FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 131638-39. March 26, 2001]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORET!
ME"ENILL! # "ORI!, accused-appellant.
" E $ I I O N
%!P&N!N, J.'
This is an appeal from a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, ranch !"!,
promulgated on No#em$er !", %&&', in Criminal Case Nos( )"%*+D and )"%&+D finding
accused+appellant ,oreto -edenilla . Doria guilt. $e.ond reasona$le dou$t of #iolating
Sections %/ and %" of Repu$lic 0ct No( "1!/, as amended, other2ise 3no2n as the Dangerous
Drugs 0ct of %&'!(
4%5
0ccused+appellant 2as charged in Criminal Case No( )"%*+D for #iolating Section %/,
4!5
0rticle III of R(0( No( "1!/( The information reads as follo2s6
That on or a$out the %"
th
da. of 0pril, %&&" in the Cit. of -andalu.ong, Philippines
and 2ithin the jurisdiction of this 7onora$le court, the a$o#e+named accused, not
$eing la2full. authori8ed to possess an. regulated drug, did then and there 2illfull.,
unla2full. and feloniousl. sell, deli#er and gi#e a2a. to another /(9* grams of 2hite
cr.stalline su$stance positi#e to the test for methampetamine h.drochloride :shabu;
2hich is regulated drug, in #iolation of the a$o#e cited la2(
4)5
0ccused+appellant 2as also charged in Criminal Case No( )"%&+D for #iolating Section %",
415
0rticle III of R(0( No( "1!/ 2ith an information 2hich reads as follo2s6
That on or a$out the %"th da. of 0pril, %&&" in the Cit. of -andalu.ong, Philippines
and 2ithin the jurisdiction of this 7onora$le Court, the a$o#e+named accused, not
$eing la2full. authori8ed to possess an. regulated drug, did then and there 2illfull.,
unla2full. and 3no2ingl. ha#e in his possession and<or :sic; under his custod. and
control four :1; transparent plastic $ags containing 2hite cr.stalline su$stance 2ith a
total 2eight of !99(1/ grams, 2hich 2ere found positi#e to the test for
methampetamine h.drochloride :shabu; 2hich is regulated drug, in #iolation of the
a$o#e cited la2(
4/5
0rraigned on =une !/, %&&", accused+appellant pleaded not guilt. to $oth charges(
4"5
=oint
trial ensued thereafter(
The prosecution>s #ersion, as gathered from the testimonies of SPO! onifacio Ca$ral,
SPO% Neo2ille De Castro and P<Sr( Insp( =ulita T( De Villa, is as follo2s6
On 0pril %1, %&&", a confidential informant arri#ed at the office of the Narcotics Command
:N0RCO-; in camp Crame and reported to SPO! onifacio Ca$ral that there is a certain person
engaged in illegal drug pushing acti#ities in Caloocan, -ala$on and -andalu.ong( SPO!
Ca$ral reported the matter to his superior, Police Senior Inspector -an8anas(
4'5
0ccordingl., Sr(
Insp( -an8anas directed SPO! Ca$ral to confirm the #eracit. of the report( Thus, SPO! Ca$ral
re?uested the confidential informant to contact the suspected drug pusher to introduce him as a
possi$le $u.er(
4*5
On 0pril %/, %&&", the informant returned to the N0RCO- office and told SPO! Ca$ral
that he had arranged a meeting 2ith the suspected drug pusher( The t2o then proceeded to the
pre+arranged meeting place at a Se#en @le#en Store along oni 0#enue, -andalu.ong Cit.( 0t
around /6)9 p(m(, accused+appellant arri#ed on $oard a To.ota Corolla(
4&5
Aithout alighting from
his car, accused+appellant spo3e 2ith the informant(
4%95
The informant introduced SPO! Ca$ral to
accused+appellant as a prospecti#e $u.er of shabu. 0ccused+appellant in?uired ho2 man. grams
of sha$u he 2anted to $u. and SPO! Ca$ral replied that he needed fi#e :/; grams( The suspect
then offered the shabu at the price of One Thousand Pesos :P%,999(99; per gram to 2hich SPO!
Ca$ral agreed(
4%%5
0ccused+appellant told SPO! Ca$ral to return the follo2ing da.( The. agreed
that the pic3 up point 2ould $e at the Bnited Coconut Planters an3 :BCP; uilding also along
oni 0#enue( Bpon their return to Camp Crame, SPO! Ca$ral and the informant reported the
results of their meeting to Sr( Insp( -an8anas( ased on their information, a $u.+$ust operation
2as planned( SPO! Ca$ral 2as designated to act as the poseur+$u.er 2ith SPO! de Castro as his
$ac3+up( Sr( Insp( -an8anas 2as assigned to sta. in the car and a2ait the signal to $e gi#en $.
SPO! Ca$ral, through his pager, $efore apprehending accused+appellant(
0t around )6)9 in the earl. morning of 0pril %", %&&", the $u.+$ust team proceeded to the
agreed meeting place at the BCP uilding in oni 0#enue(
4%!5
Bpon reaching the area, SPO!
Ca$ral alighted from the car 2hile the other operati#es positioned themsel#es in strategic areas(
4%)5
0fter thirt. :)9; minutes, accused+appellant arri#ed(
4%15
after tal3ing for a short time 2ith SPO!
Ca$ral, accused+appellant as3ed the former if he had the mone.(
4%/5
SPO! Ca$ral sho2ed the
$undle of mone.
