involved in anomalies involving the arrest of Chinese nationals
which appeared in the Philippine Star (Exh. "27") is puerile considering that no other evidence was offered to substantiate said
claim. And, finally, the argument that the allegations in the Affidavit of Apprehension in these cases (Exhs. "K" to "K-2) are

24
identical to that of the allegations in the Affidavit of Apprehension involving another Chinese national (Exh. "1") does not
necessarily mean that the allegations in both affidavits are not true.
It is an accepted practice in police buy-bust operations that the manners of their conduct are almost always identical. To argue,
therefore, that similarity in operation in two different buy-bust operations is an indiciumof falsehood is a mere speculation or
conjecture which can not provide basis for the exculpation of the accused from liability.18
Assignment of Errors
In their first Brief, appellants attribute to the trial court the following alleged errors:
I
The lower court erred in finding that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
II
The lower court erred in its appreciation of evidence leading to the conviction of the accused given the gross inconsistencies and
stark incredibility of the prosecution's witnesses.
III
The lower court erred in holding that the accused conspired and confederated in selling and possessing several grams of shabu.
IV
The lower court erred in not at all affording the testimonies of the accused the slightest of probative weight not only to
demonstrate their innocence but more importantly, to invariably show that theirs was a simple case of kidnap and extortion. 19
On the other hand, their second Brief cites this sole error for our consideration:
The verdict of guilty against appellants is a legal error in that the prosecution's evidence failed to establish the required quantum
of proof beyond reasonable doubt to overthrow the constitutional presumption of innocence in appellant's favor.20
In resolving this appeal, the Court will discuss two main questions: (1) the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence and (2) the merits of
the hulidap defense.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
Main Issue:
Sufficiency of Prosecution's Evidence
In People v. Cheng Ho Chua, a case with facts similar to the present one, we disposed of the appeal in this wise:
It is an established rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great
respect, unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which if considered, would materially affect the
result of the case. Here, we see no reason to depart from the general rule.21
In the present case, the appellants have not convinced us to exempt them from the general rule.

25
Proven Elements of the Crimes
In every prosecution, the guilt of the accused has to be established invariably by proof beyond reasonable doubt. 22 The elements of the
crime must be shown to exist and be adequately proven. As we stated in People v.Boco,23 what is "material to a prosecution for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti as evidence.
On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law and (3) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the said drug.24
Here, as in Boco, the prosecution witnesses were able to establish these elements. PO2 Hilarion Juan, the designated poseur-buyer in the
entrapment operation, testified in this manner.
Q

Mr. Witness, sometime on October 31, 1996, do you remember where were you?

Yes sir.

Where were you on that particular date, Mr. Witness?

I was at the office of Task Force Spider proceeding to Maalikaya parking area, sir.

What particular time were you at your office, if you know[,] on the said date?

7:00 in the morning, sir.

While thereat, what did you do if any?

There was a briefing, sir.

And what was this briefing all about?

Regarding buy bust operation that we [would] conduct, sir.

Will you kindly elaborate [on] this buy bust operation that you [were] going to conduct?

Regarding a drug deal, sir.

What was this drug deal all about, Mr. Witness?

Pertaining to the sale of shabu, sir.

Who conducted the briefing in your office at that time, Mr. Witness?

Col. Allan Purisima, sir.

How many attended this briefing conducted by Col. Allan Purisima?

We were four, sir.

And who were those four who attended the briefing?

26
A

PO2 Jeus Camacho, SPO2 Bernardito Lagdameo, PO2 Jose Bernardino, Jr., and myself sir.

And for how long were you briefed by your Chief, Col. Allan Purisima?

More or less 30 minutes, sir.

xxx

xxx

xxx

What did you do after the briefing?

We prepared the buy bust money, sir.

How much buy bust money did you prepare?

Seven hundred thousand pesos, sir.

In what denominations [was] this seven hundred thousand pesos, Mr. Witness?

There were 100 and 500 peso bills and photocopied money, sir.

Q
After preparing [the] seven hundred thousand pesos genuine money and some photocopied money, what did you do
next, if any?
A

We proceeded [to] the area at Maalikaya, Quezon City, sir.

Who were supposed to be the subject[s] in that drug sale?

Chinese nationals, sir.

How many Chinese nationals . . . were supposed to be the subject[s] of the drug sale?

They were actually two Chinese nationals, sir.

Now, of your group, who acted as the poseur buyer?

Me, sir.

COURT: (to the witness).

Q

What happened during the briefing that was conducted, what did you talk . . . about in the briefing?

A
I [would] act as the poseur-buyer and my three companions [would] be positioned a little bit far from my place, Your
Honor.
Q

How were you able to know the subjects in that drug operation?

With the help of our informant, we were told that they were Chinese nationals, Your Honor.

Where [was] that informant during the briefing [] you only mentioned four of you who attended the briefing?

He went ahead to the area, Your Honor.

27
PROS:

(to the witness)

Q
Did you actually go to the place as agreed upon which [was] Maalikaya Health Palace located at Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City?
A

Yes sir.

What time did you reach the place coming from your office at Taguig, Metro Manila?

We were there at about 11 :00 in the morning of October 31, 1996, sir.

And when you arrived there at around 11:00 in the morning, what transpired next if any?

After 30 minutes a Feroza type vehicle colored red arrived, sir.

And when this red Feroza vehicle arrived at the place agreed upon, what happened next if any?

I was with the informant and was introduced to the persons on board the Feroza vehicle, sir.
xxx

PROS:

xxx

xxx

(to the witness)

Q
How many persons rode on this red Feroza vehicle, Mr. Witness, when the vehicle arrived in the parking area of
Maalikaya Health Palace at Quezon Avenue,Quezon City?
A

There were two sir.

And if you will see these two persons on board the red Feroza vehicle, will you be able to identify them?

Yes sir.

Kindly identify them before this Honorable Court, Mr. Witness, if they are inside the courtroom?

A
(witness pointed to the two male persons wearing yellow t-shirt. The smaller one when asked . . . his name answered . . .
Chen Jung San and the taller one when asked . . . his name answered . . . Chen Tiz Chang)
ATTY. IFURUNG: (to the Court).
I would like to make it of record that the two persons were wearing the standard yellow t-shirt, so there [was] no
difficulty in identifying them.
COURT:.
Put that on record.
PROS:

(to the witness).

Who was that person, among the two, who talked to you initially at the place of the meeting?

He is the one, sir. (witness pointed to a taller one who when asked . . . his name answered . . . Chen Tiz Chang)

28
Q

And when the taller one was talking to [you], what was the smaller one doing at that time?

He was inside the red Feroza vehicle, sir.

For how long a time, Mr. Witness, did you talk with Chen Tiz Chang?

A few moments sir.

How would you estimate [those] few moments in terms of seconds, minutes or hours?

Around two minutes, sir.

And what was the subject matter of your conversation if any?

Regarding the drug deal, sir.

Particularly what was that drug deal all about?

Regarding the sale of shabu, sir.

Who talked first, was it Chen Tiz Chang or you?

A
He was the first, sir. The informant was talking with Chen Tiz Chang and then afterwards I handed over the black
suitcase to Chen Tiz Chang, sir.
COURT: (to the witness)
Q

Why did you hand the black suitcase to Chen Tiz Chang?

Because he also handed to me two plastic bags inside the black bag, Your Honor.

PROS:

(to the witness)

What did the informant tell you after Chen Tiz Chang talked with him, if any?

The informant told me to hand over the money in the black suitcase, sir.

After handing over the money placed in a black suitcase, what transpired next, if any?

I got from him two plastic bags which were placed in a black bag, sir.
xxx

xxx

xxx

After the exchanges of the black suitcase and the black bag containing two plastic bags, what transpired next, if any?

I got the black bag, opened it and inspect[ed] . . . the two plastic bags, sir.

What did you observe or see if any?

I observed that the contents of the two plastic bag[s] were shabu, sir.

29
Q

After having observed that the contents of the two plastic bags were shabu, what did you do next, if any?

I introduced myself as a police officer, sir.

And after introducing yourself as a police officer, what followed next, Mr. Witness?

When I got hold of him, he resisted, sir.

To whom were you referring to?

The taller one, Chen Tiz Chang, sir.

Q
And you were referring to the same person to whom you ha[d] give the black suitcase containing the seven hundred
thousand pesos and alleged[ly] photocopied money?
A

Yes sir.

Q
At the time that you ha[d] these exchanges of suitcases with Chen Tiz Chang up to the time that he resisted when you
got hold of him, what were your other companions doing, Mr. Witness?
A

They were positioned near me, sir.

In terms of meters, how far were they from the place where you were then talking with Chen Tiz Chang?

Five to ten meters away from us, sir.

When Chen Tiz Chang was resisting, what [were] your three companions doing?

They went near me, sir.

And when they went near you, what did they do if any?

They helped me in handcuffing the taller one, Chen Tiz Chang, sir.

And where was this smaller one Chen Jung San?

Inside the red Feroza car, sir.

What happened to the suitcase that Chen Tiz Chang was holding when you handcuffed him?

A
When I introduced myself as a policeman and he resisted, there was a car near his place and he gave the suitcase to the
person inside the car, sir.
Q

How far was this car in relation [to] where you were then transacting the buy bust operation with Chen Tiz Chang?

Around five meters, sir.

Where was this person to whom Chen Tiz Chang handed over the suitcase?

He was inside the car, sir.

30
Q
And after this person inside the car got hold of the black suitcase handed to him by Chen Tiz Chang, what did this
person [do] if any?
A

The car sped away, sir.

xxx

xxx

xxx

After handcuffing Chen Tiz Chang, what happened next. Mr. Witness, if any?

I, together with Sgt. Camacho, brought Chen Tiz Chang to the Feroza jeep, sir.

What did the two other members of your team do at that time, if any?

A
They were guarding the other person inside the red Feroza car [] I am referring to Chen Jung San, sir Lagdameo and
Bernardino posted themselves near the Feroza jeep where Chen Jung San was seated.
Q
any?

When the person inside the car who sped away with the buy bust money [made his escape], what did you do next, if

Nothing, we could not run after him, we were only four, sir.

And when you and Camacho brought Chen Tiz Chang to the Feroza vehicle, what happened next after that?

We brought them to Task Force Spider, Camp Bagong Diwa; Taguig, Metro Manila, sir.

Before you boarded the vehicle, the red Feroza, what did you do, if any?

I searched the red Feroza vehicle, sir.

What did you find if any?

I found a plastic bag which was placed under the driver's seat containing suspected shabu, sir.

ATTY. IFURUNG (to the Court)

We would like to delete the word in his answer "suspected shabu" [;] that means he is not even sure if it [was] shabu or
not. He is not an expert.
COURT:
That is his answer, let it remain in the records.
PROS: (to the witness)
Q

And what did you do with this stuff that you found under the driver's seat?

I brought along the plastic bag to be forwarded to the NBI, sir.25

The foregoing testimony was corroborated on material points by SPO2 Jesus Camacho.26 Aida Pascual, a forensic chemist, confirmed that
the suspected regulated drugs seized from the appellants were indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. She declared in open
court:

31
PROS. SOLLER:
(to the Witness)
Q
After Exhibits E, F and G were turned over to you by officer Bernardino, what did you do next, Madam
Witness, if any?
A

I took the net weight of each specimen, Sir.

And what [was] the net weight of Exhibit E, Madam Witness, after conducting this weighing?

971.7 grams, sir.

Q
And how about Exhibit F, do kindly tell this Court what [was] the weight of this after conducting this weighing,
Madam Witness?
A

1,046 grams, sir.

And likewise, Exhibit G, please tell us?

943.5 grams, sir.

After weighing Exhibit E, F and G what did you do next, if any?

I conducted a laboratory examination o[f] the specimens.

And what kind of examination, Madam Witness, did you conduct on this Exhibits E, F and G?

Chemical and Chrom[a]tographic examination, Sir.

Q
In a layman's language, would you kindly explain to us what do you mean by "chemical and chrom[a]tographic
examination" that you conducted?
A

In Chemical Examination, I did the color test.

How about the Chrom[a]tographic?

A
The Chrom[a]tographic Examination, I extracted representative sample from each specimen and then spot[ted]
it on the chrom[a]tographic plate together with the standard methamphetamine Hydrocloride and then develop[ed] it
into a solvent and then I sprayed [it] with Ra test after one hour.
Q

And after conducting this examination, what was the result, Madam Witness?

The specimen gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir.27

That only samples from the captured substance were examined by the chemist does not weaken the prosecution case. In People v. Tang
Wai Lan,28 the Court held:
A sample taken from one (1) of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package
unless proven otherwise by accused-appellant. Therefore, a positive result for the presence of drugs is indicative that there is 1.1
kilogram of drugs in the plastic package from which the sample was taken.

32
We are not persuaded by the argument that the samples examined were not taken from the drugs seized. On the contrary, the testimonies
of all the prosecution witnesses fairly established that the shabu taken from the appellants is the same substance examined by the forensic
chemist and later presented as evidence in court. Verily, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants' unfounded allegations
and speculations.29
Appellants' behavior during the entrapment showed that there was conspiracy between them and a third person who got away with the
buy-bust money. It is an established rule that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it may be inferred from the acts of the
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all of which indubitably point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of
action and community of interest.30
The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime and, consequently, appellants' guilt. As a result of a
valid buy-bust operation,31 appellants were caught in flagrante selling two packs of shabu to the poseur-buyer. As a consequence of a
search incident to a lawful arrest, a third pack also containing shabu was likewise found inside their vehicle. Moreover, the substance
seized from them was confirmed to be shabu.
Alleged Inconsistencies
Appellants enumerate certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that supposedly manifested lack of credibility:
the alleged discrepancies regarding the source of information of their alleged illegal activities, the failure to present the informant, the
surveillance conducted, the buy-bust money, the members of the buy-bust team and the time of the team's arrival at the Maalikaya Health
Palace.
We agree with the trial court, however, that most of these points refer to trivial matters that have no bearing on the elements of the
crime. First, these are peripheral matters that do not detract from what has been established by the evidence for the prosecution. Hence,
we have consistently held that the prior surveillance of the suspected offender32 and the presentation of the information33 and the buy-bust
money34 are not indispensable to the prosecution of drug cases.
Second, the records show that the alleged inconsistencies as to the source of information and the time of the team's arrival at the place of
arrest were supplied by the appellants rather than implied from the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. Likewise, we find no merit in
appellants' argument regarding the surveillance, the informant and the buy-bust money. We observe that SPO2 Jesus Bernal
Camacho failed to mention the existence of the informant and the buy-bust money,35 but he did not deny their presence either. In like
manner, he did not state that PO2 Hilarion Juan never conducted a surveillance of the appellants.
To secure a reversal of the appealed judgment, the inconsistencies should have pertained to the actual buy-bust itself that crucial
moment when the appellants were caught selling or in possession of shabu not to peripheral matters. On this point, appellants stress
that the two police officers, who conducted the buy-bust operation, narrated two conflicting tales, as allegedly shown by the following:
1. Camacho claimed that Chen Jung San left the place for around thirty minutes while Chen Tiz Chang was conversing with the poseurbuyer; Juan did not mention this.
2. According to Camacho, it was Appellant Chen Jung San who handed the two packs of shabu to Juan; Juan said that it was Chen Tiz
Chang who had done so.
3. Juan claimed that the informant was with him during the exchange; Camacho never mentioned this informant.
4. Juan testified that after the exchange, when he and Camacho introduced themselves as police officers, Chen Tiz Chang resisted
arrest and managed to pass on to a third person the "boodle" money; Camacho merely claimed that he and Juan had invited the appellants,
but did not mention any third person getting away with the loot.
5. Lastly, Juan stated that they discovered a third pack of shabu under a seat of the vehicle used by appellants; Camacho did not mention
the existence of this third pack.

