JURISPRUDENCE ON DRUGS
THE MARKING IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEIZURE IS THE STARTING POINT IN
THE CUSTODIAL LINK. IT IS CRUCIAL IN ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF THE
CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
G.R. No. 199901 October 9, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
GARYZALDY GUZON, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated June 29 2010 of the Court of Appeals CA)
in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02890, which affirmed the Decision2 dated June 15, 2007 of
the Regional Trial Court RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13 in Criminal Case No. 11968-
13, finding accused-appellant Garyzaldy Guzon Guzon) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of illegal sale of shabu.
The facts
Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, in an
Information3 dated November 23, 2005, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about November 22, 2005 at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, in the
municipality of San Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of
methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu", a dangerous drug,
weighing 0.06 gram to a police asset of PNP San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, who posed
as buyer in a buy[-]bust operation without authority to do so.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Upon arraignment, Guzon entered a plea of "not guilty."5 After pre- trial, trial on the
merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
PO2 Elyzer Tuzon (PO2 Tuzon) testified for the prosecution. He claimed that on
November 22, 2005, at around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, he was on duty at the
police station of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, when he received a telephone call from
an unknown tipper that Guzon was engaged in drug-pushing activity at Nalupta
Street, Barangay 3, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. PO2 Tuzon relayed the information to
Officer-In-Charge Chief Police Inspector Jerico Baldeo (OIC Baldeo), who ordered
PO2 Tuzon and PO3 Cesar Manuel (PO3 Manuel) to verify the report. When PO2
Tuzon and PO3 Manuel failed to find Guzon at Nalupta Street, OIC Baldeo instructed
them to seek the aid of an asset.6
After an unnamed asset identified Guzon’s location, the police planned a buy-bust
operation. PO2 Tuzon gave marked money to the asset designated to be the poseur-
buyer of shabu. The asset was instructed to remove his cap to signal that he had
received the shabu from Guzon.7
The buy-bust operation ensued at Nalupta Street, where the asset approached
Guzon . From afar, PO2 Tuzon saw the asset hand three (3) marked ₱100.00 bills to
Guzon, who then handed something to the asset.8 After the asset removed his cap,
the police ran towards Guzon to arrest him . PO3 Manuel recovered the marked
₱100 bills from Guzon, while PO2 Tuzon received from the asset the item purchased
from Guzon.9 Guzon was brought to the San Nicolas Police Station, where PO2
Tuzon prepared a Certification/Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items10, marked the
seized sachet with his initials "EAT",11 and then delivered the sachet to the police
crime laboratory for chemical examination.12 The sachet was received by PO3 Nolie
Domingo (PO3 Domingo).13
Given a stipulation by the prosecution and the defense during the pre- trial, PO3
Domingo and Police Senior Inspector Mary Ann Cayabyab (PSI Cayabyab), the
Forensic Chemical Officer of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office who
conducted the chemical examination, no longer testified in court. The RTC’s pre-trial
Order14provides:
The parties stipulated on the gist of the testimony of PO3 Nolie Domingo to the effect
that as per request for laboratory examination, he was the one who received the
specimen from Elyzer Tuzon and that he delivered the same to PSI Mary Ann
Cayabyab. They also stipulated on the testimony of PSI Cayabyab to the effect that
after receiving the said specimen and found the specimen to be shabu, thus, she
issued her initial report and confirmatory report under Chemistry Report No. D-090-
2005 which were marked as Exhibits F and G, respectively. They further agreed that
said forensic chemical officer and PO3 Domingo could identify the said specimen
and the labels as appearing therein. The defense admitted the proffer without
admitting that the specimen came from the accused. The testimonies of PO3 Nolie
Domingo and PSI Mary Ann Cayabyab were therefore dispensed with. x x x.15
The Initial Laboratory Report16 and Chemistry Report17 referred to in the pre-trial
Order both state that the specimen, weighing 0.06 grams, that was submitted to the
crime laboratory for examination contained methamphetamine hydrochloride,
otherwise known as shabu.
Version of the Defense
The defense presented the testimonies of Guzon, his friend Jesus Guira, Jr. (Guira)
and brother Edwin Guzon (Edwin).