4%"5
and accused+appellant told him to 2ait( Ahen he returned, SPO! Ca$ral
ga#e him the mone. and, in eCchange, accused+appellant handed a pac3 containing a 2hite
cr.stalline su$stance(
4%'5
0s planned, SPO! Ca$ral turned on his pager 2hich prompted the
$ac3up operati#es to close in and apprehend accused+appellant(
4%*5
SPO! Ca$ral as3ed accused+
appellant if he could search the latter>s car( 0ccused+appellant acceded to the re?uest and, as a
result, SPO! Ca$ral found a $ro2n clutch $ag at the dri#er>s seat of the car( Inside the clutch
$ag, the. found therein four plastic $ags containing a 2hite cr.stalline su$stance 2hich the.
suspected 2as shabu(
4%&5
0ccused+appellant 2as $rought to Camp Crame for $oo3ing( SPO! Ca$ral and SPO% de
Castro then su$mitted the su$stance the. confiscated to the PNP Crime ,a$orator. for
eCamination(
4!95
The. thereafter $rought accused+appellant to the PNP Deneral 7ospital for a
medical and ph.sical eCamination(
4!%5
The la$orator. report on the 2hite cr.stalline su$stance sho2ed that the same tested positi#e
for methamphetamine h.drochloride or shabu
4!!5
and that the contents of the su$stance sold
2eighed /(9* grams 2hile those ta3en from the $ag had a total 2eight of !99(1/ grams( The
report reads6
PH(I$!L $IEN$E REPORT NO. "-))8-96
$!E6 0lleged Viol of R0 "1!/ &PE$T*6 ,OR@TO -@D@NI,,0
TIME !N" "!TE RE$EI+E"' !%1/7 %" 0pril %&&"
RE,&ETING P!RT(*&NIT' C, SOB+7ES+PNPN0RCO-
Camp Crame, Eue8on Cit.
SP@CI-@N SB-ITT@D6
@Ch F0G H One :%; $ro2n F-0RBDINI C,BTC7 0DG containing the follo2ing
specimens6
%( One :%; heat sealed transparent plastic $ag mar3ed as @Ch F0+%G 2ith /(9* grams of 2hite
cr.stalline su$stance6
!( Four :1; transparent plastic $ags mar3ed as @Chs( F0+!G through F0+/G each 2ith 2hite
cr.stalline su$stance and ha#ing a total 2eight of !99(1/ grams( CCC
PBRPOS@ OF ,0OR0TORI @J0-IN0TION6
To determine the presence of prohi$ited and<or regulated drug( CCC
FINDINDS6
Eualitati#e eCamination conducted on the a$o#e+stated specimens ga#e positi#e result
to the tests for -ethamphetamine 7.drochloride, a regulated drug( CCC
CONC,BSION6
@Chs( F0+%G, F0+!G through FG0+/G contain methamphetamine h.drochloride, a
regulated drug(
R@-0RKS6
TIME !N" "!TE $OMPLETE"' 9'197 %' 0pril %&&"
4!)5
For his defense, accused+appellant presented a different #ersion of the e#ents leading to his
arrest(
On or a$out 0pril %!, %&&", accused+appellant rented a car, a To.ota Corolla, from a certain
=ess 7ipolito( It 2as to $e used $. his $rother for a trip to Pangasinan(
4!15
On 0pril %/, %&&", his
$rother turned o#er the car to accused+appellant 2ith the instruction to return the car to =ess
7ipolito(
4!/5
7o2e#er, $efore returning the car, accused+appellant decided to use the same for a
night out 2ith his friends( 0ccused+appellant, along 2ith four :1; of his friends, namel., =o.,
Tess, Aill. and =ong+jong, 2ent to a3ahan in Eue8on Cit. for dinner and, thereafter,
transferred to -usic oC ,ounge located in front of the said restaurant,( 0fter ha#ing some
drin3s, accused+appellant decided to return the car to =ess 7ipolito and just ta3e a taCica$ 2ith
his friends in going $ac3 to their place in Caloocan Cit.(
4!"5
The. all proceeded to the
condominium unit of =ess 7ipolito located along oni 0#enue in -andalu.ong Cit.(
4!'5
the.
reached the place at around !6)9 a(m(
4!*5
0ccused+appellant told the guard of the condominium
$uilding that he 2anted to see =ess 7ipolito to retun the car he rented( The guard instructed him
to par3 the car in front of BCP( 0fter doing so, accused+appellant, together 2ith =ong+jong and
=o. 2ent up to the unit of =ess 7ipolito 2hile their t2o companions, Aill. and Tess, sta.ed in
the lo$$.(
4!&5
Ahile inside the unit of =ess 7ipolito, accused+appellant 2as introduced to 0l#in(
4)95
0ccused+appellant told =ess 7ipolito that he 2anted to return the car( 7o2e#er, =ess 7ipolito
re?uested accused+appellant to dri#e 0l#in, using the rented car, to ?ue8on Cit. since the latter
2as carr.ing a large amount of mone.(
4)%5
0ccused+appellant acceded to the re?uest of =ess
7ipolito( The. then all 2ent do2n and, along 2ith Aill. and Tess 2ho 2ere then at the lo$$.,
$oarded the #ehicle(
4)!5
7o2e#er, 2hen accused+appellant 2as a$out to $ac3 out the #ehicle, a
2hite car $loc3ed the rear portion of the car(
4))5
The passengers of the 2hite car then stepped out
of their #ehicle and approached them( One of the passengers of the 2hite car, SPO% de Castro,
as3ed accused+appellant to roll do2n his 2indo2 and, after doing so, SPO! Ca$ral introduced
himself and his companions as police officers(
4)15
0ccused+appellant then as3ed6 FBakit po,
sirLG
4)/5
In response, one of the police officers said6 FMay titingnan lang muna kami, baba muna
kayo(G
4)"5
after alighting from the #ehicle, accused+appellant and his companions 2ere fris3ed(
4)'5
Thereafter, SPO! Ca$ral noticed a $ro2n clutch $ag $eing held $. 0l#in and confiscated the
same( SPO! Ca$ral then as3ed accused+appellant if he can search the car( The latter
agreed( SPO! Ca$ral searched the car for a$out %/ minutes $ut found nothing(
4)*5
SPO! Ca$ral
then opened the $ro2n clutch $ag he confiscated from 0l#in and found plastic sachets containing