33
As the trial court correctly pointed out, Camacho acted merely as a back up to Juan. This explains why the account of Camacho was rather
hazy compared to the unclouded narration of Juan. Unlike the poseur-buyer who had direct contact with the appellants during the
entrapment, Camacho was standing about ten to fifteen meters away from the scene and was thus hindered in his appreciation of the
incident. Furthermore, his attention was divided between watching Chen Tiz Chang with the poseur-buyer and keeping an eye on Chen
Jung San. We must stress that the assessment of the credibility of the two prosecution witness is best left to the discretion of the trial
judge, who had observed their demeanor, conduct and manner.36
In People v. Salinas,37 we held:
The alleged contradictions and inconsistencies are, in the main, minor and immaterial since the sale of the regulated drug was
clearly and categorically established by the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO2 Benito Basilio, Jr. The testimony of SPO3 Ely
Ramos regarding the sale of "shabu" by the accused Rodolfo Salinas to PO2 Basilio cannot be expected to be as detailed and as
accurate as the latter's account because it was only Basilio who actually approached and transacted with Salinas while SPO3 Ely
Ramos stayed some distance away and strategically positioned himself so he could see Basilio make the pre-arranged signal for
the arrest of Salinas. The minor inconsistencies as to the details of the sale of "shabu" may be considered as badges of truth
rather than of falsehood.
In view of all the foregoing, we find that appellants failed to overthrow the presumption of regularity accorded the police officers in the
performance of their official duty.38
Second Issue:
Defense of Hulidap
As adverted to at the beginning of this ponencia, appellants raise the defense of frame-up or hulidap.
We expressed our disdain for the hackneyed defense of hulidap in People v. Cheng Ho Chua,39 in which we said:
Courts generally view with disfavor this defense commonly raised in drug cases, for it is easy to concoct and difficult to prove.
Moreover, there is a presumption that public officers, including the arresting officers, regularly perform their official duties. In
the present case, the defense failed to overcome this presumption or to present clear and convincing evidence to prove "hulidap."
In the present case, we agree with the solicitor general that appellants' defense has not been established. They fail to describe the
individuals allegedly responsible for the extortion. As to the phone calls traced to one Myrna Pilosopo and to the office of Task Force
Spider, we agree with the People's counsel that these are mere speculations, since no proof was presented to show any connection between
them and the kidnappers. Indeed, appellants merely gave general descriptions of these alleged kidnappers. Moreover, no charges, criminal
or administrative, were ever filed against these alleged scalawags. In other words, we find no clear and convincing evidence to support the
appellants' allegation.
In closing, we reiterate that the "[i]llegal drug trade is the scourge of society."40 Equally reprehensible is the police practice of using the
law as a tool in extorting money from hapless victims.41 In this case, however, appellants' theory of extortion was not sufficiently
proven.1wphi1.nt
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the appealed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

34
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 151314

June 3, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
MARIAM BANDANG y SALAMAT, ADING SALAMAT & RAKIMA ABUBAKAR, appellants.
DECISION
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.:
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of regulated drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction. In a "buybust" operation, such as in the case at bar, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the shabu from the appellants and
that the same was presented as evidence in Court. In short, proof of the transaction suffices.1
This is an appeal from the Decision2 dated December 21, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Manila in Criminal Case No. 00182559 finding Mariam Bandang, Ading Salamat and Rakima Abubakar, appellants, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling "shabu," in
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine
of P500,000.00.
The Information filed against appellants reads:
"That on or about May 3, 2000, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated
drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and jointly sell or offer and/or attempt for sale, dispense, deliver,
transport or distribute 100.43 gram; 100.83 gram; 102.80 gram; 100.70 gram; 107.21 gram; 102.92 gram and 101.65 gram or
with a total weight of 716.54 grams of white crystalline substance contained in seven (7) transparent plastic sachet known
as shabu containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.
Contrary to law."
On May 31 2000, appellants, assisted by their counsel de parte, pleaded "not guilty" 3 to the charge. Thereafter, trial ensued. The
prosecution presented two witnesses, namely: PO1 Olga Carpentero and PO2 Jigger Noceda.
The evidence for the prosecution established the following: In the morning of May 2, 2000, the Narcotics Group Intelligence Division of
the Philippine National Police (PNP), in Camp Crame, Quezon City, was notified by an informant about the drug trafficking activities of
appellants Mariam Bandang and Rakima Abubakar near the Arlegui Bridge, Quiapo, Manila. The PNP organized a team composed of
PO1 Olga Carpentero, as the poseur-buyer, and Police Senior Inspector Crisostomo Mendoza, as the team leader, to conduct surveillance
and buy-bust operation.4 On the same day, PO1 Carpentero and the informant proceeded to Arlegui Bridge on board a car and were at the
place between 3:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon. The informant introduced PO1 Carpentero to appellants as a prospective buyer of 700 grams
of shabu. Appellants told PO1 Carpentero that it costsP490,000.00. When they asked her if she has the money, PO1 Carpentero replied
that she will come back the following day with the money.5 Appellants then told PO1 Carpentero to be at the place at around 5:30 in the
afternoon.6
PO1 Carpentero reported the incident to her superior who, in turn, organized two teams - the buy-bust team and the back-up team. 7 They
prepared boodle money in two bundles consisting of cut papers. They then placed two five hundred genuine bills on top of each bundle,
wrapped and placed them in a blue transparent plastic bag. PO1 Carpentero placed her initials on the two genuine five hundred peso bills. 8
On May 3, 2000, at around 5:30 in the afternoon, the teams proceeded to Arlegui, Quiapo, Manila on board three vehicles. The informant
went to the house of appellant Abubakar, leaving PO1 Carpentero alone in the car. After a little while, the three appellants came out of the
house and went inside the parked car. They sat on the back seats, while the informant and PO1 Carpentero on the front seats.

35
Once inside the car, appellant Abubakar asked PO1 Carpentero if she has the money. When she said "yes," appellant Bandang got the
black shoulder bag from appellant Ading Salamat and gave it to PO1 Carpentero. She then opened the black shoulder bag and saw seven
(7) transparent plastic sachets9 containing white crystalline substance.10 Thereupon, she handed the bundles of boodle money to appellant
Abubakar and immediately pressed the button of the hazard lights of the car. The blinking of the hazard lights indicated that the deal was
consummated. PO1 Carpentero then introduced herself as a police officer and arrested the three appellants. Simultaneously, the two teams
rushed in and arrested11 them and confiscated12 the seven plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance. PO2 Jigger Noceda
recovered the boodle money from appellant Abubakar. Then the arresting police officers brought appellants to Camp Crame for
investigation.13 Thereafter, they were detained in the City Jail of Manila.14 The substance, with a total weight of 716.54 grams, was
submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. It was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.15
The prosecution dispensed with the direct testimony of Cirox T. Omero, PNP forensic chemist, considering that the prosecution and the
defense stipulated that: (1) he conducted the laboratory analysis of the 716.54 grams of white crystalline substance; (2) that he stated in
his initial Laboratory Report16 and his Chemistry Report No. D-1585-0017 that the substance is positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, and; (3) the seven (7) plastic bags of shabu has been identified.18 Nonetheless, Omero presented to the trial court
the specimen and it was identified by PO1 Carpentero as the same white crystalline substance contained in a black shoulder bag handed to
her by appellant Bandang.19 Upon order of the trial court,20 it was turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory, through Omero, for
safekeeping.
All the appellants raised the defenses of alibi and frame-up.
Appellant Bandangs testimony is as follows: she is a manicurist and a former resident of Quiapo, Manila until she transferred to Taguig,
Metro Manila in 1994. At the time of the incident, she was in a sidewalk store in Elizondo Street, Quiapo, Manila rendering
manicure service to her old customers.21 She was with her mother, appellant Ading Salamat, and her one year old child. On her
way to another customer, she met appellant Abubakar.22 At that point she saw two men being chased by another two. Then, the two men
behind suddenly accosted and ordered appellants Bandang and Abubakar to board a vehicle.23 Appellant Bandang shouted at her
mother, who was a few meters away from her, to take care of her child. When her mother came near, they also dragged her inside the
vehicle which sped away. The two men forced appellants to identify the two men being chased, but they could not do so. Thereafter, they
were brought to Camp Crame.
When cross examined, appellant Bandang denied having met the prosecution witnesses before they arrested them (appellants) on May 3,
2000.24 She also claimed that she saw appellant Abubakar for the second time when they were arrested. 25 She also narrated that they
were arrested inside their house,26 contrary to her direct testimony that she was along a sidewalk at Elizondo, Quiapo.
Appellant Salamat corroborated the testimony of her daughter appellant Bandang.27 When cross-examined, she declared that when
she was arrested, she inadvertently left her grandchild on the sidewalk. The people there, however, were able to trace her residence, hence,
they entrusted the child to her relatives.28
Appellant Abubakar gave the same version in the course of her testimony.29
On December 21, 2001, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoings, herein accused Mariam Bandang y Salamat, @ Joharra, accused Ading Salamat y
Guna and accused Rakima Abubakar y Usman (Abubacar) are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the Violation of
Section 15, Article III in relation to paragraphs (e), (f), (m), (o) of Section 2, Article I and in relation to Sections 20 & 21, Article
IV of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659. The three accused shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory
penalties provided by law. They are ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00
The preventive imprisonment of the accused since their arrest at the buy-bust operation held on May 3, 2000 should be credited
in their favor.
Forensic Chemist-Police Inspector Cirox T. Omero of PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City is hereby ordered to
immediately submit the confiscated shabu weighing 716.54 grams ofmethylamphetamine hydrochloride to the Chairman of the

36
Dangerous Drugs Board, Champ Building, Bonifacio Drive, Intramuros, Manila, for proper disposal pursuant to Paragraph (b),
Section 36 of R.A. 6425, as amended.
Also send a copy of this decision to the Chairman of the Dangerous Drugs Board of the aforesaid address; the Warden of the City
Jail, Manila; to Forensic Chemist Cirox T. Omero of the PNP Laboratory Service, Camp Crame, Quezon City, and to Police
Superintendent Pancho Adelberto M. Hubilla of PNP Narcotics Group, Camp Crame, Quezon City.
SO ORDERED."30
Hence, this appeal, appellants ascribing to the trial court the following assignments of error:
By appellants Bandang and Salamat:
"I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN ACCORDING GREATER WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE
PROSECUTION AND IN DISREGARDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ALIBI.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE INHERENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTIONS
EVIDENCE."31
By appellant Abubakar:
"I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT HEREIN ALBEIT CLEAR
FAILURE OF THE STATE TO PROVE THE CRIME CHARGED;
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT HEREIN ON THE BASIS
SOLELY OF THE STIPULATION OF FACTS IN THE PRE-TRIAL ORDER OF JULY 6, 2000, WHICH PRE-TRIAL
ORDER ALTHOUGH SIGNED BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT HEREIN WAS HOWEVER, NOT SIGNED BY
COUNSEL."32
The Solicitor General counters that: (a) all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established by evidence
beyond reasonable doubt; (b) that appellants defense of alibi and frame-up must fail because they did not present convincing evidence
that it was physically impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed; and (c) that the lack of signature of
counsel for appellant Abubakar in the Stipulation of Facts between the parties is immaterial since the prosecution had adequately proven
the offense charged.33
We affirm the assailed Decision.
I. Sufficiency of the Prosecution Evidence
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the
corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence;34 and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. A review of the records of
this case reveals that the prosecution has proven all these elements.

37
A. The Fact of Sale was Established
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which
happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.35 In the present case, this was sufficiently proven by PO1 Carpentero,
the poseur-buyer. She gave a detailed account of how the sale took place, from the initial negotiation to the eventual delivery of the
dangerous drugs. On May 2, 2000, she and the informant closed the deal with appellants Bandang and Abubakar for the purchase of the
700 grams of shabu atP490,000.00; and that the next day, the three appellants delivered to her the 700 grams of shabu for which she paid
them the boodle money. Definitely, the testimony of PO1 Carpentero as the poseur buyer clearly established the consummation of the
sale. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellants
and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods. 36 We quote PO1
Carpenteros clear and straightforward account of the transaction, thus:
"PROS. GURAY:
Q So what did you do on May 2, 2000?
A I, together with the confidential informant proceeded to the place where the duo, one alias Joharra and Rakima operate their
illegal transaction.
Q And where was that place.
A Near the Arlegui Bridge, sir.
Q And where is that Arlegui Bridge located?
A In Quiapo, sir.
xxx
Q What time did you reach that place?
A Between 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., sir.
xxx
Q And upon arrival at Arlegui bridge in Quiapo, Manila, on that particular date on May 2, 2000, what happened next?
A Our confidential informant went to the place of Rakima and when he came back, he had a companion, one alias Joharra and
the one Rakima.
Q When the informant, together with this Rakima and Joharra arrived at the place, what happened next?
A Our confidential informant introduced me to them as a buyer.
Q After the confidential informant introduced you as a buyer, what did Rakima and Joharra tell you, if any?
A She said if I have money. First they asked how much Im going to buy or purchase. Then I told them that I only
have P500,000.00.
THE COURT:
Q Why did you say only?

38
A Because they said that one kilo of shabu is worth P700,000.00.
xxx
Q What is the quantity that you told the drug pusher that you are going to buy?
A I said that I am going to purchase three kilos of shabu.
xxx
Q And what was the reply?
A They said that the shabu costs P700,000.00 per kilo, sir.
xxx
Q What was your response?
A I told them that Im going to buy only 700 grams of shabu because my money was only P500,000.00.
Q 700 grams?
A Yes, sir.
Q How would you know that 700 grams would costs P500,000.00.
A No, sir. They cost P490,000.00.
xxx
Q You were told?
A Yes, sir.
Q That 700 grams would cost P490,000.00.
A Yes, sir.
PROS. GURAY:
Q And after telling them the amount of shabu that you would buy, what did they tell you, if any?
A They asked if I have the money in my possession.
Q And what did you tell them?
A I answered that I did not have the money. But I would go back the following day.
Q And did they agree?
A Yes, sir.

39
Q After that, where did you proceed?
A We proceeded at our office in Camp Crame, sir.
Q And what did you do there?
A I reported about the transaction, sir, to our chief.
Q And what did your chief instructed you to do, if any?
A And he designated Police Senior Inspector Mendoza to make a team to form a back up team for the buy bust operation.
xxx
PROS. GURAY:
Q What time did you arrive at the target of operation?
A At around 5:30 in the afternoon.
Q When you arrived at Arlegui, Quiapo, Manila, what particular place in that area did you position yourself?
A Near the bridge of Arlegui.
Q And who was with you in that particular place?
A None, sir. Im the only one inside the car.
Q And who arrived with you in that place? Who was with in that place?
A Our back up team, sir.
THE COURT:
Q How about in the car that you rode in? Who was with you inside that car when you arrived in the area of operation?
A At first, sir, our driver and the confidential informant?
Q So there were three of you?
A Yes, sir.
Q This driver is also a police operative?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where did the back up team position themselves?
A At the distance that is visual to us.

40
Q You said that when you arrived at the place inside your car was the driver and your confidential informant. Where did they go
after you arrived at the place?
A After we arrived at the place of the operation, the driver parked our car and he alighted and joined the members of the back up
team while the police informant went to the house of the suspected drug pushers.
PROS. GURAY:
Q And did the confidential informant come back afterwards?
A Yes, sir.
Q And who was with the confidential informant when that informant came back?
A Together with him was one alias Joharra and one Rakima and the old woman.
THE COURT:
Q So there was three with the informant?
A Yes, sir.
Q Namely?
A Alias Rakima, Mariam Bandang alias Joharra.
Q And the third?
A A woman, an old woman.
Q So all in all there were how many women?
A Three, sir.
Q All these persons were women?
A Yes, sir.
PROS. GURAY:
Q What were they carrying, if any?
A An old woman is carrying a bag, a black shoulder bag.
Q And when these three persons you mentioned arrived at the place were you positioned yourself, what happened next?
A When they arrived I asked them to enter the car.
Q And did they enter the car?
A Yes, sir.

41
THE COURT:
Q Where were you seated at the time?
A At the driver seat, sir.
PROS. GURAY:
Q Where did they position themselves?
A At the back seat.
Q How about he confidential informant? Where did he or she position himself or herself?
A Beside me, sir.
Q You mean to tell the court that the three occupied the back seat?
A Yes, sir.
Q When they were already inside the car what transpired next?
A Rakima asked me if I have the money.
Q What was your response?
A I told her that I have the money.
Q Then what transpired next?
A The one alias Joharra got the black shoulder bag from the old woman and she gave it to me.
Q And after the bag was handed to you, what did you do with the bag?
A I opened it and I examined it and I saw seven transparent plastic bag or sachets containing white crystalline substance.
THE COURT:
Q Suspected shabu?
A Yes, sir.
PROS. GURAY:
Q What happened with the money which you said was asked by Rakima if it was already with you?
A I showed her the money.
THE COURT:
Q Wait. Wait. When did you show the money? Was it before or after the black shoulder bag was handed to you?