Guzon denied the charge against him. He claimed that on the early afternoon of
November 22, 2005, he had a drinking spree with Guira at the latter’s house in
Barangay San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.18 At past 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, his
brother Edwin arrived and told him that PO3 Manuel wanted to talk to him. Guzon
approached PO3 Manuel, who invited him to the municipal hall but would not say the
reason therefor.19 Guzon insisted that the matter be instead discussed near Guira’s
house, but PO3 Manuel declined. Thereafter, PO2 Tuzon arrived20 and upon his
prodding, Guzon agreed to go with them to the municipal hall.21 Only PO2 Tuzon
went with Guzon inside the municipal hall.22
PO2 Tuzon later brought Guzon to a police camp in Laoag City. While on board a
patrol car on their way to the camp, PO2 Tuzon realized that he forgot the shabu in
his office drawer so they went back to the municipal hall. Thereafter, they headed
back to the police camp where, upon their arrival, PO2 Tuzon handcuffed Guzon
before proceeding to the camp’s second floor.23
While at the second floor, PO2 Tuzon took a sachet from his pocket then handed it
to a desk officer. Guzon was instructed by a woman to fill a small bottle with his
urine. After he complied, PO2 Tuzon brought him back to San Nicolas.24
On the morning of November 23, 2005, Guzon was brought by PO2 Tuzon, PO3
Manuel and another policeman to a place south of the City Hall of Laoag, near the
corner of the Laoag-Solsona terminal. There, Guzon saw PO3 Manuel take out three
₱100.00 bills from his wallet then hand them to PO2 Tuzon. PO2 Tuzon left and
when he returned, he handed photocopies of the ₱100.00 bills to PO3 Manuel.25
Guira and Edwin also testified for Guzon’s defense. Guira claimed that at about 1:00
o’clock in the afternoon on November 22, 2005, he was having a drinking session
outside his house with Guzon and several other persons.26At around 3:00 o’clock in
the afternoon, Edwin arrived to inform Guzon that PO3 Manuel was looking for
him.27Guzon then left the place with PO3 Manuel, PO2 Tuzon and one
George.28 Edwin’s testimony also corroborated the account of Guzon, having
testified that on November 22, 2005, he was asked by PO3 Manuel on the
whereabouts of Guzon.29 When he saw his brother at Guira’s house, he approached
him to say that PO3 Manuel was looking for him.30
The testimony of one Ronnie Dimaya was dispensed with after the prosecution
admitted that the gist of his testimony would be merely corroborative of the
testimonies of Guira and Guzon.31
The RTC’s Ruling
On June 15, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision32 finding Guzon guilty as charged.
The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Garyzaldy Guzon
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale of shabu and is
therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
₱500,000.00.
The contraband subject hereof is hereby confiscated, the same to be disposed of as
the law prescribes.
SO ORDERED.33
Feeling aggrieved, Guzon appealed to the CA. Notwithstanding the RTC’s findings,
he denied the charge against him. He also questioned the credibility of PO2 Tuzon
as a witness for the prosecution and the police officers’ non-compliance with the
chain of custody rule in handling the confiscated shabu.
The CA’s Ruling
On June 29, 2010, the CA rendered its Decision34 denying the appeal. It reasoned
that Guzon’s defenses of denial and frame-up are common and could easily be
fabricated; they could not prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the
police officer who testified for the prosecution.
In affirming Guzon’s conviction, the CA also cited the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty by the police operatives who conducted the buy-bust
operation. As to the issue of chain of custody, the CA rejected Guzon’s argument,
and maintained that based on the evidence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated shabu were preserved.
Hence, this appeal.
The Present Petition
Guzon seeks his acquittal mainly on the basis of the prosecution’s failure to establish
the chain of custody of the subject drug. He argues35 that: (1) the evidence allegedly
seized from Guzon could have been planted; it was not immediately marked at the
place of seizure; (2) there were no photographs and physical inventory of the
confiscated drug; (3) the prosecution failed to offer justification for the absence of
photographs and inventory; (4) the asset who acted as the poseur-buyer was not
identified; and (5) the prosecution failed to establish that the integrity of the seized
item was sufficiently preserved through an unbroken chain of custody.