a 2hite cr.stalline su$stance( The police officers then instructed accused+appellant and his
companions to $oard their #ehicle( The. 2ere all $rought to Camp Crame(
4)&5
Ahen the. reached
the said camp, the. 2ere instructed to alight from the #ehicle one $. one( The first one to step
out of the #ehicle and go inside the office 2as 0l#in( 0fter !9 minutes, the t2o 2omen, Tess and
=o., 2ere $rought inside the office and, after )9 minutes, accused+appellant, along 2ith the t2o
remaining passengers, Aill. and =ong+jong, follo2ed(
4195
Ahen the. 2ere all inside the N0RCO- office, their personal circumstances 2ere ta3en
do2n( Thereafter, =ong+jong, Aill. and accused+appellant 2ere separated from the group and
placed inside the detention cell( 0l#in and the t2o 2omen 2ere left $ehind in the office and
2ere later on released(
41%5
0fter a fe2 hours, =ong+jong and Aill. 2ere $rought out of the
detention cell 2hile accused+appellant, 2ho 2as then sleeping, 2as left in confinement( =ong+
jong and Aill. 2ere $rought into the office and 2ere made to sign a document on a .ello2 pad,
prepared $. the police officers( The police officers then cautioned the t2o that the. 2ill $e
implicated in the case if the. interfered( The. 2ere then released and accompanied out to Camp
Crame $. a police officer(
41!5
0ccused+appellant 2as the onl. one 2ho remained in detention and
2as, su$se?uentl., solel. charged for the illegal sale and possession of shabu(
Ahile in detention, accused+appellant learned that the #ehicle he $orro2ed from =ess
7ipolito 2as o2ned $. a certain @#ita @$ora, 2ho 2as also detained in the -andalu.ong Cit.
=ail for a drug+related offense(
41)5
On No#em$er %', %&&', the trial cour found accused+appellant guilt. as charged( The
dispositi#e portion of the trial court>s decision reads6
A7@R@FOR@, judgment is here$. rendered finding accuse ,OR@TO -@D@NI,,0
. DORI0 DBI,TI $e.ond reasona$le dou$t of #iolating Sections %/ and %", in
relation to Section !9, of Repu$lic 0ct No( "1!/, as amended, other2ise 3no2n as the
Dangerous Drugs 0ct of %&'!( Said accused is here$. sentenced to6 :a; 2ith respect
to Criminal Case No( )"%*+D, suffer an indeterminate sentence of a minimum of one
:%; .ear, eight :*; months and t2ent. :!9; da.s, to a maCimum of four :1; .ears and
t2o :!; months of prision correccionalM :$; 2ith respect to Criminal Case No( )"%&+
D, suffer the penalt. of reclusion perpetua, and pa. a fine in the amount of T2o
-illion Pesos :P!,999,999(99;M :c; suffer all the accessories penalties conse?uent
theretoM and :d; pa. the costs(
The sha$u in#ol#ed in this action is here$. confiscated in fa#or of the go#ernment and
ordered to $e for2arded to the Dangerous Drugs oard to $e disposed of in
accordance 2ith la2(
SO ORD@R@D(
4115
7ence, this appeal 2here accused+appellant raises the follo2ing issues6
I( Aas the accused arrested illegall.L
II( Aas there in fact an. $u.+$ust operationL
III( Aas the accused accorded his right to due processL
41/5
eing interrelated, 2e shall discuss the first and second issues jointl.(
The defense insist that there 2as no prior agreement $et2een accused+appellant and SPO!
Ca$ral for the sale of / grams of sha$u on 0pril %", %&&" and that no $u. $ust operation actuall.
too3 place( The prosecution>s claim that there 2as a $u.+$ust operation is, according to the
defense, $elied $. the testimonies of accused+appellant and Ailfredo de =esus that 2hen the
incident too3 place, accused+appellant 2as not alone $ut 2as accompanied $. fi#e :/; other
persons(
41"5
thus, the defense argues that since there 2as no $u.+$ust operation, the arrest of
accused+appellant 2as illegal since the arresting officers 2ere not properl. armed 2ith a 2arrant
of arrest(
0ccused+appellant>s argument deser#es scant consideration( The prosecution through the
testimonies of SPO! Ca$ral and SPO% de Castro ade?uatel. esta$lished the fact that there 2as a
legall. conducted $u.+$ust operation( Their testimonies clearl. sho2ed that their confidential
informant reported the drug operations of accused+appellantM that a meeting too3 place $et2een
accused+appellant and SPO! Ca$ral 2here the. agreed on the sale of / grams of shabuM that the
N0RCO- operati#es planned a $u.+$ust operationM that the said operation 2as indeed
conductedM and that the same resulted in the arrest of accused+appellant and the confiscation of /
plastic $ags containing a 2hite cr.stalline su$stance( In this regard, the testimonies of the police
officers 2ere gi#en full credence $. the trial court, to 2it6
The prosecution 2itnesses ga#e a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding
the apprehension of accused -edenilla H from the time Ca$ral 2as introduced to
accused -edenilla up to the $u.+$ust operation, 2hich culminated in the arrest of
accused+-edenilla( This Court can find no inconsistenc. in their testimonies and, as
such, gi#es full faith and credit thereto( In addition, it is to $e noted that no e#idence
eCists to sho2 that the la2 enforcers failed to perform their dut. regularl.( Neither
2as an. e#idence presented to sho2 that there 2as improper moti#e on the part of
said 2itnesses to falsel. implicate accused -edenilla( On the contrar., it 2as