42
A After the shoulder bag was handed to me.
Q After you received the shoulder bag, you showed the money?
A Yes, sir. I examined first the contents of the bag.
Q Yes. And when you saw the suspected shabu inside, what did you do next?
A They asked for the money and they showed it to me and handed the xxx plastic sachets.
Q So before handling the boodle money, you showed it first to her?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you handed it to her?
A Yes, sir.
xxx
PROS. GURAY:
Q Then what transpired next after that?
A When the transaction was finished I pushed the hazard button.
xxx
PROS. GURAY:
Q And what did these blinking of hazard lights signify?
A To signify our pre-arranged signal, sir.
THE COURT:
Q What did it signify?
A That the transaction was done, sir.
Q That the transaction was consummated?
A Yes, sir.
PROS. GURAY:
Q Then after that, what happened?
A Our arresting back up team rushed in and then they effect the arrest?
THE COURT:

43
Q How about you? What did you do?
A I identified myself as a police officer and we are arresting them for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act." 37
The foregoing testimony was substantially corroborated by PO2 Noceda38 and by PO2 Gabarda in his joint affidavit of
apprehension.39 Notwithstanding the searching cross-examination by the defense counsel, PO1 Carpentero and PO2 Noceda did not
deviate from their direct testimonies. PO2 Noceda reinforced PO1 Carpenteros testimony when he affirmed that he confiscated seven
sachets containing white crystalline substance at the scene of the crime; and that he recovered the boddle money from appellants.
That appellants knew that what they sold and delivered to PO1 Carpentero were dangerous drugs is evident from the narration of both
witnesses that when they asked appellants whether they have license to carry or sell shabu, the latter merely replied "no."40 They did not
refute that the substance they delivered to PO1 Carpentero wasshabu.
B. The Corpus Delicti was Presented in Court
The seven sachets of shabu presented before the trial court as Exhibits "J-1" to "J-7" were positively identified by PO1 Carpentero as the
very same shabu sold and delivered to her by appellants, thus:41
"x x x
PROS. GURAY:
For the record, Your Honor, the forensic chemist brought to court the specimen contained in a black shoulder bag which has been
marked as Exhibit J for the prosecution.
Q For the record, may I now confront the witness with a shoulder bag and its contents. Madam Witness, will you step
down and examine these small plastic bags or sachets containing white crystalline substances and tell the court what
relation has these seven bags containing plastic sachets to the specimen which you said were handed to you by the accused
in this case on May 3, 2000?
A These are the ones that were inside the bag when alias Joharra handed to me. These are all the seven sachets contained
in the bag that was handed to me.
PROS. GURAY:
For the record, these plastic bags had been marked already as Exhibits J-1, J-2, J-3 up to J-7.
Q And will you please examine the black shoulder bag and tell us what relation has this with the shoulder bag which was
handed to you by the accused?
A This bag is where they put the seven sachets, sir.
PROS. GURAY:
For the record, the black shoulder bag containing the seven plastic sachets which were earlier marked as Exhibit J-1 to
J-7 has been already marked as Exhibit J for the prosecution."42
That the seven sachets of white crystalline were indeed shabu is shown by the Initial Laboratory Report and the Chemistry Report No. D1585-00,43 prepared by Cirox T. Omero, PNP forensic chemist, which both yield "POSITIVE result to the test for Methylamphetamine
hydrocloride."

44
Appellant Abubakar submits that she was erroneously convicted because the parties Stipulation of Facts regarding the corpus delicti
cannot be used against her considering that her counsel, Atty. Enriquez, did not sign it. We do not agree. First, her conviction is not based
solely on the Stipulations of Facts. In Fule vs. Court of Appeals,44 we ruled that while the omission of the signature of the accused and his
counsel indeed renders a stipulation of facts inadmissible in evidence, the prosecution is not without remedy. What the prosecution
should do is to submit evidence to establish the elements of the crime instead of relying solely on the supposed admission of the
accused in the stipulation of facts. In the present case, this is what the prosecution did.
Appellant Abubakar now argues that the Initial Laboratory Report and the Chemistry Report No. D-1585-00 are inadmissible for being
hearsay because Omero, the PNP forensic chemist, did not testify. This is a non-sequiturconclusion. In People vs. Uy,45 we ruled that a
forensic chemist is a public officer and as such, his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and
duties. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official
duty are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Omeros reports that the seven sachets of white crystalline substance were
"positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride" or shabu are, therefore, conclusive in the absence of evidence proving the contrary, as in
this case.
Second, it must be stressed that Atty. Enriquez raises his objection to the Initial Laboratory Report and Chemistry Report No. D-1585-00
only now. He should have objected to their admissibility at the time they were being offered. Otherwise, the objection shall be considered
waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible evidence. 46 The familiar rule in this
jurisdiction is that the admissibility of certain documents, if not urged before the court below, cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.
C. Positive Identification of the Appellants as the Sellers
PO1 Carpentero and PO2 Noceda positively identified appellants as the peddlers of the confiscated shabu. PO1 Carpentero testified:
"Q Madam Witness, who among the three accused handed to you this bag containing the plastic sachets?
A One alias Joharra.
Q And again, will you point to the person alias Joharra if she is in the court room?
A The one wearing a red shirt.
THE COURT:
Q Witness pointing to a woman who answered by the name of (stop), pangalan?
A Mariam Bandang po, sir.
Q And you testified earlier that before these specimen contained in a black shoulder bag was handed to you by alias Joharra who
gave her name as Mariam Bandang, she left for a few minutes with another suspect. Who was that suspect who was with Joharra
when they left for a few minutes?
A When she came back, sir, she has another old lady, sir.
Q My question is, when she left before the third lady who, was with them? Who was with Joharra?
A One alias Rakima, sir.
Q And will you please point to Rakima if she is in court?
A Siya po.

45
THE COURT:
Q Yung tinuro tumayo. Witness pointing to another woman who answered by the name of (stop),anong pangalan?
ACCUSED ABUBAKAR:
Rakima Abubakar po.
xxx
PROS. GURAY:
Q And you also testified that after Rakima and Joharra left for a few minutes, they came back with another woman and
this woman you said was the one carrying the black shoulder bag. If that woman is in court, will you be able to point to
her?
A The old woman there, sir.
THE COURT:
Yung tinuro tumayo. Pangalan po ninyo?
ACCUSED SALAMAT:
Ading Salamat po.
THE COURT:
Witness pointing to an old woman who answered by the name of Ading Salamat. Maupo ka na.
x x x "47
PO2 Noceda also identified appellants, thus:
"PROS. GURAY:
Q Mr. Witness, you earlier told the Court that you were part of the buy bust operation that was conducted on May 3, 2000. Who
were the target of your buy bust operation?
A A certain Joharra and Rakima, sir.
Q If that Joharra and Rakima are in court, will you be able to recognize them?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you be able to point to Rakima?
A Siya po.
THE COURT:

46
Yung tinuro tumayo. Witness pointing to a woman who answered by the name of? Anong pangalan mo?
ACCUSED RAKIMA:
Rakima Abubakar po.
PROS. GURAY:
Q And if this Alias Joharra is in court, will you please point to her?
THE COURT:
Yung tinuro tumayo. Witness pointing to another woman who answered by the name of?Pangalan?
ACCUSED BANDANG:
Mariam Bandang po.
THE COURT:
Sige, maupo ka na."48
All the elements necessary for the conviction of appellants for illegal sale of dangerous drugs have been proved by the prosecution, thus:
(1) The shabu was in fact delivered by appellants to PO1 Carpentero, the police poseur-buyer.49
(2) The object of the sale was the 716.54 grams of shabu valued at P490,000.00.50
(3) The buyer was PO1 Carpentero and the sellers were herein appellants.51
II. The Defenses of Frame-up, Denial and Alibi
In a last ditch effort to secure an acquittal, appellants claim that they were victims of frame-up 52 and extortion. Appellants defense must
fail. For a police officer to frame them up, he must have known them prior to the incident.53 This is not the situation here. The informant
had to introduce PO1 Carpentero to appellants before she could negotiate with them the sale of shabu. Appellants themselves admitted
that prior to their arrest, they did not know the police officers.
Furthermore, appellants failed to show any motive why PO1 Carpentero and PO2 Noceda would falsely impute a serious crime against
them. Without proof of such motive, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over their self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed. 54 Like alibi, we view the
defense of frame-up with disfavor as it can easily be concocted and it is one of the most hackneyed line of defense in dangerous drug
cases.55 For this claim to prosper, the defense must therefore adduce clear and convincing evidence.56 In this aspect, appellants miserably
failed.
Appellants defense of denial and alibi must likewise fail. As between their mere denial and their positive identification by the prosecution
witnesses, the trial court did not err in according weight to the latter. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must show that he
was in another place at such a period of time and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place where the crime was
committed at the time of its commission.57 These requirements of time and place must be strictly met.58 Appellants failed to establish
that it was physically impossible for them to be at Arlegui Bridge, Quiapo, Manila on May 3, 2000 at about 5:30 oclock in the afternoon.
What is clear from the evidence is that they were at Elizondo Street, Quiapo, Manila, a stones throw away from Arlegui. It bears
emphasis that their testimonies as to their whereabouts during their arrest were inconsistent. Appellant Bandang narrated during her
direct testimony that she and appellant Abubakar were in a sidewalk store in Elizondo Street, Quiapo, Manila when they were suddenly

47
accosted by the police officers. On cross-examination, she contradicted herself and claimed that she and appellant Abubakar were arrested
inside their house.59 For her part, appellant Salamat stated that the police forcibly dragged her and her daughter, appellant Bandang, inside
a vehicle and it was only then that she saw appellant Abubakar.60Meanwhile, both appellants Salamat and Abubakar were silent on
appellant Bandangs claim that the apprehending policemen demanded hush money from them. Undoubtedly, the inconsistencies in
appellants testimonies weaken their defense. They reveal concocted stories and a web of lies.
III. Presence Of Conspiracy
We also affirm the trial courts finding that there was conspiracy among the three appellants. Their conduct during the entrapment reveals
a common design or a community of interest among them.61 The clear fact is that they acted in concert in committing the crime,
thus: (a) appellant Salamat carried the black shoulder bag containing the seven sachets of shabu; (b) appellant Abubakar asked PO1
Carpentero if she was ready with the money; (c)appellant Bandang handed the black shoulder bag to PO1 Carpentero; and (d) appellant
Abubakar received the boodle money from PO1 Carpentero. All these acts clearly demonstrate the presence of conspiracy. The existence
of a conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence because it may be inferred from the parties conduct indicating a common
understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of the crime.
IV. Penalty
The penalty prescribed under Section 15 of Article III, in relation to Section 20 and 21 of Article IV, of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by
R.A. No. 7659, for unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu ormethylamphetamine hydrochloride is reclusion perpetua to death
and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. In the case at bar, as the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
consists of two (2) indivisible penalties, appellants were correctly meted the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
penalties provided by law, conformably with Article 63 (2) of the Revised Penal Code that when there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
As regards the fine imposed by the trial court, it has been held that courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; and in
fixing the amount in each case, attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to
the wealth or means of the culprit.62 In view of the quantity ofshabu confiscated in this case, we find no reason to disturb the trial courts
imposition of fine in the amount ofP500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Manila, in Criminal Case
No. 00-182559 is AFFIRMED.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Corona, and Morales, JJ., concur.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY TING UY, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
MELO, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the September 16, 1996 decision of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region
(Branch XVII, Manila) finding Jerry Ting Uy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 15 and 16, Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw
1ibrary
Appellant Jerry Ting Uy, a Taiwanese national, was charged on July 24, 1998 for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act in two separate
Informations which read:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

48
CRIM. CASE NO. 98-166675
That on or about July 21, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use any
regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control white
crystalline substance contained in three (3) separate self-sealed transparent plastic bag weighing one thousand five hundred ten point eight
grams (1,510.8 g) known as "SHABU" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the corresponding license
or prescription thereof.
Contrary to law.
CRIM. CASE NO. 98-166676
That on or about July 21, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute white crystalline substance contained in a self-sealed transparent plastic bag weighing five hundred five
point six gram (505.6 g) containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the corresponding license or prescription
thereof.
Contrary to law.
(p. 17, Rollo.)
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both Informations. A joint trial was thereafter conducted.
The record shows that at around 3:30 in the afternoon of July 21, 1998, a Chinese-Filipino police informant went to the Western Police
District headquarters at U.N. Avenue, Ermita, Manila to inform the police officers assigned at the Drug Enforcement Unit thereat that a
certain Jerry Ting Uy was engaged in illegal drug activities in Sta. Cruz, Manila. PO3 Luis Chico asked the police informant to contact
appellant and to negotiate with him for the purchase of shabu. Around 4 oclock that same afternoon, the police informant called appellant
but was informed that shabu was not yet available. The police informant again called up appellant at about 5 oclock in the afternoon, and
they agreed that appellant would deliver half a kilo of shabu to the informant for P200,000.00 at Severino Street, near the corner of
Remigio Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila at 6:30 in the evening of that same day. This information was recorded in the police blotter. Police
officers, led by SPO2 Rodolfo Rival, then planned a buy-bust operation for the entrapment of appellant. Eight genuine P500.00 bills,
marked with the letter "C", were prepared. These marked P500.00 bills were then placed at the top and at the bottom of four bundles of
bogus money. The police designated PO3 Chico to be the poseur-buyer.
At around 6 oclock in the evening, 13 police officers, including PO3 Chico, and the police informant left the police station and proceeded
to the designated meeting place. Except for PO3 Chico and the police informant who waited at the meeting place, the rest of the police
officers positioned themselves strategically in various places along Severino Street. Ten minutes later, appellant arrived on board a green
Mitsubishi Lancer. Appellant stopped in front of the police informant and PO3 Chico, rolled down the window of his car, and talked to the
police informant in Chinese. The police informant then told PO3 Chico to board appellants car. PO3 Chico slid into the front passenger
seat while the police informant sat at the backseat of the car. Appellant then asked for the payment of half a kilo of shabu. PO3 Chico
handed the marked money to appellant. Appellant reached down under his seat, took a plastic bag and gave it to PO3 Chico. When PO3
Chico opened the plastic bag, he saw a transparent plastic bag containing substance which he suspected to be shabu. At this point, PO3
Chico introduced himself as a police officer and immediately arrested appellant. PO3 Chico then retrieved the marked money from
appellants lap. Thereafter, PO3 Chico inspected the space underneath the drivers seat and found three more plastic bags containing
suspected shabu. After Chicos arrest of appellant, SPO2 Rival arrived and informed appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant was
then brought to the WPD headquarters. The marked bills of money and the four plastic bags seized from appellant were handed over to
SPO2 Benjamin Nuguit, who then turned over the same to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for laboratory examination.
The very next day, NBI Forensic Chemist Antonino de Belen issued a certification which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
This certifies that on the above-date at 4:05 p.m. one PO2 Gene Nelson Javier of the DES, DID, NPD, U.N. Ave., Manila submitted to his
Office for laboratory examination/s to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. White crystalline substance contained in a self-sealed transparent plastic bag marked "LPCV-1" and
Net weight of specimen = 505.6 grams
2. White crystalline substance contained in three (3) self-sealed transparent plastic bags marked "JTU-1" respectively.

49
Total Net Weight of specimen = 1,510.8 grams
All placed in a red plastic bag.
Examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimen/s gave POSITIVE RESULTS for METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE. . . .
(P. 47, Record.)
In his defense, appellant claimed that he is a victim of frame-up. Appellants brief narrates the version of the defense as
follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
At about 2 oclock in the afternoon of July 21, 1998, appellant deposited money in a bank at Masangkay Street near the Metropolitan
Hospital in Manila. When appellant was about to board his car after coming from the bank, two vehicles blocked his way (p. 4, tsn., Feb.
9, 2000). Police operatives in civilian clothes, approached appellant and demanded P200,000 without telling him the reason (pp. 55-6,
id.). When appellant told them that he could not produce the money, he was made to board one of their vehicles, blindfolded and taken to
a house. While inside a room, the police operatives warned him that they would implicate him for drug pushing if he did not produce the
money demanded. But appellant responded that he did not have money (pp. 7-9, id.). Later, he was taken at a police station where he was
investigated and locked up in a cell (pp. 10-12, id).
Alex Cruz, while selling buco at about past 2 oclock in the afternoon of July 21, 1998 at the corner of Masangkay St. and Recto Ave.,
saw from about 20 meters distance, men in civilian clothes alight from their vehicles which suddenly blocked appellants vehicle,
appellant alight from his vehicle and board one of their vehicles (pp. 3-17, tsn., Nov. 18, 1990.
Appellant was booked and arrested for violation of Sections 15 and 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, committed on or about 6:30
p.m. of July 21, 1998 as per report of SPO2 Rodolfo Rival Jr. dated July 22, 1998 (p. 9, Rec.). A joint affidavit (Exh. F, pp. 6-7, Rec.) was
executed on July 22, 1998 by police officers Rodolfo Rival Jr., Luis Chico, Gene Nelson Javier with seven (7) others, wherein they
narrated how the buy-bust operation transpired wherein appellant was apprehended allegedly for illegal sale and possession of shabu.
(Appellants Brief, pp. 7-9.)
After trial, the trial court rendered judgment on July 6, 2000, the decretal portion of which reads as follows;
WHEREFORE, in Crim. Case No. 98-166675, the accused, Jerry Ting Uy, is hereby convicted of the crime of Violation of Section 16 of
R.A. 6425 as amended involving 1,510.8 grams of shabu and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00, plus the costs.
In Crim. Case No. 98-166676, the accused, Jerry Ting Uy, is likewise, convicted of the crime of Violation of Section 15 of R.A. 6425 as
amended involving one half kilogram of shabu and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00,
plus the costs.
The shabu recovered from the accused in the two cases is forfeited in favor of the government and is ordered turned over the Dangerous
Drugs Board for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
(pp. 19-20, Rollo.)
Appellant now assails his conviction, raising the following as errors allegedly committed by the trial court:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION
WITNESS PO3 CHICO, THE ALLEGED POSEUR-BUYER, ON APPELLANTS SALE AND POSSESSION OF SHABU DURING A
BUY-BUST OPERATION.
II. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PRESENT THE
CHINESE INFORMANT AS A WITNESS AS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH RENDER DOUBTFUL THE TESTIMONY OF PO3
CHICO ON AN ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION.
III. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO APPELLANTS DEFENSE
THAT HE WAS A VICTIM OF A FRAME-UP IN AN UNSUCCESSFUL EXTORTION ATTEMPT BY POLICE OPERATIVES.