This Court’s Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Court acquits Guzon for the prosecution’s failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In Reyes v. CA,36 the Court emphasized
that a "conviction must stand on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, not on
the weakness of the defense which the accused put up. Evidence proving the guilt of
the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls
short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his
liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course."37
In the instant case, Guzon was accused of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 which prohibits the sale of illegal drugs. The elements of the crime include: (a)
the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the
thing.38 The Court explained in People v. Bautista39 that in drug-related prosecutions,
the State bears the burden not only of proving these elements of the offense under
R.A. No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti , the body of the crime. The
dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.40
"A buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law,
for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors."41 As in all drugs cases, compliance
with the chain of custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such
operation. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.42 The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug
confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same
unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.43
To eliminate doubt, and even abuse, in the handling of seized substances, some
safeguards for compliance by law enforcement officers are established by law and
jurisprudence. For one, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, upon which Guzon anchors his
appeal, reads in part:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. ―
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, particularly
Section 21 thereof, further provides the following guidelines in the custody and
control of confiscated drugs:
xxxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable , in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items ;
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
The rule includes the proviso that procedural lapses in the handling of the seized
drugs are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution’s cause, provided that the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In each case, courts are
nonetheless reminded to thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that
constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic,
or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the law44 for the
protection of the corpus delicti. The strict demands and significant value of the chain
of custody rule were emphasized in the oft-cited Malillin v. People45 wherein the
Court held:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost
always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable
and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a
witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in
case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit’s level of susceptibility to
fungibility, alteration or tampering—without regard to whether the same is advertent
or otherwise not—dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of
custody rule.46 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
As Guzon correctly pointed out in his Supplemental Brief, there were several lapses
in the law enforcers’ handling of the seized item which, when taken collectively,
render the standards of chain of custody seriously breached. In a line of cases, the
Court explained that the failure to comply with the indispensable requirement of
corpus delicti happens not only when it is missing, but also where there are
substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs which raise doubts on
the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.47 Upon review, the Court has
determined that such lapses and doubt mar the instant case.
First, the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation failed to mark the
seized item immediately after its confiscation from Guzon. The Court explained in
People v. Coreche48 the importance in the chain of custody of the immediate marking
of an item that is seized from an accused, to wit:
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related
items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is
the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are
immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the
markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they
are seized from the accused until they are disposed at the end of criminal
proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.49 (Citation
omitted and emphasis ours)
Here, instead of immediately marking the subject drug upon its confiscation, PO2
Tuzon marked it with his initials "EAT" only upon arrival at the police station.50 While
the failure of arresting officers to mark the seized items at the place of arrest does
not, by itself, impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated
items inadmissible in evidence,51 such circumstance, when taken in light of the
several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the present case, forms part
of a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by
the law,52 sufficient to create reasonable doubt as to the culpability of the accused.
The Court has determined that although a physical inventory of the items seized
during the buy-bust operation forms part of the case records, the buy-bust team
failed to fully comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for its
preparation and execution. Under the law, the inventory must be made "in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom the items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof." These requirements
are reiterated in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165. Non-compliant with such rules,
however, the Certification/Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Items53in this case only
bears the signatures of PO3 Manuel and PO2 Tuzon as apprehending officers.
Although the Certification indicates the name of Guzon under the section "With
Conformity", it includes neither his signature nor of any other person who is allowed
by law to witness the required inventory. There is also no proof that a copy of the
inventory was received by any of the persons enumerated under the law.
Besides these deficiencies in the preparation of the inventory, no photograph of the
seized item, which is also required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, forms part of
the case records.
The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 fails to remedy the lapses
and save the prosecution’s case. We have emphasized in People v. Garcia54 that the
saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses,
and thereafter cited justifiable grounds.55 Failure to follow the procedure mandated
under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained.56 Equally important,
the prosecution must establish that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized item are properly preserved. The prosecution failed in this regard. Taking into
account the several rules and requirements that were not followed by the law
enforcers, there was an evident disregard on their part of the established legal
requirements. Their breach of the chain of custody rule, magnified by the
prosecution’s failure to explain the deficiencies during the trial, casts doubt on
whether the item claimed to have been sold by Guzon to the police asset was the
same item that was brought for examination by the police crime laboratory and
eventually presented in court as evidence.
As further proof that the chain of custody rule was breached in this case, the Court
points out the discrepancy in the weight of the item that was supposedly seized
following the buy-bust operation, and that examined by PSI Cayabyab. We refer to
the inventory prepared by PO3 Manuel and PO2 Tuzon on the items that were
confiscated after the buy-bust operation:
One (1) piece small heat[-]sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules
believed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as "SHABU", weighing
more or less .01 gram including plastic material.
xxxx
The above enumerated and described items were properly marked with capital
letters EAT representing the name Elyzer Agarma Tuzon who was one of the
apprehending police officers x x x.57 (Emphasis ours)
The fact that the item sold by Guzon to the police asset weighed only 0.01 gram is
provided in several other documents: first, in the Joint Affidavit58 dated November 22,
2005 executed by PO3 Manuel and PO2 Tuzon; second, the September 22, 2005
entry in the San Nicolas Municipal Police Station’s Temporary Police Blotter, as
provided in a Certification59 dated November 22, 2005 issued by OIC Baldeo; and
third, the Memorandum60requesting for laboratory examination signed by OIC Baldeo
and which reads in part:
EXHIBIT: a) One (1) piece of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
crystalline substance suspected to be shabu weighing more or less .01 gram
including plastic sachet marked hereto as exhibit EAT.61(Emphasis ours)
Clearly, the specimen submitted to the police crime laboratory weighed only 0.01
gram, even including the plastic sachet that contained the substance.