esta$lished that the. did not 3no2 accused -edenilla prior to the $u. $ust operation(
CCC
41'5
The trial court>s determination of the credi$ilit. of the police officers deser#es the highest
respect $. this court, considering that the trial court had the direct opportunit. to o$ser#e their
deportment and manner of testif.ing(
41*5
Furthermore, in the a$sence of an. proof of an. intent on
the part of the police authorities to falsel. impute such a serious crime against accused+appellant,
the testimonies of SPO! Ca$ral and SPO% de Castro on the $u.+$ust operation are deser#ing of
$elief due to the presumption of regularit. in the performance of official dut. accorded to la2
enforcers(
41&5
Clearl., accused+appellant>s mere denial and concoction of another arrest scenario
cannot o#ercome the positi#e testimonies of the police officers(
@#en the supposed corro$orati#e testimon. of Ailfredo de =esus is not credi$le since the
said 2itness appeared to ha#e $een ma3ing a moc3er. of the proceedings $efore the lo2er court
as noted $. the trial judge, to 2it6
COBRT6
Iou $etter refrain from smiling, I ha#e $een 2arning .ou( Iou 3eep on laughing(
0tt.( 0rias6
Iour 7onor, $ecause he laughsNN(:interrupted;
COBRT6
No, he is laughing(
C C C
COBRT6
0nd 3eep on laughing(
0tt.( 0rias6
7e is smiling .our 7onor(
COBRT6
No, he is not smiling, .ou can as3 him( I do not understand 2h. this gu. is 3eep :sic; on
laughing(
0tt.( 0rias6
Fina$alaan 3a na $ata( 7u2ag 3ang tata2a, hu2ag 3ang ngingiti 3undi magsalita 3a ng
maa.os at ti.a3 at tahasan(G
4/95
The testimonies of accused+appellant and Ailfredo de =esus are not con#incing since the.
are replete 2ith numerous inconsistencies and impro$a$ilities( First, accused+appellant testified
that the a3ahan restaurant and the -usic oC lounge the. 2ent to on the e#ening of 0pril %/,
%&&" are located in Eue8on Cit.(
4/%5
7o2e#er, Ailfredo de =esus claimed that the said
esta$lishments are located in -andalu.ong(
4/!5
The di#ergence of their assertions on the location
of these esta$lishments goes into the credi$ilit. of their claim that the. 2ere together 2ith other
people and had a night out on the e#ening of 0pril %/, %&&"( Second, accused+appellant claimed
that at the time the police officers approached the car prior to the arrest, one of the officers
re?uested them to alight from the #ehicle(
4/)5
On the other hand, Ailfredo de =esus testified that
2hen the police officers approached them, the. 2ere forci$l. pulled out of their #ehicle(
4/15
Their
inconsistenc. on this matter renders ?uestiona$le the #eracit. of the claim of Ailfredo de =esus
that he 2as present during the arrest of accused+appellant $. the N0RCO- operati#es( Third,
their claim that the. 2ere at the par3ing lot of BCP in oni 0#enue at around )699 o>cloc3 in
the morning of 0pril %", %&&" to return the rented #ehicle to =ess 7ipolito is hard to
$elie#e( 7uman eCperience dictates that one does not return a rented #ehicle to its o2ner in the
earl. hours of the morning( usiness transactions, such as returning a rented car, 2ould
ordinaril. $e transacted during regular hours of 2or3 or, perhaps, e#en earlier $ut definitel. not
during the hours of da2n( Fourth, $oth accused+appellant and Ailfredo de =esus claimed the
impro$a$le scenario that, after the. 2ere accosted $. the police officers, the. 2ere all $rought to
camp Crame $. riding the same #ehicle the. rented( If this is $elie#ed, then t2o unli3el.
situations are made to appear( @ither all the siC original passengers $oarded the #ehicle along
2ith a se#enth passenger, one of the N0RCO- operati#es 2ho 2ill ensure that the. 2ill
proceed to the camp, or onl. the siC original passengers $oarded the car to go to Camp Crame
and the. 2ere just escorted $. the police officers 2ho all rode another #ehicle( The first
situation is implausi$le since a $antam car, li3e a To.ota Corolla, can onl. accommodate fi#e, at
most siC, full. gro2n adults $ut, definitel., not se#en( On the other hand, the second situation is
contrar. to human eCperience since it 2ill not $e in accord 2ith good police operating procedure
to allo2 a group of suspects arrested for a drug+related offense to $oard a #ehicle $. themsel#es
and dri#e the same to the police head?uarters(
Furthermore, if there 2ere indeed fi#e other passengers on $oard the #ehicle aside from
accused+appellant, 2h. 2ere the. not charged or, at least, $oo3ed in the records of the
N0RCO-L No proof, not e#en an allegation, 2as presented $. the defense to reasona$l.
eCplain 2h. charges 2ere not lodged against these alleged other passengers( The most that
accused+appellant did 2as to claim in his appeal $rief that the reason 2h. the other suspects
2ere not charged 2as $ecause the police officers feared that $ad luc3 might $efall them if all
2ere charged( Thus, he argues6
CCC Due to the $elief of 3arma, the Narcom operati#es instead of filing case or cases
against all the other occupants of the car together 2ith the accused, the Narcom
operati#es filed onl. one case and that is against the accused and in open court denied
the presence of the other companions of the accused(
4//5
Clearl., such t.pe of reasoning and justification sho2s that accused+appellant is alread.