50
IV. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS INADMISSIBLE THE THREE BAGS CONTAINING
SUSPECTED SHABU AS EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98-166676 FOR BEING ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE IN A
WARRANTLESS ARREST.
V. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANT FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN SAID CASES.
This Court has carefully examined the record of this case, and finds no justification to come to conclusions different from those made by
the trial court.
Appellant was arrested by virtue of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District. A buybust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in
the execution of their criminal plans. It is a procedure or operation sanctioned by law and which has consistently proven itself to be an
effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Thus, unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust
team were inspired by improper motives or were not properly performing their duties, their testimony on the operation deserves full faith
and credit (People v. Chua Uy, G.R. No. 128046, March 7, 2000).chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In this case, the evidence shows that it was the police informant who initially contacted and arranged a drug deal with appellant. At the
pre-arranged meeting, the informant was accompanied by PO3 Chico, who posed as a buyer of shabu. PO3 Chico handed marked money
to appellant as payment for half a kilo of shabu. Appellant was then arrested when he handed a plastic bag containing shabu to PO3 Chico.
The trial court found that PO3 Chico testified in a frank, spontaneous, straightforward, and categorical manner. His testimony was
unflinching even during cross-examination by defense counsel. Moreover, PO3 Chicos testimony was corroborated on its material points
by PO2 Gene Nelson Javier, another member of the arresting team. As has been repeatedly held by the Court, credence shall be given to
the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary (People v. Guiamil, 277 SCRA 658 [1997]). As correctly noted
by the trial court, there was no evidence presented as to any ill motive on the part of prosecution witness PO3 Chico which would affect
the credibility of his testimony. PO3 Chico and the other law enforcers involved in the buy-bust operation would, thus, have in their favor
the presumption that they regularly performed their duties. Absent any showing of palpable error or arbitrariness, as is the case at bar, the
Court has no choice but to accord great respect to and to treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of
witnesses.
The defense, in its efforts to establish the innocence of appellant, claims that it is incredible for a drug peddler to agree to sell his wares
without first checking on the possibility of entrapment, given that drug peddlers pursue their nefarious activities with utmost caution. We
are not persuaded. Nowadays, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, impudent, and even openly defiant of the law. If drug
peddlers are meticulously cautious in carrying out their illicit trade, drug abuse would not have grown to such alarming proportions as it
has today and would certainly not pose a serious threat to society. The stark reality is that these unscrupulous drug pushers perform their
illegal activities without fear of apprehension and unmindful of the risk of entrapment; in fact, they are only concerned with the swift
disposal of their goods. Thus, we have found in many cases drug pushers selling their prohibited wares to any and all prospective
customers, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime (People v. Requiz, 318 SCRA 635 [1999]).
Likewise, it is appellants view that the testimony of the police informant is indispensable in this case. This is not so. The failure to
present the informant does not diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informants are almost always
never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be
dispensed with inasmuch as his or her narration would be merely corroborative, especially so in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself
testified on the sale of the illegal drug (People v. Chua, Uy, supra; People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 [1997]).
Further, appellants defense of frame-up does not convince. In drug-related cases, the claim that the accused has merely been framed-up
by law enforcers for selfish motives is quite often raised by the defense. Such defense, however, has been invariably viewed by this Court
with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. For this claim to prosper, the evidence adduced must be clear and
convincing (People v. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 [1997]). Appellant, regrettably, has miserably failed to substantiate his allegations in this
respect.
Similarly, appellants claim that he was arrested by the police in order to extort from him the amount of P200,000.00 is not worthy of
belief. Aside from his bare assertions, no evidence was presented to establish such as fact. Moreover, if the arresting police officers indeed
tried to extort money from appellant, he could have filed the proper charges against the erring police officers. The fact that no criminal or
administrative charges were filed by appellant against the arresting police officers bolsters our conclusion that the alleged frame-up
merely exists as a figment of appellants imagination.
In the same vein, appellants contention that the 1,510.8 grams of shabu seized from him is inadmissible in evidence must also be rejected.
The Constitution generally proscribes searches and seizures without judicial warrant. Any evidence obtained without such warrant is

51
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Sections 2 and 3(2), Article III). The rule is not absolute, however. Searches and seizures
may be made without warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) the search was
incident to a lawful arrest; (2) the search is of a moving motor vehicle; (3) the search concerns violation of customs laws; (4) the seizure
of evidence in plain view; and (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures (People v. Doria,
301 SCRA 668 [1999]).
Clearly, the search made by the police officers in the instant case was incidental to a lawful arrest. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that "a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully
arrested, caught as he was in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers.
A buy-bust operation is vastly different from an ordinary arrest. In lawful arrests in the course of a buy-bust operation, it becomes both the
duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the accused but also in the
permissible area within his reach, i.e., that point which is within the effective control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him
the means of committing violence or of escaping (People v. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 [1998]). In other words, a warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control. In this case, the three plastic bags containing a total of 1,500 grams of shabu were seized inside the car where
appellant himself was arrested. PO3 Chico, in this regard, narrated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Q: You arrested him?
A: Yes, Sir, and I recovered the buy-bust money on the lap of the accused.
Q: At the time the accused was on the drivers seat?
A: Yes, Sir, then my police companions came and they arrested the accused. Upon examination of the underneath of the drivers seat, I
also recovered three plastic bags also containing suspected shabu.
(tsn, May 20, 1999, pp. 17-18.)
Given this scenario, it became advisable, if not necessary, for the police officers to forthwith undertake a search of the car, the same being
within the area of immediate control by Appellant.
In sum, in Criminal Case No. 98-166676, this Court is convinced that the prosecutions evidence more than proved beyond reasonable
doubt all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor (People v. Uy, G.R. No. 129019, August 16,
2000). In this case, the identities of the seller and the buyer have been established. Appellant was positively identified in open court as the
seller of the 505.6 grams of shabu by PO3 Chico himself who acted as the poseur-buyer. The delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer, as
well as appellants receipt of the marked money have also been sufficiently shown by the testimony of prosecution witnesses PO3 Chico
and PO2 Javier. What is material and indispensable in a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer (People v. Khor, 307 SCRA 295 [1999]).
There is likewise no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 98-166675 was proved beyond reasonable
doubt, appellant knowingly carrying with him 1,510.8 grams of shabu without legal authority at the time of the buy-bust operation.
The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug
(Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]). All these circumstances are present in the case at bar.
Finally, pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, in relation to Section 20 of
Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall sell or possess 200 grams or more of shabu. Appellant, in this case, was caught selling
505.6 grams of shabu, and possessing 1,510.8 grams of the same substance. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the
commission of the crimes, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 in each of
the two criminal cases.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in toto.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
SO ORDERED.

52
Vitug, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 130836
August 11, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ARNEL C. MONTANO, accused-appellant.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City, finding accused-appellant Arnel C. Montano
guilty of violation of Art. III, 15 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P2 million and the costs of the suit.
The information 2 against accused-appellant alleged
That in the afternoon of (the) 22nd of January, 1996, in the municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and
knowingly sell, distribute and/or deliver 229.7 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as 'shabu' which is a
regulated drug, without the corresponding license and/or legal authority to sell, distribute and/or deliver the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, whereupon he was tried.
The presentation of the testimony of the first witness for the prosecution, Forensic Chemist Demelen Dela Cruz of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), was dispensed with, as the defense entered into a stipulation with the prosecution concerning the following facts: (1)
that 229.7 grams of a white crystalline substance was submitted to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division for laboratory examination to
determine if it was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; (2) that a forensic examination was performed by the witness on the
substance submitted; (3) that the substance was found to be positive for shabu; and (4) that the substance was the same 229.7-gram
substance submitted for forensic examination by NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano. Accused-appellant denied, however, that the shabu had been
seized from him.3
The prosecution presented evidence showing that the shabu had been seized from accused-appellant, thus:
Sometime in the second week of January 1996, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano received a tip from a female confidential informant that the
accused-appellant was engaged in the distribution of shabu in Taguig, Metro Manila.4 Agent Rejano and the informant, therefore,
conducted a "test-buy" operation on January 18, 1996 at accused-appellant's residence at 104 N. P. Cruz St., Barangay Ususan, Taguig,
Metro Manila.5 When they arrived at the place, the female informant went inside the gate as Agent Rejano stayed behind. After thirty
minutes, the informant asked Agent Rejano to come in, and the two then proceeded along a roofed alley with concrete walls on both sides.
They entered a second gate where a store with a long bench was located. A woman, whom Agent Rejano came to know was accusedappellant's mother, tended the store.
At the gate, the informant introduced Agent Rejano to accused-appellant as a Chinese drug-user and a big-time buyer of shabu. While
Agent Rejano waited at the store, the informant went with accused-appellant in front of the latter's house about 15 meters away and
transacted business with him on the porch. Agent Rejano saw them sniffing something while seated on the metal chairs. After thirty
minutes, the informant returned to Agent Rejano and secretly told him that she already had the stuff from the accused-appellant.
Thereafter, they left and returned to the NBI office in Taft Avenue, Manila.1wphi1.nt
The stuff was submitted for forensic examination and was found to be shabu. After Agent Rejano reported to his superiors what transpired
during the operation, he was directed to conduct with the informant another "test-buy' operation on the accused-appellant in order to gain
the latter's trust and confidence. The plan was eventually to make him sell a larger amount of shabu to them.6

53
On January 19, 1996, Agent Rejano, together with the female informant and another intelligence agent, returned to accused-appellant's
house to purchase more shabu. Again, it was the informant who transacted with accused-appellant while Agent Rejano and the
intelligence agent stayed at the store. After half an hour, the informant returned and discreetly told them that she had with her the stuff
from accused-appellant and that the latter was willing to deliver 200 grams of shabu on January 22, 1996. Then, they left.
Upon arriving at the NBI, Agent Rejano made a request7 for the forensic examination of the crystalline substance purchased from
accused-appellant. Forensic Chemist II Emilia Andeo-Rosaldes issued a certification, 8 dated January 19, 1996, stating that the substance
submitted was shabu.9
On January 22, 1996, a team of NBI agents proceeded to Taguig, Metro Manila aboard three vehicles. About 100 meters away from the
target area, the buy-bust team, composed of Agent Reynaldo Esmeralda, Agent Regner Peneza, and the informant, took a tricycle to
accused-appellant's house, while the rest of the NBI operatives waited for a signal at a distance. Accused-appellant and his mother met the
buy-bust operatives. The informant informed accused-appellant that they already had the money and were ready to buy 250 grams
of shabu. Accused-appellant then led the group to an alley towards the kitchen outside his house. The informant introduced Agent Peneza
as her husband and Agent Esmeralda as the bodyguard of her employer, the Japanese financier. Accused-appellant's mother then served
the group some snacks, consisting of leche flan and softdrinks. Accused-appellant left them and, after a few minutes, returned with Hector
Tinga. Accused-appellant told the group to follow him. Accused-appellant's mother was left behind. They passed through a dark narrow
alley leading to an enclosed space at the back of accused-appellant's house. Tinga brought out two plastic packets of a white crystalline
substance and handed them to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant gave the packets to the informant who tested the contents by burning
a small amount using an improvised tooter. When the informant confirmed that the substance was shabu, accused-appellant asked for the
money.
Agent Esmeralda handed accused-appellant bundles of P100 bills. While the accused-appellant and Tinga were counting the money,
Agents Esmeralda and Peneza announced the arrest and handcuffed the two. Esmeralda radioed the other members of the NBI team to
proceed to the area.10 After the team secured the house, Agent Auralyn Pascual served the search warrant to the mother of accusedappellant. With two barangay officials as witnesses, the NBI agents recovered from the search, besides the two packets of white
crystalline substance, a tooter, a burner, aluminum foil, a pair of scissors, and a match. 11 The items were listed in the inventory of articles
seized which was signed by Agent Pascual and attested to by the barangay officials.12 Agent Pascual gave the mother of the accusedappellant a copy of the inventory.
The NBI team brought accused-appellant and Tinga to NBI Taft where they were booked and their photographs and fingerprints
taken.13 The two packets of white crystalline substance,14 marked as AM-1 and AM-2 respectively, and the improvised tooter15 seized
during the search were forwarded to the forensic chemistry laboratory for examination. 16 Accused-appellant and Tinga were brought to the
Department of Justice for inquest and then detained at the NBI Taft. The report on the forensic examination showed that the crystalline
substance, weighing 229.7 grams, was shabu. The tooter, however, was negative for shabu.17 Later, the Department of Justice, through
Prosecutor Ferdinand Abesamis, issued a Resolution, dated February 1, 1996,18 recommending the filing of an information only against
accused-appellant on account of the insufficiency of evidence against Tinga.19 HCacTI
Accused-appellant denied that there were "test-buy" operations conducted on him on January 18 and 19, 1996. His version of the incident
is as follows:
In the afternoon of January 18, 1996, while he was cleaning the passenger jeepney he was driving, a woman arrived and introduced
herself as "Solly." As she was looking for the residence of Hector Tinga, accused-appellant pointed to her the direction to the said house.
After a few minutes, Solly returned and told him that the gate was closed. She requested him to fetch Tinga. Accused-appellant said he
acceded to the request and that, after a while, Tinga came to meet the stranger. According to accused-appellant, Solly told him that she and
Tinga met in a nightclub in Ermita, and that she worked for a Japanese employer. Accused-appellant said that he got interested, because he
wanted to work abroad, and the stranger might be able to help him get employment overseas.
Accused-appellant testified that, on January 22, 1996 at around 2 p.m., Solly returned to his house with her husband and the bodyguard of
her Japanese employer. They proceeded directly to the "dirty" kitchen of his house without knocking at the unlocked gate. Accusedappellant said he did not inquire into the purpose of their visit because he assumed it was about his application for overseas employment.
They allegedly assured him that they would help him. He introduced them to his mother, who served them leche flan and softdrinks. Then,

54
his mother left to fetch his children and his nephew from school. After eating, Solly and her companions moved to the garden, also inside
the compound. Solly requested him to call Tinga. He was about to go, but he saw Tinga coming. Accused-appellant assumed that they
agreed to meet at his house. After greeting Tinga and telling him that Solly was waiting for him in the garden, he went inside the kitchen
to wash the dishes used by his visitors. Tinga and the visitors went inside his house and joined his children in watching television.
Accused-appellant asked Tinga if he could help him in securing an overseas job and Tinga told him he would. He claims that he went out
to get an electric fan for his visitors but, when he returned, he saw them already in the storage room at the back of his house. He stated
that he saw Tinga handing two bags of shabu to the "bodyguard," who turned out to be NBI Agent Esmeralda. According to accusedappellant, he told Tinga and the visitors that he might be implicated in the transaction, and that his mother would get angry because she
did not know that they were transacting shabu in his house. They assured him, however, that they would take care he did not get involved
in the deal. Then, he saw Solly's "husband," whom he later learned was Agent Peneza, handing over a bag of money to Tinga. It was then
that the NBI agents identified themselves and ordered him and Tinga, at gun point, to lie face down on the floor. He and Tinga were
handcuffed. He allegedly said, "Iyan na nga ba ang sinasabi ko tapos ito pa ang mapapala ko, kawawa naman ako." Accused-appellant
claimed he was kicked and was told that he would be "taken care of."
Aurora Montano, accused-appellant's mother, arrived and found her grandchildren running around. One of them told her that accusedappellant was handcuffed and lying face down on the floor. When his mother saw him and the NBI agents, she exclaimed, "Bakit ganito
ang nangyari? Akala ko ba tutulungan ninyo ang anak ko, ngayon ito pa ang mapapala namin." The NBI agents repeated to his mother
that they would "take care of him." Then, another group, presumably with the NBI team, arrived and took pictures of them. Accusedappellant and Tinga were brought out of the storage room. Still another group arrived with the barangay chairman, showed his mother a
search warrant, and conducted a search on the house. According to him, nothing was recovered from his house. He and Tinga were taken
to the NBI office for fingerprinting. Again, he was told that he would be "taken care of." He and Tinga were detained separately at the
NBI Taft. Later, he said he was surprised to learn that Tinga was released. Subsequently, he was transferred for detention to MMRC,
Camp Ricardo Papa, Bicutan.20
On cross-examination, accused-appellant testified that Solly approached him on January 18, 1996 because there was nobody else at that
time she could ask for direction to Tinga's house.21 He said he was not investigated at the NBI office but was only asked by Agent
Esmeralda as to who was the owner of the shabu.22
Aurora Montano, accused-appellant's mother, also testified for the defense. She stated that, on January 18, 1996, she was at their house
taking care of her grandchildren, but she denied that they had visitors that day. Likewise, she denied having any visitor at their house on
January 19, 1996. According to her, on January 22, 1996 at around 2 p.m., she went out of the house and saw her son, two men, and a
woman seated on the bench of their "dirty" kitchen along the passageway. She described the passage as 140 meters long, 2 1/2 meters
wide, six feet in height, with concrete walls on both sides, a roof, and three gates. According to her, the "dirty" kitchen was located 40
meters from their house and 100 meters away from the first gate. Her son introduced her to the visitors and requested her to prepare some
snacks for them. She overheard them talking about a recruitment agency in Japan. She remembered one of them was named "Boyet."
After serving them leche flan and softdrinks, she said she went out to fetch her grandchildren from school. When she arrived, her son and
his companions were not in sight. Then, a group of around twenty armed persons arrived and kicked their main and middle gates, shouting
"shabu, shabu." She told them there was no shabu in the house. After driving these people away, she went inside to look for her
grandchildren. Some of them were at the back of their house where their storeroom was located. She went to the storeroom through
another passage and found her son and Tinga with their arms raised. The visitors were also there and introduced themselves as NBI
operatives. The other NBI agents arrived after a few minutes. Her son and Tinga were brought to the porch and handcuffed. Afterwards,
another group arrived with the barangay chairman and showed her a search warrant. They conducted a search throughout the house but
they allegedly did not find anything. Then, the two were taken to the NBI office in Taft Avenue. 23
On cross-examination, she testified that she did not know the reason why her son, Tinga, and their visitors went to their storage room on
January 22, 1996. She did not even notice them going there but only found out that they did when she went and saw her grandchildren in
the storeroom. She testified that nobody could enter the storeroom without her son's permission. Aurora Montano admitted that she knew
Tinga was selling shabu but claimed that she could not forbid her son from associating with Tinga because they were neighbors. She said
she was surprised why Tinga was released while her son remained in detention and was the only one charged in court. She stated that
Tinga is the cousin of Congressman Dante Tinga.24
On August 29, 1997, the trial court rendered a decision,25 the dispositive portion of which reads:26