It appears, however, that the specimen examined by PSI Cayabyab of the police
crime laboratory differed from the specimen allegedly seized by the police and
brought for examination. The Initial Laboratory Report62 prepared by PSI Cayabyab
indicates that the specimen examined weighed more, specifically at 0.06 gram,
excluding its plastic container. Chemistry Report No. D-090-200563 issued by PSI
Cayabyab likewise provides the following details:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A – One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag with markings containing 0.06 gram
of white crystalline substance. xxx
xxxx
REMARKS:
Weight does not include plastic container. xxx.64 (Emphasis ours)
Clearly from the foregoing, the item that was allegedly obtained by the police from
Guzon during the buy-bust operation differed or, at the very least, was no longer in
its original condition when examined in the crime laboratory. The variance in the
weight of the seized item vis-à-vis the examined specimen and, ultimately, the detail
provided in the Information, remained unaddressed by the prosecution. The
testimony of PO2 Tuzon offered no explanation for the difference. PO3 Domingo and
PSI Cayabyab could have provided the clarification, but their testimonies were
dispensed with following the parties’ agreement during the pre-trial.65 The identity of
the item examined by PSI Cayabyab could have also been verified from the
markings "EAT" that was made by PO2 Tuzon on the plastic sachet. Her reports,
however, made no specific reference to such markings, as they merely described the
subject specimen as "one (1)-heat-sealed transparent plastic bag with markings
containing 0.06g of white crystalline substance."66
The Court is mindful of the stipulations that were entered into by the parties during
the pre-trial67 to the effect that: (a) PO3 Domingo received the specimen from PO2
Tuzon and then delivered it to PSI Cayabyab; (b) PSI Cayabyab received the
specimen and when she found the specimen to be shabu , she issued her initial and
confirmatory reports; and (c) PSI Cayabyab and PO3 Domingo could identify the
specimen and the labels appearing thereon. These bare stipulations, however,
merely address the matter of the specimen’s transfer from one police officer to the
next, without offering any explanation as to the specimen’s condition during the
transfers, how each person made sure that the item was not tampered with or
substituted, and an indication of the safeguards that were employed to prevent any
tampering or substitution. Given the considerable difference between the specimen’s
weight upon its seizure and its weight at the time of its examination, with the seized
item’s weight being a mere 16% of the examined specimen’s weight, the
determination in this case of whether the rationale for the chain of custody rule was
duly satisfied necessitated a more intensive inquiry. The prosecution’s failure to do
so was fatal to its case. It failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the substance claimed to be seized during the buy-bust
operation was preserved. The doubt is resolved in Guzon’s favor, as the Court rules
on his acquittal.
In drugs cases, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has
been preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved – the
seized chemical – is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be
tampered with or substituted.68 "Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation
requires not only the actual existence of the transacted drugs but also the certainty
that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized. This is a
condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs are the main subject of the illegal
sale constituting the crime and their existence and identification must be proven for
the crime to exist."69The flagrant lapses committed in handling the alleged
confiscated drug in violation of the chain of custody requirement even effectively
negate the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duties,
as any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the
presumption unavailable.70
In addition to the foregoing, the Court finds merit in Guzon’s argument that the non-
presentation of the poseur-buyer to the witness stand was fatal to the prosecution’s
cause. We emphasize that in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
prosecution must convincingly prove that the transaction or sale actually
transpired.71 In the instant case, the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, a
civilian, was the witness competent to prove such fact, given the testimony of PO2
Tuzon that at time the supposed sale happened, he and PO3 Manuel were
positioned about 20 meters away from Guzon and the poseur-buyer. Although PO2
Tuzon testified during the trial on the supposed sale, such information he could offer
was based only on conjecture, as may be derived from the supposed actions of
Guzon and the poseur-buyer, or at most, hearsay, being information that was merely
relayed to him by the alleged poseur-buyer. Given the 20-meter distance, it was
unlikely for PO2 Tuzon to have heard the conversations between the alleged buyer
and seller. True enough, his testimony provided that he and PO3 Manuel merely
relied on an agreed signal, i.e., the poseur-buyer’s removal of his cap, to indicate
that the sale had been consummated. On cross-examination, PO2 Tuzon even
admitted:
ATTY. BALUCIO:
Q And Mr. Witness, when you allegedly arrived at the target place, you were at a
distance far away from the alleged transaction, is it not?
A More or less twenty (20) meters, sir.
Q And that if any transaction have been (sic) transpired at that time, you did not hear
it Mr. Witness?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you did not also see if what was being handed at that time was shabu Mr.