grasping at stra2s in order that he ma. $e ac?uitted, through 2hate#er allegation, legal or
other2ise, of the crimes he is charged 2ith(
Ae no2 come to the third issue raised $. accused+appellant that he 2as denied due
process( In this regard, accused+appellant claims that he 2as depri#ed of such constitutional
right on the follo2ing grounds6
a; the denial of the court a ?uo of the motion of the accused through his counsel to ha#e the
?uestioned shabu ?uantitati#el. eCaminedM and
$; the $ias attitude of the presiding judge of the lo2er court(
4/"5
0ccused+appellant admits the #eracit. of the ?uantitati#e test conducted $. the PNP Crime
,a$orator. on the / plastic containers of the 2hite cr.stalline su$stance 2hich resulted in the
issuance of Ph.sical Sciences Report No( D+11*+&"(
4/'5
This 2as stipulated upon $. accused+
appellant 2hen the forensic chemist of the PNP Crime ,a$orator., P<Sr( Insp( =ulita T( de Villa,
2as presented as a 2itness, to 2it6
Prosec( Pa86
The testimon. of the 2itness is formall. offered to pro#e in $oth cases, Crim( Cases No( )"%*+
D and )"%&+D, that in Crim( Case )"%*9D that the 2hite cr.stalline su$stance 2hich 2as sold $.
the accused ,oreto -edenilla to the police operati#es 2as eCamined $. the 2itness and found
positi#e to the test ofshabu and 2eighs /(9* grams and in Crim( Case No( )"%&+D to pro#e that
accused ,oreto -edenilla . Doria that the four :1; transparent plastic $ags found in the
possession of the accused 2ith a total 2eight of !99(1/ grams 2as found positi#e to the test
of shabu as eCamined $. the 2itness, .our 7onor(
-a. 2e 3no2 from counsel for the accused if he is 2illing to enter into a stipulationL
COBRT6
0tt.( 0rias, are .ou 2illing to enter into stipulationL
0tt.( 0rias6
I 2ill admit that the 2itness is an eCpert, second, I admit that there 2as an eCamination
conducted $. her and that the result of her eCamination 2as reduced into 2riting(
COBRT6
0nd it 2as found positi#e that the specimen su$mitted to the crime la$ 2as sha$u(
0tt.( 0rias6
Ies, .our 7onor, according to the eCamination and I 2ill also state for the record that the
2itness does not 3no2 2here the specimen came from, ho2 the specimen came into $eing(
C C C
Prosec( Pa86
-a. 2e re?uest counsel for the accused to admit the authenticit. and #eracit. of this document
prepared $. 2itness after eCamining the specimen and the findings as stated in the initial
la$orator. report(
0tt.( 0rias6
0s 2e ha#e stated earlier, .our 7onor, that the result of her eCamination 2as reduced into
2riting, this is the result of the eCamination, so $e it, .our 7onor(
C C C
Prosec( Pa86
-a. 2e also re?uest that the counsel 2ill admit the 2eights of the specimens as found $. the
forensic chemist(
0tt.( 0rias6
@#er.thing is 2ritten in the document(
4/*5
7o2e#er, despite this admission, accused+appellant filed a motion to re?uire the forensic
chemist to conduct a ?uantitati#e as 2ell as a ?ualitati#e anal.sis on the su$ject
menthamphetamine h.drochloride or sha$u to determine its purit.(
4/&5
The trial court, after the
prosecution filed its Comment<Opposition
4"95
to the motion, issued an Order, dated -arch %',
%&&', den.ing the motion, to 2it6
This resol#es the motion filed $. the accused through his counsel pra.ing that the forensic
chemist $e re?uired to conduct a ?ualitati#e and ?uantitati#e anal.sis on the su$ject
methamphetamine h.drochloride(
Records 2ill sho2 :TSN dated Octo$er !), %&&"; that the defense counsel, 2ith the eCpress
conformit. of the accused, had agreed to enter into stipulations or admissions of facts concerning
the nature, ?ualit. and ?uantit. of the specimens su$mitted for chemical anal.sis( The results of
said anal.sis indicated that said specimens 2ere positi#e to the test for sha$u, and the. 2eighed
/(9* and !99(1/ grams, respecti#el.( These results 2ere eCplicitl. admitted $. $oth the accused
and his counsel( The onl. matter that 2as not admitted 2as the alleged source of the stuff, it
$eing denied that it 2as found in and ta3en from the possession of the accused( The defense
counsel 2ho 2as gi#en the opportunit. to cross+eCamine raised the forensic chemist 2hen she
2as presented, ne#er raised the issue or e#en suggested that 2hat 2as eCamined could not ha#e
$een pure sha$u, and that if such 2as the case, it 2as necessar. to determine 2hich part is sha$u
and 2hich 2as other2ise( It appears that this idea is merel. an after+thought( To the mind of the
Court, the attempt to ha#e the specimens eCamine at this stage of the action, 2hen the
prosecution had alread. terminated the presentation of its e#idence and is, in fact, a$out to ma3e
a 2ritten formal offer of eChi$its, can ha#e no other purpose than to repudiate the findings of the
forensic chemist, 2hich had alread. $een pre#iousl. admitted( This cannot $e permitted $.the
Court as it detracts from the full respect that must $e accorded to judicial admissions that ha#e
$een freel. and intelligentl. made( 0s correctl. o$ser#ed $. the prosecution, said judicial
admissions are conclusi#e and $inding upon the accused( The judicial admission that the stuff
su$mitted for anal.sis, 2eighing /(9* and !99(1/ grams, respecti#el., are indeed sha$u
forecloses an. further challenge as to its alleged purit.( To speculate at this stage of the action
that the stuff is not pure sha$u is to #irtuall. repudiate the findings of the forensic chemist,
pre#iousl. admitted 2ithout an. ?ualification that the stuff anal.sed 2ere indeed such illegal
drug( This can no longer $e permitted $. the Court(