55
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Arnel C. Montano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Section 15, in relation to Section 20, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972. Said accused is hereby sentenced to: (a) suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, (b) pay a fine in the amount of Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), and (c) pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him (1) "despite its findings that the prohibited drug subject matter of
(the) case did not originate from appellant but from Hector Tinga"; (2) "despite the fact that he was singled out for prosecution in
violation of his right to equal protection of laws"; and (3) "on the basis of an alleged buy-bust operation when it was shown to have been
resorted to harass, extort and abuse."27 In the alternative, he prays that this Court find him guilty as an accomplice only, because he merely
handed to the poseur-buyers the drug which Tinga produced.28
We find these contentions without merit.
First. This Court has held that the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.29
Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, the evidence for the prosecution establishes these elements beyond reasonable doubt. NBI
Agents Esmeralda and Peneza positively identified accused-appellant as the person who, together with Tinga, sold to them two plastic
packets of a white crystalline substance.30 Accused-appellant was thus caught in flagrante delicto in the buy-bust operation conducted by
the NBI. The corpus delicti of the crime charged, i.e., the 229.7 grams of shabu, was duly established before the trial court.31 In fact,
accused-appellant, through his counsel, even admitted the same.32 He delivered the drug to the buy-bust team and payment for it was
made. The fact that the drug originally came from Tinga is immaterial. As held by this Court, proof of ownership of the drug is not
necessary in the prosecution of illegal drug cases. It is sufficient that it was found in accused-appellant's possession. 33
Indeed, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be denied that accused-appellant had possession of the 229.7 grams
of shabu. It was he who delivered the same to the NBI operatives after it was handed to him by Tinga. 34 After making the delivery, he and
Tinga asked for the payment.35
Second. Accused-appellant invokes the defense of alibi. He claims that he went out of his house to get an electric fan and only witnessed
the illegal transaction after his return and that he was merely implicated by the arresting, officers.
This defense is uncorroborated. Accused-appellant's mother testified that she too was out of the house at the time the buy-bust operation
was being conducted and that, when she came back, she saw her son and Tinga already under arrest.
We have consistently held that the defense of alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is weak, self-serving, and
without weight in law, and thus undeserving of consideration by the courts. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
prosecution witnesses who have no reason or ill motive to testify falsely against the accused-appellant. 36 In this case, the testimonies for
the prosecution are consistent, unequivocal, and replete with details of the transaction with accused-appellant, and, therefore, merit our
full faith and credence.37
Third. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties in favor of the arresting officers had not been sufficiently
controverted by accused-appellant; hence, this Court is bound to uphold the same.38 Except for his self-serving statements, accusedappellant failed to present evidence to establish that the buy-bust operation was "resorted to harass, extort and abuse." In a vain attempt to
establish his inculpability, he even questioned the validity of his arrest on account of the absence of a warrant. The fact, however, is that
accused-appellant was apprehended in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation against him and his arrest falls within the ambit of
Rule 113, 5(a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on arrests without a warrant. Indeed, this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust
operation is "a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Law."39 The validity of the arrest in this case must be sustained.

56
Fourth. Nor is there merit in accused-appellant's assertion that, because of the release of Hector Tinga, he is entitled to an acquittal. No
principle of equality justifies setting free a man who is otherwise guilty just because his co-conspirator escaped prosecution. Accusedappellant's guilt is not dependent on whether or not Tinga was similarly charged with the same offense. As discussed above, the evidence
against accused-appellant sufficiently establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, it cannot be denied that Agents Peneza and Esmeralda testified that Tinga, who brought out the sachets from his pocket and
counted the purchase money with accused-appellant, also directly participated in the sale. What should be done, therefore, is to let a copy
of the decision be given to the Department of Justice so that it may review its resolution in the case of Hector Tinga.
Alternatively, accused-appellant prays that he be held guilty merely as an accomplice. This cannot be done. Art. 18 of the Revised Penal
Code defines an accomplice as a person who, not being a principal in the commission of a felony, cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts. On the other hand, Art. 17 thereof provides that principals are: (1) those who take a direct part
in the execution of the act; (2) those who directly force or induce others to commit it; and (3) those who cooperate in the commission of
the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.40
The evidence shows that accused-appellant was indeed a principal in the commission of the crime charged in this case. Though it was
Tinga who produced the two plastic packets of shabu, it was accused-appellant who delivered the same to the buy-bust team. He was the
one who asked for payment, who received the same, and who counted it in the presence of the buy-bust team. It is undeniable that
accused-appellant directly participated in the illegal sale of the shabu. Consequently, his conviction must be upheld.1wphi1.nt
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City is AFFIRMED in toto.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Honorable Secretary of Justice for whatever action he may deem necessary to take in the case
of Hector Tinga.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Bellosillo, J ., is on leave.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 121572

March 31, 2000

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
JOEL ELAMPARO y FONTANILLA, accused-appellant.
QUISUMBING, J.:
On May 31, 1995 the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, 1 convicted appellant of the crime of illegal possession of drugs, imposing
upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay a fine of P9,000,000.00.
As summarized by the Solicitor General, the facts of this case which we find to be supported by the records are as follows: 2
On February 12, 1995, at about 5:00 in the morning, prosecution witness Police Officer Romeo Baldonado, while attending to his
duties as supervising policeman of the Kalookan Police Station, received a report from an informant that "some people are
selling shabu and marijuana somewhere at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City" (TSN, April 11, 1995, p. 3, TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 3).
Said informant stated that he himself succeeded in buying said drugs (ibid., p 3).

57
Hence, Police Officer Baldonado formed a "buy-bust" operation team with himself as team leader and Police Officers Ernesto
Andala, Ronielo Reantillo and Bismark Gaviola as members (TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 4). Said team proceeded to the area reported
to at Progreso P. Gomez, Bagong Barrio, Kalookan City at around 5:45 in the morning of the same day (ibid., p. 3).
Upon arrival at the area, prosecution witness Gaviola, together with the informant "asset" stood at the corner of P. Gomez Street,
Bagong Barrio, Kalookan City, since the said spot was identified to be the "market" or where the buyers of marijuana await a
runner (seller). Thereafter, a runner later identified to be Erwin Spencer approached the poseur-buyer, Gaviola, who was asked
"Iiscore ba kayo" (TSN, April 5, 1995, p. 22) Having answered, "Iiscore kami", Spencer then left and returned after five minutes
with the marijuana (ibid., p. 22). Gaviola then handed over the marked money and arrested Spencer, but who freed himself and
ran (TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 7)
Then, the "buy-bust" team pursued Spencer, who ran inside a bungalow-type house with steel gate (ibid., p. 8). Having trapped
Spencer inside the house, the police officers frisked him and recovered the marked money (ibid., p. 9). The police officers
likewise found appellant repacking five (5) bricks of "marijuana" wrapped in a newspaper on top of the round table inside the
house's sala (TSN, April 11, 1995, p. 7). Appellant was then arrested and he confessed that the source of the "marijuana" was
Benguet (TSN, April 4, 1995, p. 10).
Spencer and appellant were later taken to the precinct where they were delivered to the inquest fiscal for further investigation
(TSN, April 11, 1995, p. 8). The arresting officers then executed an affidavit on the incident and made a request for the National
Bureau of Investigation to conduct examination of the drugs seized (TSN, May 3, 1995, p. 2). The NBI Report confirmed the
drugs seized to be "Marijuana" weighing five (5) kilos (ibid., p. 3).
On February 15, l995, the City Prosecutor charged appellant with the crime of illegal possession of drugs under the following
Information:3
That on or about the 12th day of February 1995 in Kalookan City, M.M. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control 5.208 kgs. of Marijuana, knowing the same to be a prohibited drugs (sic).
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On March 1, 1995, appellant, duly assisted by counsel de officio, entered a plea of not guilty.4
During trial, the prosecution presented as its witnesses (1) PO2 Bismark Gaviola, the poseur-buyer, (2) SPO2 Romeo Baldonado, one of
the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation, and (3) Juliet Gelacio Mahilum, a forensic chemist at the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). Mahilum testified that she conducted three types of examination on the five (5) bricks of marijuana flowering tops
(chemical examination, microscopic examination, and chromatographic examination) and that each of the five (5) bricks gave positive
results for marijuana.5
For the defense, appellant and Angelo Bernales, a boarder at appellant's house, testified. Their version of the incident is as follows: 6
JOEL ELAMPARO y FONTANILLA, the accused herein, gave a very different version of the incident. At around 6:00 to 7:30 in
the morning of February 12, 1995, he was at their house when somebody knocked at their door. His father opened the same and
was informed that somebody was looking for him. He went out and saw Erwin Spencer with handcuffs and being held by an
arresting officer. He likewise sighted PO3 Bismarck Gaviola holding a big box. When he persistently questioned Erwin Spencer
as to why he was arrested, the arresting officers got mad at him prompting them to likewise bring him to the police station where
he was detained. The arresting officers demanded the amount of P15,000.00 for his release. He remained in jail as he refused to
accede to their demand. On the other hand, Erwin Spencer was released two (2) days after they were jailed for the latter gave
money to the police officers. (TSN, pp. 1-8, May 9, 1995).
ANGELO BERNALE (sic), a student, testified that he is renting a small room at the accused' (sic) house located at No. 2 P.
Gomez St., Bagong Barrio, Kalookan City. On February 12, 1995, at about 6:00 to 7:00 o'clock in the morning he was about to

58
go out of the accused' (sic) house to bring breakfast to his father when he sighted Erwin Spencer in handcuffs, in the company of
three policemen one of whom was holding a box. Then he saw the policemen knocked at the door of the accused' (sic) house.
Shortly thereafter, the accused was taken away by the policemen.
After trial, the court rendered its decision,7 disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 8, Art. II of R.A. 6425, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and a fine of NINE MILLION (P9,000,000.00) PESOS, pursuant to Section 17 of the Death Penalty. With Costs.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, the present appeal. Appellant now contends that the trial court erred in 8
I. . . . GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND DISREGARDING THE
THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.
II. . . . FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 4 [SHOULD
BE SEC. 8] OF R.A. 6425.
III. . . . CONTENDING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED, THE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY.
In his brief, appellant assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He contends that it is highly unusual for arresting officers to act
on an "information" of an unknown source without confirming the veracity of the report, and that it is incredible that a peddler of
marijuana would be so brazen as to approach total strangers and offer to sell them marijuana. Appellant insists that he was charged with
illegal possession of marijuana because he failed to pay the police officers the amount of P15,000.00 for his release, unlike Spencer, who
paid said amount. Appellant assails the legality of his arrest inside the house of his father for failure of the apprehending officers to secure
a search warrant. Lastly, appellant contends that if found guilty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated
in his favor.
The Office of the Solicitor General, for the State, contends that further surveillance was unnecessary because the police "asset" had
personal knowledge of the open buying and selling of "marijuana" in the area, having purchased his "marijuana" a few hours before
reporting the matter to the police. Appellant also misrepresented himself in saying that Spencer was released without charges considering
that a separate investigation was conducted against the latter. The OSG contends that appellant's arrest was an incident to a lawful hot
pursuit made against Spencer. Appellant, in the course of the pursuit was surprised in plain view to be repacking the five (5) bricks of
marijuana. The OSG concedes, however, that the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated in favor of
appellant.
Considering the assigned errors and the foregoing contentions, we find that here the issues pertain, first, to the assessment of credibility of
witnesses; second, the validity of appellant's arrest; and third, the correctness of the penalty imposed by the trial court.
As to the first issue, it is well-settled that the assessment of credibility of witnesses is within the province of the trial court which had an
opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during their testimonies. Unless the trial court overlooked substantial facts which
would affect the outcome of the case, we accord the utmost respect to their findings of facts. As compared to the baseless disclaimers of
appellant, the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses appears worthy of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who
are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary.9
Appellant claims that it is highly suspect that Spencer would offer to sell marijuana to total strangers. However, in many cases, drug
pushers did sell their prohibited articles to prospective customers, be they strangers or not, in private as well as in public places, even in
the daytime. Indeed, some drug pushers appear to have become exceedingly daring, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not
the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act

59
constituting sale and delivery of prohibited drugs.10 As found a quo, it was the consummated sale between PO2 Gaviola and Spencer
which led to the eventual arrest of appellant.
As to the warrantless search, Section 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibits a search and seizure without a judicial warrant.
Further, Section 3 thereof provides that any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
However, not being absolute, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is subject to exceptions. Thus, for example, Section 12
of Rule 126, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, provides that a person lawfully arrested may be searched for "dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant."
Five generally accepted exceptions to the right against warrantless searches and seizures have also been judicially formulated, viz: (1)
search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs searches, and (5) waiver by the
accused themselves of their right against unreasonable search and seizure. 11
Considering its factual milieu, this case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine. In People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, 710-711 (1999),
we held that
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure even
without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites
concur (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from
which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent
to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law
enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the
area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The
object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
When Spencer wrenched himself free from the grasp of PO2 Gaviola, he instinctively ran towards the house of appellant. The members of
the buy-bust team were justified in running after him and entering the house without a search warrant for they were hot in the heels of a
fleeing criminal. Once inside the house, the police officers cornered Spencer and recovered the buy-bust money from him. They also
caught appellant in flagrante delictorepacking the marijuana bricks which were in full view on tap of a table. PO2 Gaviola testified as to
the circumstances of appellant's arrest as follows 12
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR EULOGIO MANANQUIL, JR.
Q:

Now how were you able to enter the house?

PO2 GAVIOLA:
A:

Because the door was already open.

Q:

When you entered the house, what happened inside the house?

A:

We saw Joel Elamparo, sir. He was then repacking five (5) bricks of marijuana wrapped in a newspaper.

Q:

Where was it placed, this five (5) packed (sic) of marijuana?

A:

It was placed on top of the table, sir.

Q:

Was Joel Elamparo alone when you saw him repacking these five (5) bricks of marijuana?

A:
He has some companions in the house, his wife, 2 other women, his father and there was one man there who was a
boarder.

60
Q:
Now you said that you saw Joel Elamparo repacking five bricks of marijuana, now who was his companion in repacking
the same?
A:

He was alone, sir.