A7@R@FOR@, the instant motion is D@NI@D for lac3 of merit(
4"%5
In the instant appeal, accused+appellant insists that he should ha#e $een allo2ed $. the trial
court to ha#e the shabu su$jected to a ?uantitati#e test $. the PNP Crime ,a$orator.( 7e argues
that such a test is crucial in #ie2 of the nature of the penalties for the #iolation of the Dangerous
Drugs 0ct of %&'!, as amended, 2hich are graduated depending on the amount of regulated or
prohi$ited drugs in#ol#ed in a case( 0ccused+appellant claims that a ?uantitati#e test 2ill
definitel. sho2 that the shabu in#ol#ed herein is not pure and, as such, is less than !99 grams
contrar. to the assertion of the prosecution that it is !99(1/ grams( 7e anchors this argument on
the contention that sha$u is ne#er %99O pure $ut, at most, is onl. */O unadulterated(
4"!5
Ae find that the trial court committed no re#ersi$le error in den.ing the motion( Ahen the
defense stipulated 2ith the prosecution that the results of the la$orator. eCamination, as reflected
in Ph.sical Sciences Report No( D+11*+&", 2ere true and correct, the accused+appellant, in
effect, admitted that the su$stance eCamine 2as indeed methamphetamine h.drochloride ha#ing
a 2eight of /(9* grams, for Criminal Case No( )"%*+D, and !99(1/ grams, for Criminal Case No(
)"%&+D( 0ccused+appellant made no ?ualifications on the #eracit. of the PNP Crime
,a$orator.>s finding on the total 2eight of the eCamined sha$u( In fact, no cross+eCamination
2as conducted $. accused+appellant>s counsel on the 2itness, P<Sr( Insp( =ulita de Villa,
regarding this matter( Thus, 2hen the defense tried to renege on the pre#ious stipulation $.
filing a motion re?uesting for a ?uantitati#e test on the shabu in#ol#ed herein, the trial court 2as
correct in den.ing the same(
Furthermore, in the case of People vs. Barita,
4")5
2e held that there is no need to eCamine the
entiret. of the su$mitted specimen since the sample testing is representati#e of the 2hole
specimen, 2e held6
Ae are not persuaded $. the claim of accused+appellants that in order for them to $e
con#icted of selling !,*99 grams of marijuana, the 2hole specimen must $e tested
considering that Repu$lic 0ct '"/& impose a penalt. dependent on the amount or the
?uantit. of drugs sei8ed or ta3en( This court has ruled that a sample ta3en from one
of the pac3ages is logicall. presumed to $e representati#e of the entire contents of the
pac3age unless pro#en other2ise $. accused+appellant(
4"15
This ruling 2as reiterated in People vs. Zheng Bai Hui,
4"/5
thus6
To recall, appellants sold the N0RCO- operati#es a su$stance 2eighing &&!()
grams( This amount is more than the minimum of !99 grams re?uired $. the la2 to
2arrant the imposition of either reclusion perpetua or, if there $e aggra#ating,
circumstances, the death penalt.( 0ppellants ho2e#er foist the pro$a$ilit. that the
su$stance sold could contain additi#es or adulterants, and not just methamphetamine
h.drochloride( Thus, the actual 2eight of pure sha$u could $e less than &&!() grams,
there$. possi$l. reducing the imposa$le penalt.(
The contention has no merit( Ae rejected a similar argument in People vs. Tang ai !an6
0ccused+appellant then argues that the tests 2ere not done for the entire amount of
drugs allegedl. found inside the $ags( It is suggested that since the la2, Repu$lic 0ct
No( '"/&, imposes a penalt. dependent on the amount or ?uantit. of drugs sei8ed or
ta3en, then la$orator. test should $e underta3en for the entire amount or ?uantit. of
drugs sei8ed in order to determine the proper penalt. to $e imposed(
The argument is ?uaint and e#en $orders on $eing ridiculous( In the present case, e#en
assuming that the confirmator. tests 2ere conducted on samples ta3en from onl. one :%; of the
plastic pac3ages, accused+appellant>s arguments must still fail(
It 2ill $e recalled that each of the plastic pac3ages 2eighed %(% 3ilograms, an amount more
than sufficient to justif. imposing the penalt. under Sec( %1 of Rep( 0ct No( "1!/ as amended $.
Rep( 0ct No( '"/&( 0 sample ta3en from one :%; of he pac3ages is logicall. presumed to $e
representati#e of the entire contents of the pac3age unless pro#en other2ise $. accused+
appellant( Therefore, a positi#e result for the presence of drugs is indicati#e that there is %(%
3ilogram of drugs in the plastic pac3age from 2hich the sample 2as ta3en( If it is then pro#ed,
$e.ond reasona$le dou$t, CCC that accused appellant transported into the Philippines the plastic
pac3ages from 2hich samples 2ere ta3en for tests, and found positi#e as prohi$ited drugs, then
con#iction for importing Fsha$uG is definitel. in order(
Thus, if the prosecution pro#es that the sample is positi#e for methamphetamine
h.drochloride, it can $e presumed that the entire su$stance is shabu( The $urden of e#idence
shifts to the accused 2ho must pro#e other2ise( 0ppellants in this case ha#e not presented an.
e#idence to o#ercome the presumption(
It is clear, therefore, that 2hen accused+appellant stipulated that the 2eight of the eCamined
specimens for Criminal Case Nos( )"%*+D and )"%&+D totaled /(9* and !99(1/ grams,
respecti#el., he in effect admitted that the said amounts of shabu are pure and
unadulterated( -oreo#er, accused+appellant made no reser#ations as to his admission on the
#eracit. of the results as reflected in Ph.sical Sciences Report No( D+11*+&"( 7is onl. concern,
at that time, 2as to ma3e it clear that the forensic scientist 2ho eCamined the confiscated
su$stance 2as not a2are of 2here the specimen came from(
4""5
This 2as in accord 2ith the theor.
of the defense that it 2as not accused+appellant $ut a companion, 0l#in, 2ho 2as in possession
of the confiscated su$stance( Thus, due to the a$sence of an. reser#ation on the total 2eight of
the shabu eCamined, accused+appellant can no longer $e heard to go $ac3 on his pre#ious
admission $. re?uesting a ?uantitati#e test of the same(
Ne#ertheless, accused+appellant argues that a ?uantitati#e test should $e allo2ed in #ie2 of
an alleged circular issued $. this Court sometime in %&&" directing the PNP Crime ,a$orator. to
conduct a ?ualitati#e and a ?uantitati#e eCamination on all illegal drugs su$mitted to the said
office in relation to a case(
4"'5
This argument of accused+appellant is totall. $ereft of an. legal $asis( This
Court ne#er issued an. such circular re?uiring the PNP Crime ,a$orator. to conduct ?uantitati#e
and ?ualitati#e tests on su$stances 2hich the. eCamine( It is clear that this argument 2as
resorted to $. counsel for the defense in order to mislead the trial court and this court into
ac?uitting his client( This contemptuous conduct of counsel for the defense 2ill $e dealt 2ith
appropriatel.(
0ccused+appellant also claims that the $iased attitude of the trial judge depri#ed him of due
process( In this regard, he cites in his appeal $rief a single instance 2hen the judge allegedl.
re#ealed his $ias, to 2it6
COBRT6
-ar3 it(
E Ahat happened after the accused handed to .ou one pac3 of cr.stalline su$stanceL
0 Immediatel., I s2itched on our #o.ager pager 2hich prompted m. $ac3up to su$due the suspect
and introduce oursel#es as 0nti Narcotics police, sir(
COBRT6
. the 2a., did .ou not gi#e the mone. to the accused 2hen he handed to .ou the alleged
su$stanceL
0 I ga#e it to him, .our honor(
COBRT6
So the mone. 2as alread. in the possession of the accused 2hen .ou recei#ed the sha$u from
him(
0 Ies, .our 7onor(
4"*5
Ae fail to see ho2 this single noted instance of ?uestioning can justif. a claim that the trial
judge 2as $iased( Ae ha#e eChausti#el. eCamined the transcript of stenographic notes and
determined that the trial judge 2as more than e?uita$le in presiding o#er the hearings of this
case( -oreo#er, a judge is not prohi$ited from propounding clarificator. ?uestions on a 2itness
if the purpose of 2hich is to arri#e at a proper and just determination of the case( Thus, in Zheng
Bai Hui, 2e said6
In an. case, a se#ere eCamination $. a trial judge of some of the 2itness for the defense in
an effort to de#elop the truth and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a charge that
he has assisted the prosecution 2ith an e#ident desire to secure a con#iction, or that he had
intimidated the 2itnesses for the defense( The trial judge must $e accorded a reasona$le lee2a.
in putting such ?uestions to 2itnesses as ma. $e essential to elicit rele#ant facts to ma3e the
record spea3 the truth( Trial judges in this jurisdiction are judges of $oth the la2 and the facts,
and the. 2ould $e negligent in the performance of their duties if the. permitted a miscarriage of
justice as a result of a failure to propound a proper ?uestion to a 2itness 2hich might de#elop
some material $earing upon the outcome( In the eCercise of sound discretion, he ma. put such
?uestion to the 2itness as 2ill ena$le him to formulate a sound opinion as to the a$ilit. or the
2illingness of the 2itness to tell the truth( 0 judge ma. eCamine or cross+eCamine a 2itness( 7e
ma. propound clarificator. ?uestions to test the credi$ilit. of the 2itness and to eCtract the
truth( 7e ma. see3 to dra2 out rele#ant and material testimon. though that testimon. ma. tend
to support or re$ut the position ta3en $. one or the other part.( It cannot $e ta3en against him if
the clarificator. ?uestions he propounds happen to re#eal certain truths 2hich tend to destro. the
theor. of one part.(
4"&5
The sale of less than !99 grams of methampethamine h.drochloride, a regulated drug, is
punisha$le 2ith a penalt. ranging from prision correccional toreclusion temporal, depending on
the ?uantit.(
4'95
Thus, if the regulated drug 2eighs less than ""("' grams, then the penalt.
is prision correctional, if ""("' grams or more $ut less than %))()) grams then the penalt.
is prision mayor, and if %))()) grams or more $ut less than !99 grams then the penalt.
is reclusion temporal. In Criminal Case No( )"%*+D, the amount of sha$u in#ol#ed 2eighs /(9*
grams, as such the appropriate penalt. is prision correccional. There $eing no aggra#ating or
mitigating circumstances, the penalt. shall $e imposed in its medium period or from ! .ears, 1
months and % da. to 1 .ears and ! months( 0ppl.ing the Indeterminate Sentence ,a2, the
maCimum penalt. shall $e 2ithin the range of prision correccional medium and the minimum
penalt. shall $e 2ithin the range of the penalt. neCt lo2er to that prescri$ed or, in this
case, arresto mayor. It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing that the trial committed an error in
imposing an indeterminate sentence of % .ear, * months and !9 da.s, as minimum, to 1 .ears and
! months, as maCimum, of prision correccional. 0ccordingl., this must $e modified(
On the other hand, the possession of !99 grams or more of sha$u carries 2ith it the penalt.