Hence, appellant's subsequent arrest was likewise lawful, coming as it is within the purview of Section 5 (a) of Rule 113 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
Sec. 5 (a) is commonly referred to as the rule on in flagrante delicto arrest.13 Here two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such
overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.14 Thus, when appellant was seen repacking the marijuana, the
police officers were not only authorized but also duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
Although the caption of the Information charges the appellant with violation of Section 4 of Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659,15 otherwise known as the death penalty law, which refers to the sale, administration, delivery,
distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs, the body of the Information charges appellant with the crime of illegal possession of
prohibited drugs under Section 8 of Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. We have held that it is not the designation
of the offense in the Information that is controlling but the allegations therein which directly apprise the accused of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him.16 Appellant having been fully apprised of the elements of the crime of illegal possession of prohibited
drugs, he may properly be convicted of the crime of illegal possession of marijuana.
In drug cases, the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved is determinative of the imposable penalty.1wphi1 Section 20 of R.A. No.
6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, provides that when the quantity of indian hemp or marijuana is 750 grams or more, as
in this case, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00).
Appellant having been born on January 9, 1978,17 was only 17 years, 1 month, and 3 days old, at the time of the commission of the crime
on February 12, 1995. Beginning with our decision in People v. Simon,18 and reiterated in a number of decisions thereafter, the Court has
recognized the suppletory application of the rules on penalties in the Revised Penal Code to the Dangerous Drugs Act after the
amendment of the latter by Republic Act No. 7659. Appellant being a minor over fifteen and under eighteen at the time of the commission
of the crime, he is entitled to a reduced penalty due to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 13 (2) of the
Revised Penal Code. Article 68 (2) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed, but always in the proper period. Applying the provisions of Article 61 (2) of the Revised Penal Code which prescribes the rules
for graduating penalties, the imposable penalty on appellant is the penalty next lower in degree immediately following the lesser of the
penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale. The penalty next lower in degree than reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal.
There being no generic mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree which is prision
mayor. No fine is imposable in this case, for it is imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.19
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 121, in Criminal Case No. C-48478 (95) finding
appellant JOEL ELAMPARO Y FONTANILLA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of drugs is hereby
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that he is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor as minimum, and seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Costs
against appellant.1wphi1.nt
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

61
G.R. No. 172092

December 16, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JOEY TION y CABADDU, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Accused-appellant Joey Tion y Cabaddu seeks before us his acquittal through the reversal of the September 15, 2005 Decision 1 and
January 2, 2006 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00212. The CA affirmed the judgment in Criminal
Case No. 08-1163 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8 in Aparri, Cagayan, convicting Joey of violation of Section 4, Article II of
Republic Act No. (RA) 6425, as amended.
The Facts
An Information3 dated August 18, 1999 charged accused-appellant Joey, Ronald Diaz y Gario, and Allan Letan y Diaz with violation of
Sec. 4, Art. II of RA 6425, as amended. The Information reads:
That on or about March 4, 1999, in the Municipality of Aparri, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, being private individuals, conspiring together and helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell, distribute and/or deliver 5.2 kilos of marijuana, a prohibited drug, to operatives of the Philippine National Police
Force stationed at Aparri, Cagayan, the said accused knowing fully well and aware that it is prohibited for any person to sell, administer,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug unless authorized by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment on November 9, 1999, Joey, Ronald, and Allan, assisted by counsel, uniformly entered a plea of "not guilty." During
pre-trial, the defense admitted the identity of the three accused, the arrest of the accused on March 4, 1999, and the existence of Physical
Science Report No. D-53-99 on the dried leaves suspected to be marijuana issued by the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, Regional
Command 02 in Ilagan, Isabela.
The Prosecutions Version of Facts
To bolster its case against the three accused, the prosecution presented the testimonies of arresting police officers Police Superintendent
(P/Supt.) Feliciano Caranguian and Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Marlo Castillo, and Police Senior Inspector (P/SInsp.) Previ Fabros Luis of
the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Ilagan, Isabela.
During the period pertinent to the incident, P/Supt. Caranguian and P/Insp. Castillo were both assigned in Aparri, Cagayan, with the
former as Chief of Police.
On March 2, 1999, P/Supt. Caranguian directed P/Insp. Castillo, along with a police informant, to conduct a test buy operation in Agusi,
Camalaniugan, Cagayan to verify the information that marijuana was being sold there. On that day, the police informant initially bought
PhP 100 worth of marijuana from drug pushers in the locality.
On March 3, 1999, P/Supt. Caranguian instructed P/Insp. Castillo to do the test buy himself by having the police informant introduce him
to the drug pushers. Forthwith, P/Insp. Castillo and two police informants proceeded to the horno4 in Agusi, Camalaniugan, where the
latter introduced the undercover policeman as a student. As a result, P/Insp. Castillo was able to buy PhP 100 worth of marijuana sticks

62
from the drug pushers. On his initiative, P/Insp. Castillo negotiated to buy a bigger quantity of five kilos of marijuana the following day.
The drug pushers agreed and set the price at PhP 2,500 per kilo or a total of PhP 12,500 for five kilos.
Apprised about the deal, P/Supt. Caranguian sought the help of then Municipal Mayor Ismael Tumaru of Aparri, who gave PhP 6,250 for
the down payment. The bills, after they were photocopied and authenticated by Clerk of Court Rogelio M. Calanoga, were given to
P/Insp. Castillo.
On March 4, 1999, P/Insp. Castillo and the two police informants went at around 10:00 a.m. to the horno in Agusi, Camalaniugan to
consummate the sale. The drug pushers, however, told the undercover policeman that they could not make the delivery since they did not
have money to source the five kilos of marijuana. P/Insp. Castillo used the PhP 6,250 "marked money" he had to pay the drug pushers half
the contracted price, with the agreement that the balance would be paid upon delivery of the marijuana.
Later, at around 5:00 p.m. of the same day, Joey, Allan, and Ronald, aboard a motorbike driven by the latter, arrived and parked beside the
waiting shed at the designated place of delivery in front of the Aparri District Hospital in Toran, Aparri. Joey, upon alighting from the
motorbike, handed to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo the black bag he was carrying, which, when opened by the latter, contained bricks of
marijuana. Upon giving the pre-arranged signal of removing his cap, the other undercover policemenP/Supt. Caranguian, P/Insp.
Castillo, Senior Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Efren Farias, SPO2 Ricardo Napao, Police Officer 2 (PO2) Raymundo Carbonel, and PO2
Revelito Jovearrested Joey, Allan, and Ronald.
The accused were brought to the police station where they were searched. A stick of marijuana was taken from one of the accused, while
the search of Joey produced three 100 peso bills, which corresponded to the "marked money" earlier photocopied and authenticated by
Clerk of Court Calanoga. The bills were marked "ELF" by SPO2 Elpidio L. Florendo, the police investigator. The bricks of suspected
marijuana contained in the bag opened earlier weighed around 5.2 kilos. The confiscation receipt was signed by the arresting policemen.
The bricks of suspected marijuana were sent to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Ilagan, Isabela for examination. P/SInsp. Luis,
the forensic chemist who conducted the examination, submitted Physical Science Report No. D-53-99 which attested that the dried leaves
were indeed marijuana.
Version of the Defense
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of Joey, Ronald, Allan, and one Carlito Diaz.
Ronald testified that Joey and Allan merely rented his motorbike for PhP 250. He drove Joey and Allan to Ballesteros, Cagayan at about
12:30 p.m. on March 4, 1999. Upon reaching the place at around 2:30 p.m., they parked at the beach. Joey and Allan then left Ronald for
about half an hour. Upon their return, Joey was bringing a bag. They then proceeded to Toran, Aparri, Cagayan and he was instructed by
Joey to stop in front of the Aparri District Hospital, where moments later they were arrested.
Carlito Diaz testified that Joey was his classmate while Allan is his nephew. They belonged to the same team in the inter-barangay
summer basketball tournament. They practiced in the morning of March 4, 1999, and afterwards, as their routine, they went to the horno
along the river to rest and take a bath. There, he noticed a man (P/Insp. Castillo) and two teenagers (police informants) talking to Joey.
Eventually, the man handed Joey an envelope.
Allan narrated that he is a friend of Joey and plays basketball with him. While at the horno by the riverbank, a man (P/Insp. Castillo) and
two teenagers (police informants) called for Joey. They talked for a while, then the man handed an envelope to Joey. Later, Joey told Allan
that they would hire the motorbike of Ronald. They first went to a house in Ballesteros town where Joey talked to a person who handed
him a black bag some minutes later. Then they went to Camalaniugan and stopped at a waiting shed there. Since nobody was there, Joey
instructed Ronald to proceed to Toran, Aparri. Upon reaching the Aparri District Hospital, Joey told Ronald to stop. He heard P/Insp.
Castillo ask Joey, "Do you have it?" to which Joey responded, "Yes, I have." Joey then gave the bag to P/Insp. Castillo who opened it.
Thereafter, they were arrested.
Accused-appellant Joey raised the primary defense of instigation. He testified that there was no test buy conducted beforehand. On
March 4, 1999, while he was resting with some friends at the horno in Camalaniugan beside the Cagayan River after a basketball game

63
practice, a man (P/Insp. Castillo) and two teenagers (police informants) approached his group and inquired where they could buy
marijuana cigarettes. When a friend pointed to Joey, the man approached him and introduced himself as a student of the Lyceum of
Aparri. He asked Joey if he could buy him five kilos of marijuana for a ready buyer in Manila. Joey told him that he could get it from
Ballesteros, Cagayan for PhP 2,500 per kilo, but Joey said that he could not source it for he had no money. The man told Joey he could
advance PhP 6,250, corresponding to half the total price, and pay the balance upon delivery of the goods. When Joey agreed, the man
handed him the PhP 6,250.
Joey then asked Allan to accompany him to Ballesteros. Upon hiring Ronald and his motorbike, they immediately proceeded there after
lunch to meet his supplier named Johnny Reyes. Johnny agreed with the arrangement and handed Joey the five kilos of marijuana in a
black bag in exchange for PhP 6,250. From Ballesteros, they went first to the horno but, finding no one there, they proceeded to the
waiting shed in front of the hospital in Toran. Upon reaching the place, their contact man asked if Joey had the marijuana. Joey answered
it was in the bag which he handed to the man. Then they were arrested. Joey asserted that he only had PhP 110 in his pocket at the time.
The very next day, Joey further narrated, P/Supt. Caranguian told him that if he would name his supplier and the place where they bought
the marijuana, no charges would be filed against the three of them, Joey, Ronald, and Allan. Joey drew a sketch of the house of Johnny
Reyes in Ballesteros. He believed that Johnny Reyes was arrested and insisted that they (the three accused) should not be charged because
of the information they gave about Johnny Reyes pursuant to the deal with P/Supt. Caranguian.
The RTC Convicted Joey
On June 26, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision,5 convicting Joey of selling marijuana, but exonerating Allan and Ronald. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Ronald Diaz and Allan Letan NOT GUILTY of the crime charged and are hereby ACQUITTED
for lack of evidence. However, the Court finds accused Joey Tion "GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of selling marijuana weighing 5.2
kilos a prohibited drug in violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended and is hereby sentence[d] to:
1. suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; and
2. pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand (PhP 500,000) Pesos.
SO ORDERED.
Aggrieved, Joey filed a motion for new trial dated July 15, 2002, which was opposed by the prosecution. Joey then filed a reply, omnibus
motion for inhibition, cancellation, and re-raffling dated October 14, 2002, praying for the inhibition of the trial court judge who rendered
the above decision. On November 18, 2002, Judge Manauis inhibited.
Eventually, on May 27, 2003, Joeys motion for a new trial was denied. Joey filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied through an
Order6 dated July 8, 2003.
On July 30, 2003, this case was appealed directly to this Court due to the imposition of reclusion perpetua, docketed as G.R. No. 160462.
But in conformity with People v. Mateo,7 we transferred this case to the CA on October 11, 20048 for intermediate review.
The CA Affirmed Joeys Conviction
As stated at the outset, the appellate court, in the assailed decision dated September 15, 2005, affirmed that of the trial court, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 26 June 2002, which was promulgated on 02 July 2002, of the Regional Trial
Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 08 in Crim. Case No. 08-1163 finding the accused-appellant JOEY TION y CABADDU guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of PhP 500,000 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.9

64
Joeys motion for reconsideration was rejected through the equally assailed CA resolution dated January 2, 2006.
The Issues
Undaunted, Joey is now with this Court via the present appeal raising essentially the same assignment of errors he raised in G.R. No.
160462, as follows:
1) Joey is instigated and induced upon, i.e., there was no valid buy-bust operation;
2) The submission of the Philippine Cannavissativa or Marijuana is barred by prescription;
3) Joey is prematurely made to suffer the imprisonment imposed;
4) Joeys innocence is declared by the trial court in its decision; and,
5) Joeys constitutional presumption of innocence is uncontroverted.
The foregoing assignment of errors can be synthesized into: first, the core issue of whether there was a valid buy-bust operation;
and second, whether Joey is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling marijuana.
The People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), chose not to file any supplemental brief
confining its position and arguments in the earlier filed Brief for the Appellee, while accused-appellant Joey filed a supplemental 10 to his
appellants brief.
The Courts Ruling
We deny the appeal.
A close perusal of the records of the case and the clear and unanimous findings of the courts a quo compel this Court to affirm Joeys
conviction.
First Core Issue: Valid Buy-Bust Operation
Joey strongly argues that he was instigated and induced to buy marijuana by P/Insp. Castillo. He maintains that he was merely an errand
boy to buy five kilos of marijuana from Johnny Reyes with the money (PhP 6,250) provided by the mayor of Aparri through P/Insp.
Castillo. Without that money, Joey contends, he could not have procured the marijuana. He, thus, asserts that he is neither the seller, for
that would be Johnny Reyes, nor the buyer, for that would be the mayor of Aparri through P/Insp. Castillo. As a mere errand boy or a
middle man at best, Joey avers that he was clearly instigated and induced to procure five kilos of marijuana with the money provided for
by P/Insp. Castillo, and there was really no buy-bust operation.
We are not persuaded.
A 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. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due respect to constitutional and
legal safeguards.11 There is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.12
As aptly quoted by the appellate court, People v. Doria provides the "objective" test in scrutinizing buy-bust operations in this wise:
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be
clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between 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 subject of the sale. The
manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the

65
"buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not
at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accuseds
predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity,
then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in
so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.13
Prescinding from the above test or guidelines, we find no error in the courts a quos findings and disposition of the instant case.
Prosecution Testimonies More Credible
First, the testimonies of P/Supt. Caranguian and P/Insp. Castillo are very clear and coherent. The details pertaining to the test buys on
March 2 and 3, 1999 were clear: The police informant bought marijuana on March 2, while P/Insp. Castillo was able to buy marijuana on
March 3 after being introduced to Joey and Allan by two police informants. The deal for the purchase of five kilos of marijuana was
agreed upon on March 3, 1999. The "marked money" was then prepared with the help of then Mayor Tumaru and Clerk of Court
Calanoga who photocopied and authenticated it. In the morning of March 4, 1999, P/Insp. Castillo, with the two police informants,
confirmed the purchase of the five kilos and paid half the price with the PhP 6,250 "marked money." And upon delivery by Joey of the 5.2
kilograms bricks of marijuana in the agreed place at 5:00 p.m. on March 4, 1999, he was arrested along with Allan and Ronald.
Confiscated from Joey were the bricks of marijuana and three PhP 100 bills, which were among those from the PhP 6,250 "marked
money" earlier paid to him by P/Insp. Castillo.
The testimony of P/Insp. Castillo14 was corroborated on material points by P/Supt. Caranguian,15 who was part of the buy-bust team that
apprehended Joey, Allan, and Ronald on March 4, 1999.
There Was Neither Instigation nor Inducement
Second, there is no showing that Joey was merely prevailed upon to buy marijuana in behalf of P/Insp. Castillo. The fact that two test
buys were made on March 2 and 3, 1999 shows that Joey was involved in selling marijuana. Moreover, the testimonies of defense
witnesses Allan Letan16 and Carlito Diaz17 tend to show that poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo and the two teenagers (police informants) with
him had indeed met Joey before March 4, 1999. Allan testified that P/Insp. Castillo called for Joey. This belies Joeys testimony that he
met poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo for the first time in the morning of March 4, 1999, for how could P/Insp. Castillo call him if they had
not met earlier?
Carlito Diaz likewise testified to the fact that P/Insp. Castillo talked to Joey. P/Insp. Castillo was already familiar to Joey. Besides, the fact
that P/Insp. Castillo called for Joey that morning of March 4, 1999 at the horno in Agusi, Camalaniugan shows that they had already met
before. This gives credence to P/Insp. Castillos testimony that, indeed, positive test buys were made the previous two days, with him
meeting Joey and Allan face-to-face on March 3, 1999.
Joey, in his testimony, denied selling marijuana. Yet, when asked to provide for a large quantity of marijuana, he agreed to deliver five
kilos of it at the price of PhP 2,500 per kilo. The fact that Joey agreed to deliver five kilos of marijuana shows that he believed poseurbuyer P/Insp. Castillo, whom he had met earlier during the March 3, 1999 test buy, to be truly a student of the Lyceum in Aparri and
nothing more. In fact, Joey delivered 5.2 kilos of marijuana to him in the afternoon of March 4, 1999, after receiving PhP 6,250 or half of
the agreed price in the morning of the same day. Thus, we agree with the trial courts finding that Joey would not have readily agreed and
admitted to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo that he can sell large quantities of marijuana if he (Joey) is not selling marijuana and did not
know how to source the illegal drug. The fact is, as can be gleaned from the sale of five kilos of marijuana, Joey stands to profit from such
a sale. It is, thus, clear to us that the mens rea came from Joey, who was neither instigated nor induced.
Where 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 the 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. What the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise innocent
person into a criminal career. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and

66
himself becomes a co-principal, while in entrapment, the peace officer resorts to ways and means to trap and capture the lawbreaker in the
execution of the latters criminal plan.18
Besides, we will not be remiss to point out that, in many cases, drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to prospective customers, be they
strangers or not, in private as well as in public places, even in daytime.19 What matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer
and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the act constituting the sale and delivery of prohibited
drugs.20
Joeys contention that he gave the whole amount of PhP 6,250 to one Johnny Reyes is beyond belief. He rented the motorbike of Ronald
for PhP 250, and it is incredulous, to say the least, that he would spend PhP 250 out of his own pocket just to procure marijuana for the
mayor through P/Insp. Castillo, as he maintains. And this fact is belied by the confiscation of three PhP 100 bills which formed part of the
"marked money" previously photocopied and authenticated by Clerk of Court Calanoga, and duly presented as evidence during trial. The
three bills were presented in court as prosecution Exhibits "A" to "C."21
Therefore, we sustain the trial courts finding that Joeys pose that he was instigated by P/Insp. Castillo is without factual and legal basis.
The mode of detection and arrest resorted to was entrapment that is perfectly legal.
No Ill Motive from the Buy-Bust Team
Third, there is likewise no showing that the police officers framed up Joey. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the
members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the
buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.22 Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence is given to prosecution witnesses who 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.23 The records do not show any allegation of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team. Thus, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the police officers must be upheld.
Second Core Issue: Act of Selling Marijuana
Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
As to the pivotal issue of whether accused-appellant Joey is guilty of selling marijuana, we answer in the affirmative.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved: (1) that the transaction took place; (2) that the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. 24 With respect to illegal sale of
marijuana, its essential elements are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) delivery
of the thing sold and the payment.25
The foregoing elements were duly proved during the trial. Thus, we agree with the appellate courts affirmance of the trial courts finding
that Joey is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling marijuana.
There can be no dispute that Joey delivered 5.2 kilos of marijuana to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo on March 4, 1999 at around 5:00 p.m.
There is likewise no dispute that P/Insp. Castillo paid PhP 6,250 to Joey in the morning of March 4, 1999. Thus, the identities of Joey and
poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo are certain.
In fact, by foisting the defense of instigation and through his own testimony, Joey admitted26 delivering 5.2 kilos of marijuana to poseurbuyer P/Insp. Castillo in the late afternoon of March 4, 1999. He likewise admitted and testified to receiving PhP 6,250 payment of half
the contract price for five kilos of marijuana from poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo. This fact of receiving payment is corroborated by defense
witnesses Allan Letan and Carlito Diaz who saw Joey receive an envelope from P/Insp. Castillo in the morning of March 4, 1999.
The identities of Joey, as seller, and P/Insp. Castillo, as poseur-buyer, are, thus, certain. The fact of the payment of PhP 6,250 was proved
and admitted by Joey. The delivery of 5.2 kilos of marijuana by Joey to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo was likewise proved and admitted

67
by Joey. With these certainties, it is clear that Joey was caught in flagrante delicto of selling marijuana to poseur-buyer P/Insp. Castillo.
The well-entrenched principle is that the accused commits the crime of illegal sale of drugs as soon as he consummates the sale
transaction whether payment precedes or follows delivery of the drugs sold.27
Despite the admission of Joey in his testimony that he delivered the marijuana, the prosecution is nonetheless tasked to prove the
existence, and presentation in court, of the confiscated marijuana, the corpus delicti and object of the illegal sale. One with the courts a
quo, we hold that the prosecution has sufficiently carried the burden of proving this beyond reasonable doubt.
The confiscated bricks of marijuana were photographed in front of the three accused in the police station, and duly issued a confiscation
receipt. The specimens were duly passed on to the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, Regional Command 02 in Ilagan, Isabela, covered
by a letter-request dated April 8, 1999 for laboratory testing and confirmation of the suspected marijuana. The laboratory tests on the
specimens were conducted by forensic chemist P/SInsp. Luis of the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, who issued Physical Science
Report No. D-53-99 confirming the specimens to be marijuana. During her testimony28 on March 20, 2001, P/SInsp. Luis also presented
in court the bricks of marijuana, the object of the illegal sale.1avvphi1
Hence, the integrity of the custody of the specimens composed of bricks of marijuana has not been broken from the police station to the
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office until their presentation in court during the trial. The bricks of marijuana were presented as
prosecution Exhibits "G" to "L."29 The confiscation receipt issued by the arresting officers and signed by the accused was presented as
prosecution Exhibit "M,"30 and the letter-request for the laboratory tests of the specimens as prosecution Exhibit "N," 31 while Physical
Science Report No. D-53-99 is prosecution Exhibit "O."32
Joey contends that the presentation of the bricks of marijuana is barred by prescription and in violation of Sec. 21(2) and (3) of RA
916533 that requires the submission and examination of the specimens within 24 hours from confiscation, and the examination report
under oath by the one who conducted the examination, also issued within 24 hours after receipt of the specimens.
Joeys contention is specious at best. For one, the confiscation of the marijuana on March 4, 1999 and its examination and presentation in
open court during the testimony of P/SInsp. Luis on March 20, 2001 were made way before the passage of RA 9165 in 2002. For another,
the principle that whatever is favorable to the accused must be applied retroactively does not obtain in this instance, for its applicability is
primarily on the substantive aspect. The procedure followed in the custody and examination of suspected dangerous drug specimens
before the passage of RA 9165 and before the creation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency cannot be put aside by the mere
operation of the later law. As aptly put by the appellate court:
The appellant is actually invoking the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Said law was
enacted only on 07 June 2002. It was on 04 March 1999 that the appellant was caught violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659 and was charged accordingly. Hence, the police officers cannot be faulted for alleged non-observance of a law
(R.A. No. 9165) that was not yet in existence.34
Moreover, the prosecution, at the end of presentation of its evidence, filed its Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence on August 13, 2001,
way before the passage of RA 9165.
Anent Joeys assertion that the three PhP 100 bills were planted, suffice it to say that the presentation of "marked money" is not essential
in the prosecution of the crime of selling dangerous drugs. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug
cases; it is merely corroborative evidence.35 Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a "buybust" operation.36 Besides, payment of consideration is immaterial in the distribution of illicit drugs. 37
In a futile effort to extricate himself, Joey posits that the Philippine Cannavissativa or marijuana is not a prohibited drug under RA 6425,
as amended. The appellate court aptly brushed his position aside by citing Sec. 2(e)38 and (i)39 of RA 6425, as amended, which clearly and
categorically classified Philippine Cannavissativa or marijuana as a prohibited drug being a derivative of the plant cannabis sativa L.,
otherwise known as "Indian hemp."
With the foregoing disquisition, it is beyond any quibble of doubt that accused-appellant Joey is, indeed, guilty of violation of Sec. 4, Art.
II of RA 6425, as amended.

68
Finally, with respect to the penalty, Sec. 4, Art. II, in relation to Sec. 20, of RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, provides:
Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. The penalty ofreclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesosshall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or
shall act as broker in any such transactions.
xxxx
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. The penalties for offenses
under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous
drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:
xxxx
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana;
xxxx
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by
the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose. (Emphasis supplied.)
On the basis of the above provisions of law, the penalty imposed by the courts a quo upon Joey, which isreclusion perpetua, is proper,
considering that the marijuana confiscated in this case as a result of the buy-bust operation weighs more than 750 grams, i.e., 5.2
kilograms. The penalty of death cannot be imposed anymore due to its abolition under RA 9346.
In the same vein, the fine of PhP 500,000 imposed by the courts a quo on accused-appellant Joey is also in order, as this fine is the
minimum of the range of fines imposable on any person who sells prohibited drugs without any authority as clearly provided in Sec. 4,
Art. II of RA 6425, as amended.
The stiff penalties that the crime of dealing with illegal drugs carry stemmed no doubt from the reality that this menace has destroyed the
lives of many members of our society. It has brought so much pain and suffering not only to its victims but also to their families. Many
drug users are, in fact, even induced to commit criminal acts in order to sustain their vice.
For this reason, the government is exerting all efforts to put an end to the trade on prohibited drugs, down to the street level. This will
come to naught if its perpetrators will be allowed to get off the hook, so to speak, by imputing ill motives or some other consideration on
the part of police officers who are simply doing their best to curtail their illegal activities.
WHEREFORE, the appeal of accused-appellant Joey Tion y Cabaddu is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the CAs September 15, 2005
Decision and January 2, 2006 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00212 are AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 186418

October 16, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ALFREDO LAZARO, JR. a.k.a JUN LAZARO y AQUINO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

69
For review is the Decision1 dated 18 July 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02258 which affirmed with modification
the Decision2 dated 27 April 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Baguio City, in Criminal Cases No. 23227-R, No.
23228-R and No. 23229-R, finding accused-appellant Alfredo Lazaro, Jr. a.k.a Jun Lazaro y Aquino guilty of illegal sale, possession and
use of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu, under Sections 5, 11, and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The facts gathered from the records are as follows:
On 17 June 2004, two separate informations were filed before the RTC against appellant for illegal sale and possession of shabu under
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the informations read:
Criminal Case No. 23227-R
The undersigned accuses ALFREDO LAZARO, JR. a.k.a JUN LAZARO y AQUINO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF
REPUBLIC ACT 9165 otherwise known as the COMPREHENSIVE Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:
That on June 15, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, x
x x, and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and/or deliver One (1) small heat
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as Shabu in the amount of P3,000.00 [should
be P300], weighing 0.05 gram to Poseur Buyer SPO1 Dennis G. Indunan, knowing fully well that said Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
known as Shabu is a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforementioned provision of law.3
Criminal Case No. 23229-R
The undersigned accuses JUN LAZARO y AQUINO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 committed as follows:
That on June 15, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused x
x x, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control One (1) small heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as Shabu weighing 0.04 gram, a dangerous drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription in violation of the aforecited provision of law.4
On 18 June 2004, an information was filed with the RTC against appellant for illegal use of shabu under Section 15, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, thus:
Criminal Case No. 23228-R
The undersigned accuses JUN LAZARO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 15 [ARTICLE II] OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 [otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002], committed as follows:
That on or about the 15th day of June, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Dangerous Drugs particularly Methamphetamine per
the result of a Qualitative Examination conducted on the urine sample taken from him, in violation of the aforecited provision of law.5
Subsequently, these cases were consolidated. When arraigned on 28 June 2004, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not
guilty" to each of the charges.6 Trial on the merits thereafter followed.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Senior Inspector Hordan T. Pacatiw, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Dennis G. Indunan,
SPO1 Emerson A. Lingbawan and PO3 Paulino A. Lubos, all of whom are members of the Philippine National Police and were assigned
at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Anti-Illegal Drugs Team unit, Baguio City. Their testimonies, taken together, bear the
following:

70
On 15 June 2004, at about 12:30 p.m., an informant went to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG), Anti-Illegal Drugs
Team unit (AIDT), Baguio City, and reported to PO3 Paulino Lubos (PO3 Lubos) the drug trafficking activities of appellant in Central
Bakakeng, Baguio City. PO3 Lubos relayed the information to Police Senior Inspector Hordan T. Pacatiw (Inspector Pacatiw), head of
AIDT, who in turn, referred the matter to Senior Superintendent Marvin V. Bolabola (Superintendent Bolabola), chief of CIDG, Baguio
City, for appropriate action. Superintendent Bolabola formed a team and planned a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of
Inspector Pacatiw who would act as the team leader; SPO1 Dennis G. Indunan (SPO1 Indunan) as the poseur-buyer; PO3 Lubos as the
seizing officer; and SPO1 Emerson A. Lingbawan (SPO1 Lingbawan) as the arresting officer. Superintendent Bolabola handed SPO1
Indunan three One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills to be utilized as buy-bust money. SPO1 Indunan marked the monies with "DG-06-1504." Thereafter, the team coordinated the planned buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
At around 2:30 p.m. of the same date, the team, together with the informant, went to appellants house at 181 Km. 3, Central Bakakeng,
Baguio City. Upon arriving thereat, the informant and SPO1 Indunan saw appellant standing at the balcony of the third floor of the threestorey house. The informant proceeded inside appellants house and talked with appellant at the balcony of the third floor, while SPO1
Indunan stood outside the house at a distance of 10 meters. The rest of the team positioned themselves outside appellants house at a
distance of 25 meters. Later, the informant signaled SPO1 Indunan to approach him and appellant at the balcony of the third floor.
Thereupon, the informant introduced SPO1 Indunan to appellant as user and buyer of shabu. The informant subsequently excused himself
and left SPO1 Indunan and appellant. Appellant then asked SPO1 Indunan how much worth of shabu he would want to buy. SPO1
Indunan answered he would like to purchase three hundred pesos (P300.00) worth of shabu. Appellant knocked at the door of a room in
the balcony and called a certain "Bong." Bong is appellants brother whose full name is Ferdinand Bong Lazaro. A man opened the door
and handed a green box to appellant. Appellant opened the green box, took a plastic sachet from it, handed the plastic sachet to SPO1
Indunan, and demanded payment from the latter. After examining the contents of the plastic sachet and believing that the same contained
shabu, SPO1 Indunan gave the three marked one hundred peso bills to appellant. At this juncture, SPO1 Indunan removed his sunglasses
and placed it in his pocket as pre-arranged signal to the other members of the team.
The other members of the team rushed to the crime scene and identified themselves as police officers. Appellant tried to resist arrest but
he was subdued by the team. Inspector Pacatiw then apprised appellant of his constitutional rights. Afterwards, SPO1 Indunan frisked and
recovered from appellant the buy-bust money and the green box which contained another plastic sachet with white substance. SPO1
Indunan marked with "DG-06-15-04" the plastic sachet containing white substance sold to him by appellant, as well as the plastic sachet
with white substance found inside the green box.
Meanwhile, Inspector Pacatiw knocked at the door of a room on the balcony and called on Bong to open the door but to no avail.
Inspector Pacatiw and some members of the team then forcibly opened the door. Although the team found no one inside the room, they,
however, subsequently saw a man, whom they believed to be Bong, running down the basement of the house and exiting through its back
door. The man then disappeared.
Thereafter, the team discovered and seized at the third floor of the house several drug paraphernalias. The team made a written inventory
on said paraphernalias, as well as the plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan and the plastic sachet recovered in appellants
possession, in the presence of representatives from media, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the barangay. Said representatives signed
the inventory document on the seized items. Inspector Pacatiw took custody of the said seized items.1avvphi1
The team immediately brought appellant, as well as the items seized, to the office of the CIDG, Baguio City. Thereupon, the team made a
booking sheet, arrest report, a "Joint Affidavit of Arrest" and an "Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer" as regards the buy-bust operation.
Superintendent Bolabola made a written request for physical examination of appellant to the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office. After conducting a physical examination on appellant, Dr. Elizardo D. Daileg, medico-legal officer of the PNP Benguet Provincial
Crime Laboratory Office, issued a medico-legal certificate attesting that no injuries were found on appellants body. Superintendent
Bolabola also made separate written requests to the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for drug test on appellant and a
laboratory examination on the plastic sachet containing white substance sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan and the plastic sachet with
white substance found in appellants possession. After conducting a laboratory examination on the urine sample taken from appellant,
Police Officer 1 Juliet Valentin Albon, Forensic Analyst of the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (Forensic Analyst
Albon), issued a report stating that appellant was positive for shabu. Likewise, after making laboratory tests, Forensic Analyst Albon
issued a chemistry report certifying that the plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan contained 0.05 gram of shabu while the
plastic sachet recovered from appellants possession contained 0.04 gram of shabu.7