of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from Fi#e hundred Thousand Pesos
:P/99,999(99; to Ten -illion Pesos :P%9,999,999(99;( Since no aggra#ating circumstance
attended the commission of the offense, the trial court, in Criminal Case No( )"%&+D, 2as correct
in imposing the penalt. of reclusion perpetua 2ith a fine of T2o -illion Pesos :P!,999,999(99;(
-HEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig is here$. 0FFIR-@D
AIT7 -ODIFIC0TIONS( 0ccused+appellant ,oreto -edenilla . Doria is here$. found
DBI,TI of #iolating Sections %/ and %" of Repu$lic 0ct No( "1!/, as amended $. Repu$lic 0ct
No( '"/&, and here$. sentenced6 :a; in Criminal Case No( )"%*+D, to suffer an indeterminate
sentence of " months of arresto mayor to 1 .ears and ! months of prision correccionalM and :$;
in Criminal Case No( )"%&+D, to suffer the penalt. of reclusion perpetua and to pa. a fine of
T2o -illion Pesos :P!,999,999(99;(
Counsel for the defense, 0tt.( -arcelino 0rias, is here$. ordered to eCplain 2ithin ten :%9;
da.s 2h. he should not $e cited in contempt for citing an ineCistent circular in his pleadings(
O OR"ERE".
"avide, #r., $.#., %$hairman&, Puno, Pardo, and 'nares(Santiago, ##., concur(
4%5
Records, p( !/*(
4!5
S@C( %/( Sale, )dministration, "ispensation, "elivery, Transportation and "istribution o* +egulated "rugs. H
The penalt. o* reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from fi#e hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall $e imposed upon an. person 2ho, unless authori8ed $. la2, shall sell, dispense, deli#er, transport, or distri$ute
an. regulated drug(
Not2ithstanding the pro#isions of Section !9 of this 0ct to the contrar., if the #ictim of the offense is a minor, or
should a regulated drug in#ol#ed in an. offense under this Section should $e the proCimate cause of the death of a
#ictim thereof, the maCimum penalt. herein pro#ided shall $e imposed(
4)5
Records, p( %(
415
S@C( %"( Possession or ,se o* +egulated "rugs. H the penalt. of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from fi#e hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall $e imposed upon an. person 2ho shall possess or use
an. regulated drug 2ithout the corresponding license or prescription, su$ject to the pro#isions of Section !9 hereof(
4/5
Records, at %/(
4"5
-d(, at )"(
4'5
TSN, Septem$er %%, %&&", p( "(
4*5
-d(, at '(
4&5
-d(, at &(
4%95
-d(, at %9(
4%%5
-d(, at %%+%!(
4%!5
-d(, at %/(
4%)5
TSN, Septem$er !), %&&", p( %!(
4%15
TSN, Septem$er %%, %&&", p( %"(
4%/5
-d(, at %"+%'(
4%"5
@Chi$it F0(G
4%'5
TSN, Septem$er %%, %&&", pp( %', !9(
4%*5
-d(, at %&(
4%&5
-d(, at !9+!%(
4!95
TSN, Septem$er %%, %&&", p( !%(
4!%5
TSN, Septem$er %%, %&&", p( !1(
4!!5
TSN, Octo$er !), %&&", p( )
4!)5
@Chi$it F=(G
4!15
TSN, 0ugust !", %&&', pp( %/+%'(
4!/5
-d(, at !1(
4!"5
-d(, at !9(
4!'5
-d(, at !1(
4!*5
-d(, at %&(
4!&5
-d(, at !"M TSN, Octo$er !*, %&&', p( !/(
4)95
TSN, 0ugust !", %&&', p( !'(
4)%5
-d(, at !*(
4)!5
-d(, at )!(
4))5
TSN, dated Octo$er !*, %&&', p( *(
4)15
TSN, 0ugust !", %&&', pp( /+"(
4)/5
-d(, at )1(
4)"5
-d(, at )/(
4)'5
-d(, at "+'(
4)*5
-d(, at *M TSN, dated Octo$er !*, %&&', p( &(
4)&5
TSN, 0ugust !", %&&', p( %9(
4195
-d(, at %%(
41%5
TSN, dated Octo$er !*, %&&', p( %!(
41!5
-d(, at %/(
41)5
TSN, 0ugust !", %&&', pp( "+'(
4115
+ollo, pp( ))+)1(
41/5
-d(, at /*(
41"5
-bid(
41'5
-d(, p( )9(
41*5
People v( 0lao, )!! SCR0 )*9, )*' :!999;(
41&5
People v( ,a$ares, ))" Phil( &)), &19 :%&&';(
4/95
TSN, Octo$er !*, %&&', p( !'(
4/%5
TSN, 0ugust !", %&&', p( !9(
4/!5
TSN, Octo$er !*, %&&', p( !%(
4/)5
TSN, 0ugust !", %&&', p( )/(
4/15
TSN, Octo$er !*, %&&', p( &(
4//5
+ollo, p( "*(
4/"5
+ollo, p( "*(
4/'5
@Chi$it F=(G
4/*5
TSN, Octo$er !), %&&", pp( !+*(
4/&5
Records, pp( %)*+%)&(
4"95
-d(, at %1%+%1)(
4"%5
-d(, at %11+%1/(
4"!5
+ollo, p( "(
4")5
D(R( No( %!)/1%, Fe$ruar. *, !999(
4"15
-bid( Bnderscoring supplied(
4"/5
D(R( No( %!'/*9, 0ugust !!, !999(
4""5
TSN, Octo$er !), %&&", p( )(
4"'5
-d(, at "/(
4"*5
TSN, Septem$er %%, %&&", p( !9M +ollo, p( ""(
4"&5
Supra, Note "/(
4'95
Section %/ in relation to Section !9, Repu$lic 0ct No( "1!/, as amended $. Repu$lic 0ct No( '"/& as interpreted
in People vs( -artin Simon . Sunga, !)1 SCR0 /// :%&&1;(