71
The prosecution also adduced documentary and object evidence to buttress the testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (1) joint affidavit of the
arresting officers signed by Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos (Exhibit A); 8 (2) affidavit of the poseur-buyer signed by
SPO1 Indunan (Exhibit B);9 (3) booking sheet and arrest report for appellant (Exhibit C);10 (4) request to conduct laboratory examination
on the two plastic sachets recovered from appellant which was signed by Superintendent Bolabola; 11 (5) request for drug test on appellant
signed by Superintendent Bolabola (Exhibit D);12 (6) request for physical examination on appellant signed by Superintendent Bolabola
(Exhibit E);13 (7) medico-legal certificate signed by Dr. Daileg (Exhibit E-1);14 (8) chemistry report on the drug test of appellant signed by
Forensic Analyst Albon (Exhibit H);15 (9) chemistry report on the content of plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan and the
content of the plastic sachet recovered from possession of appellant signed by Forensic Analyst Albon (Exhibit I); 16 (10) inquest
disposition issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor, Baguio City (Exhibit J); 17 (11) written inventory on the items seized from appellant
signed by representatives from the media, DOJ and barangay (Exhibit M);18 (12) coordination sheet with the PDEA (Exhibit N);19 (13)
receipt of the items seized from appellant signed by the members of the buy-bust team (Exhibit O); 20 (14) two plastic sachet containing
shabu sold by and recovered from the possession of appellant (Exhibit K);21 and (15) buy-bust money confiscated from appellant (Exhibit
L).22
For its part, the defense proffered the testimonies of appellant and his father, namely Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. to refute the foregoing
accusations. Appellant denied any liability and claimed he was framed.
Appellant testified that on 15 June 2004, between 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., he was sleeping in his room at the third floor of a three-storey
house located at 181 Km. 3, Central Bakakeng, Baguio City. He was roused from his sleep by the barking of dogs outside his house. He
opened the door of his room and saw PO3 Lubos, Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan, SPO1 Indunan and some members of the CIDG,
Baguio City, namely Warren Lacangan, Jojo Unata and Jun Digula approaching. PO3 Lubos tried to hit him with the gun but he evaded it.
Inspector Pacatiw hit him several times in the stomach with a gun. Said policemen kicked him several times causing him to fall on the
floor. Thereafter, the policemen destroyed the door of his brothers (Ferdinand Bong Lazaro) room and entered therein. He was dragged
inside the said room. Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos then took the laptop, diskman, Buddha coin bank and power
tools inside the room. Subsequently, the policemen brought him to the second floor of the house where he saw Jade Salazar (Jade), the
live-in partner of his brother, Renato Lazaro. The policemen apprehended Jade, took the latters bag and a green box, and asked her the
whereabouts of Bong. He and Jade were later brought to the CIDG office, Baguio City. Thereupon, the policemen took his wallet,
demanded an amount of P200,000.00, and told him to contact Bong so that the latter may help him settle his case.
While appellant and Jade were being held at CIDG office, Baguio City, a certain Rosita Salazar (Salazar), allegedly a Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) Judge from Abra and Jades grandmother, arrived and introduced herself to the policemen. The policemen ignored Salazar
as the latter did not have any identification card. The policemen then brought appellant and Jade to the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime
Laboratory Office where they were subjected to physical examination. Upon their return to the CIDG office, the policemen showed them
three plastic sachets of shabu which would be used against them as evidence. Later, however, appellant learned that Jade was released by
the policemen in exchange for a certain amount of money. During his detention in the CIDG office, he saw PO3 Lubos preparing the
marked money. At that point, he realized that a case would be filed against him in court.
Appellant denied having sold to SPO1 Indunan one plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of shabu on 15 June 2004. He claimed that it was
impossible for the back-up members of the buy-bust team to have witnessed his alleged sale of shabu to SPO1 Indunan because there
were big trees beside the three-storey house which blocked the view of persons on the ground looking up to the balcony of the third floor.
He denied having received from Bong a green box during the alleged buy-bust and averred that Jade owned the green box.23
Alfredo Lazaro, Sr., appellants father, testified that on 15 June 2004, at about 2:00 p.m., he was watching television inside his room at the
third floor of the three-storey house situated at 181 Km. 3, Central Bakakeng, Baguio City. Later, he heard the barking of dogs outside the
house. Curious, he opened the door of his room. He then saw PO3 Lubos and several policemen mauling appellant. Shocked, he uttered
"apay dayta?" (Why is that?). PO3 Lubos and the policemen stopped beating appellant. As he was already experiencing chest pains, he
returned to his room. Subsequently, he saw the policemen carrying a backpack and a plastic bag the contents of which belonged to Bong. 24
The defense also submitted a written undertaking of Jade and a receipt of custody signed by Salazar in support of its contentions. 25
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellant in all of the criminal cases. In Criminal Case No. 23227-R, appellant was
found guilty of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also

72
ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. 23228-R, appellant was found guilty of violating Section
15 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal use of shabu) and was penalized with six months drug rehabilitation in a government center. With
respect to Criminal Case No. 23229-R, appellant was found guilty of violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of
shabu) and was meted an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum. He was
further ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 18 July 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision partly granting the appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction of appellant in Criminal Cases No. 23227-R and No. 23229-R. However, it reversed the
RTCs ruling in Criminal Case No. 23228-R by acquitting appellant in the said criminal case.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 August 2008.26
In his Brief27 and Supplemental Brief,28 appellant assigned the following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSESS WHILE TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE;
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROCEDURES LAID DOWN IN RA 9165.29
In the main, appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt for illegal sale and possession of shabu.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. In prosecutions for
illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti as evidence.30In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish, through testimonial, documentary and object
evidence, the said elements.
SPO1 Indunan, the poseur-buyer, testified that appellant sold to him shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation.31 Per chemistry report
of Forensic Analyst Albon, the substance, weighing 0.05 gram, which was bought by SPO1 Indunan from appellant for P300.00, was
examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. SPO1 Indunan narrated the transaction with appellant as follows:
Q What happened next when you were already at the residence of the accused?
A When we were near the house, we saw a man standing at the balcony, Sir.
Q How many storeys is the house of the accused?
A About three (3), Sir.
Q Where is the balcony where the man was standing?
A At the third floor, Sir.

73
Q What happened next?
A The Informant told me to wait first and he would go ahead and talk to Jun, Sir.
Q What happened next?
A After talking, the Informant signaled me to go near them, sir.
xxxx
Q What happened next?
A The Informant signaled me to go near them, Sir.
xxxx
Q What happened next?
A I was introduced to Jun as user and buyer of shabu, Sir.
Q Were you introduced by name?
A No, Sir.
Q What happened next?
A The Informant excused himself, Sir.
Q And them?
A We talked with Jun and asked me how much will I buy, Sir.
Q In what language or dialect?
A Tagalog, Sir.
Q How?
A "Magkano bang bibilhin mo" and I said "tatlong daan lang," Sir.
Q What happened next?
A He knocked at the door and called out for "Bong." Sir.
Q What happened next?
A Bong opened the door and handed Jun something a green box, Sir.
Q How did you know that it was Bong?
A That is what I heard, Sir.

74
Q Were you able to see the face of Bong during that time?
A Yes, Sir.
Q After Bong had opened the door, what happened next? All this time you were beside Jun?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What happened next after the green box was handed to Jun?
A The person told Jun "eto na yong box," Sir.
Q What happened next?
A And Jun opened the box and brought out one (1) plastic sachet and handed it to me and demanded for the payment, Sir.
Q How?
A He said "akina yong bayad," Sir.
Q After he handed to you that sachet and asked for the payment what did you say also?
A I first examined the content and after believing that it was shabu, I handed the marked money, Sir.
xxxx
Q After that what happened next?
A After handling him the money, I gave the pre-arranged signal, Sir.
Q What was your pre-arranged signal?
A By removing my sunglasses and placing it in my pocket, Sir.
Q After you have made the signal what happened next?
A My back-up team rushed to where I am (sic), Sir.
xxxx
PROS. CATRAL:
Q The subject of your operation you already know him initially as Jun, did you eventually come to know his full name?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What is his full name?
A Jun Aquino Lazaro, Sir.
Q If Jun Aquino Lazaro is in the courtroom would you be able to identify him?

75
A Yes, Sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to a male person who gave his name as Jun Lazaro. 32
Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos corroborated the aforesaid testimony of SPO1 Indunan on relevant
points.
The prosecution adduced as its documentary and object evidence the transparent plastic sachet ofshabu sold by
appellant to SPO1 Indunan during the buy-bust operation, the chemistry report of Forensic Analyst Albon confirming
that the plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan contained 0.05 gram of shabu, and the marked money used
during the buy-bust operation.
Parenthetically, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, the elements are: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law;
and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.33 All these elements have been established. SPO1
Indunan testified that after appellant sold to him shabu, he (SPO1 Indunan) and the members of the buy-bust team
arrested appellant. He then frisked appellant and recovered from the latter a green box which contained plastic sachet
with white granules. The chemistry report of Forensic Analyst Albon confirms that such plastic sachet found inside the
green box contains 0.04 gram of shabu. The relevant portion of the testimony of SPO1 Indunan is as follows:
Q What happened next?
A After we controlled Jun we brought him to our office, Sir.
Q Immediately?
A Yes, Sir.
Q He was not searched at the area of operation?
A He was searched, Sir.
Q Who searched him?
A I, Sir.
Q What was the result of your search?
A I was able to find the marked money, Sir.
Q Aside from the money what else did you recover from the person?
A The content of the box there is still one (1) sachet, Sir.
Q If this sachet which you recovered from the accused will be shown to you again will you be able to identify it?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How sure are you that you would be able to identify it?

76
A I placed my initials, Sir.
Q I am showing to you another sachet, please tell us if this is the same sachet that you said that was confiscated?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Please point to your initial?
A Yes, Sir.
Q When did you place that?
A After the arrest of the accused, Sir.
PROS. CATRAL:
The other sachet may we pray that this be marked as Exhibit "K-1", your Honor.
COURT:
Mark it please.34
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding appellants illegal sale and possession of shabu are consistent with the
documentary and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses to be credible. Both courts also found no ill motive on their part to testify against appellant.
The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because trial courts have the
advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate
court. When the trial courts findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon this Court. 35
To rebut the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, appellant interposed the defense of denial and frame-up. Appellant denied he
sold shabu to SPO1 Indunan and he possessed a green box containing shabu during the buy-bust operation. He claimed that said green
box was seized from Jade and that the arresting officers tried to extort money from him in exchange for his freedom.
The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a
common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and
frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.36 In the cases before us, appellant failed to present sufficient evidence in
support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was presented to bolster his allegations.
It is true that appellant submitted a written undertaking of Jade and a receipt of custody signed by alleged Abra MTC Judge Salazar in
support of his contentions that the green box was seized from Jade and that he was framed. Nonetheless, there was nothing in said
documents which proved his defenses. In the said undertaking, Jade merely declares (1) that on 15 June 2004, at about 2:30 p.m., she was
apprehended in the house of appellant by the officers of the CIDG, Baguio City, for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 9165; (2) that
she was informed of her constitutional rights by the CIDG officers; (3) that she was humanely treated by the CIDG officers during her
investigation and that none of her personal property was taken or damaged by said officers; (4) that she had no complaint whatsoever
against the CIDG officers; and (5) that she promised to appear if called upon in the investigation regarding said incident. On the other
hand, the receipt of custody signed by Salazar merely states (1) that she received in good health the living person of Jade from the custody
of CIDG, Baguio City; and (2) that she promised to present Jade for investigation as regards the incident if required by the proper
authorities. Indeed, the above-cited documents merely describe the circumstances and conditions of Jade during and after the incident.
There was no reference at all to appellants claim that the green box was seized from Jade and that he was framed. 37

77
Further, it should be noted that appellant has not filed a single complaint for frame-up or extortion against the buy-bust team. This
inaction clearly betrays appellants claim of frame-up.
Appellant imputes ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team by asseverating that he had a previous quarrel with PO3 Lubos and that he
knows some members of the buy-bust team. Withal, this allegation is uncorroborated and unsubstantiated. Hence, the imputation of
improper motive should be negated. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to testify against the
accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.38
Moreover, motive is not essential for conviction for a crime when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit, and that lack of motive
for committing the crime does not preclude conviction for such crime when the crime and participation of the accused are definitely
proved.39 In the instant cases, SPO1 Indunan positively identified appellant as the one who sold to him shabu during the buy-bust
operation. He also testified that he recovered shabu from appellants possession during said incident.
The defense presented appellants father, Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. to corroborate appellants version of the incident. Initially, it must be
emphasized that the testimony of Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. should be received with caution he being the father of appellant. 40 Alfredo Lazaro,
Sr. testified that upon opening the door of his room, he saw PO3 Lubos and some policemen beating appellant. He uttered "apay dayta?"
(Why is that?), left the scene, and went back to his room. There was no testimony at all from him that he tried to restrain PO3 Lubos and
the policemen from mauling appellant, or that he immediately called or sought the help of barangay officials or higher authorities. His
court statement hardly inspires belief as it would be highly unnatural for a father not to react defensively or sought help if his child is
being maltreated in his presence. In addition, the physical examination report on appellant states that no injuries were observed on
appellants body immediately after his arrest. His testimony, therefore, deserves scant consideration.
Given the foregoing circumstances, the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prevail over the defenses of denial
and frame-up of appellant.
Appellant tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses based on the following reasons: (1) there was inconsistency in
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to what language was used in apprising appellant of his constitutional rights; (2) the
informant was not presented as witness during the trial; and (3) there was no buy-bust operation because appellant was merely instigated
by the informant to sell shabu to SPOI Indunan.41
For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts vital to
the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime
cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused.42
The inconsistency cited by appellant refers to trivial matter and is clearly beyond the elements of illegal sale of shabu because it does not
pertain to the actual buy-bust itself that crucial moment when appellant was caught selling shabu. Such inconsistency is also irrelevant
to the elements of illegal possession of shabu. Besides, the inconsistency even bolsters the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as it
erased any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.43
Anent the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is well-settled that the testimony of an informant in drugpushing cases is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on the same. 44
As to the claim of instigation, where the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him and
which is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause,45 there is nothing in the records which clearly and
convincingly shows that appellant was instigated by the informant to sell shabu to SPO1 Indunan. What is apparent therein is that the
informant merely introduced SPO1 Indunan to appellant as a user and buyer of shabu and that the informant did not in any way allure or
persuade appellant to sell shabu to SPO1 Indunan.46 Also, after such introduction, it was appellant who hastily asked SPO1 Indunan how
much worth of shabu the latter would want to buy.47 This obviously manifests that the idea to sell shabu originated from appellant without
any instigation from SPO1 Indunan or the informant. Indeed, what have transpired in the instant case was a legitimate buy-bust operation
and not instigation. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of arresting
violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in

78
the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing
or prodding him to commit the offense.
Appellant further posits that the prosecution did not strictly comply with the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 because: (1) although the written inventory of the seized items bore signatures of representatives from the DOJ, the media,
and the barangay, only the representative from the media was named; (2) no pictures of the seized items were taken; (3) Forensic Analyst
Albon did not testify with regard to her chemistry report on the subject drugs; (4) there were gaps in the chain of custody of the subject
drugs because the officer who received the request for laboratory examination of the same did not testify, and the custodian of the subject
drugs from the time they were examined up to their presentation in trial was not identified; and (5) the prosecution failed to show the
condition of the subject drugs and the precautions taken in preserving their condition.48
It should be noted that appellant raised the buy-bust teams alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
for the first time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. InPeople v. Sta. Maria49] in which the very same
issue was raised, we held:
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers
involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question
during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of
Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did
appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and
evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time
on appeal." (Emphases supplied.)
Moreover, we have held in several cases50 that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will
not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused.51 In the present case, the integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of
the drugs subject matter of the instant case was shown not to have been broken.
Records revealed that after SPO1 Indunan confiscated two transparent plastic sachets containing shabu from appellant, he marked each of
the two sachets of shabu with "DG-06-15-04" and turned them over to Superintendent Bolabola, who, in turn, handed them to Inspector
Pacatiw who brought the same to PO1 Guingahan of CIDG office, Baguio City. The latter then delivered the two plastic sachets each
marked with "DG-06-15-04" to the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for laboratory examination. The same two sachets
were received by SPO1 Carino of PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office.52 After a qualitative examination conducted on the
contents of the two sachets each marked "DG-06-15-04," Forensic Analyst Albon found them to positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. Upon being weighed, the one plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan was found to be containing 0.05
gram while the other plastic sachet found in appellants possession was determined to have 0.04 gram of shabu.
When the prosecution presented the two sachets of shabu each marked with "DG-06-15-04," SPO1 Indunan positively identified them as
the very same sachets he bought and recovered from appellant in the buy-bust operation. The two plastic sachets containing 0.05 and 0.04
gram of shabu, respectively, each had the marking "DG-06-15-04" as attested by Forensic Analyst Albon in her chemistry report. The
existence, due execution, and genuineness of the said chemistry report, as well as the qualifications of Forensic Analyst Albon were
admitted by the defense.53 Further, SPO1 Indunan categorically declared during the trial that he put "DG-06-15-04" marking on each of
the two transparent plastic sachets of shabu recovered from appellant. Clearly, the identity of the drugs recovered from appellant has been
duly preserved and established by the prosecution.
The fact that Forensic Analyst Albon and the persons who had possession or custody of the subject drugs were not presented as witnesses
to corroborate SPO1 Indunans testimony is of no moment. The prosecution dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Analyst Albon
because the defense had already agreed in the substance of her testimony to be given during trial, to wit: (1) that she examined the subject
drugs; (2) that she found them to be positive for shabu; and (3) that she prepared and issued a chemistry report pertaining to the subject
drugs.

79
Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No.
9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was
clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not
indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. 54 In People v. Zeng Hua
Dian,55 we ruled:
After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the
prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1
Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of
presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case
and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.
Since appellants violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 were duly established by the prosecutions evidence,
we shall now ascertain the penalties imposable on him.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, carries with it
the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos
(P10,000,000.00).
Pursuant, however, to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines," only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals were correct in imposing the
penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 on appellant in Criminal Case No. 23227-R.
Section 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that illegal possession of less than five grams of shabu is penalized with
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years, plus a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
Appellant was charged with and found to be guilty of illegal possession of 0.04 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 23229-R. Hence, the
RTC and the Court of Appeals aptly sentenced appellant to imprisonment of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 15 years, as maximum,
and fined him P300,000.00, since said penalties are within the range of penalties prescribed by the aforequoted provision.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 18 July 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02258 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.