Witness?
A Yes, sir.72
In the absence of neither the poseur-buyer’s nor of any eyewitness’ testimony on the
transaction, the prosecution’s case fails. In People v. Tadepa,73 the Court explained
that the failure of the prosecution to present in court the alleged poseur-buyer is fatal
to its case.1âwphi1 Said the Court in that case, the police officer, who admitted that
he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from where the actual transaction took
place, could not be deemed an eyewitness to the crime. The Court held, viz :
In People v. Polizon, we said –
We agree with the appellant’s contention that the non-presentation of Boy Lim, the
alleged poseur-buyer, weakens the prosecution’s evidence. Sgt. Pascua was not
privy to the conversation between Lim and the accused. He was merely watching
from a distance and he only saw the actions of the two. As pointed out by the
appellant, Sgt. Pascua had no personal knowledge of the transaction that transpired
between Lim and the appellant. Since appellant insisted that he was forced by Lim to
buy the marijuana, it was essential that Lim should have been presented to rebut
accused’s testimony.
The ruling in People v. Yabut is further instructive –
Well established is the rule that when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
In the present case, accused-appellant’s version of the circumstances leading to his
apprehension constitutes a total denial of the prosecution’s allegations. In this regard
this Court has ruled that when there is such a divergence of accounts –
x x x it becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to rebut appellant’s allegation by
presenting x x x the alleged poseur- buyer. This it failed to do giving rise to the
presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced (Rule
131, Sec. 5 [e]). This failure constitutes a fatal flaw in the prosecution’s evidence
since the so-called (poseur-buyer) who was never presented as a witness x x x is the
best witness for the prosecution x x x.74(Emphasis ours)
The Court also ruled in People v. Olaes75, that the non-presentation of the poseur-
buyer was fatal to the prosecution’s case, since the alleged sale transaction
happened inside the accused’s house; hence, it was supposedly witnessed only by
the poseur-buyer, who then was the only person who had personal knowledge of the
transaction.76
While the Court, in several instances, has affirmed an accused’s conviction
notwithstanding the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation,
such failure is excusable only when the poseur-buyer’s testimony is merely
corroborative, there being some other eyewitness who is competent to testify on the
sale transaction.77
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated June
29, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02890, which affirmed the
Decision dated June 15, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 13,
in Criminal Case No. 11968-13; and ACQUITS accused-appellant GARYZALDY
GUZON of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 11968-13 on the ground of
reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to
immediately release Garyzaldy Guzon from custody, unless he is detained for some
other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
LAPSES IN THE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
SECTION 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165 MUST BE EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF THEIR
JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS, AND THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF
THE EVIDENCE SEIZED MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PRESERVED
G.R. No. 203028 January 15, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ "Jose", Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 dated March 9, 2012 of the Court of Appeals CA) in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 04466 affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Joselito Beran
y Zapanta Beran) rendered by the Regional Trial Court RTC) of Manila, Branch 13,
in a Decision2 dated April 19, 2010 in Criminal Case No. 03-218039, for violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, under an Information which reads, as
follows:
The undersigned accuses JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ JOSE of Viol. of Sec.
5 Art. II of Rep. Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about August 26, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for
sale to a poseur buyer one (1) pc. plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO
THREE ZERO (0.030) gram of white crystalline substance known as SHABU
containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.3
At his arraignment on November 5, 2003, Beran pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged, and trial followed.
The Facts
According to the prosecution, between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of
August 26, 2003,4 a confidential informant (CI) went to the District Anti-Illegal Drug
(DAID) Office of the Western Police District (WPD) at the United Nations Avenue,
Manila, and approached Police Officer 3 (PO3) Rodolfo Enderina (Enderina) to
report that a certain Joselito Beran, alias "Jose," a pedicab driver, was selling
prohibited drugs, particularly "shabu," in the vicinity of San Antonio Street in Tondo,
Manila. P03 Enderina relayed the information to Police Colonel Marcelino Pedroso,
Chief of DAID-WPD, who then ordered him to form a buy-bust team to apprehend
the suspect. At around 5 :00 p.m., the buy-bust team, composed of PO3 Enderina,
PO3 Hipolito Francia, PO3 Benito Decorion (Decorion), PO2 Ernie Reyes, PO2
Alexander Delos Santos (Delos Santos) and PO3 Knowme Sia (Sia), who was to act
as the poseur-buyer, arrived in Tondo on board an owner-type jeep and two
scooters. In the jeep were PO3 Enderina, PO2 Delos Santos, and the CI, while the
rest of the team rode in the scooters. They parked near the Gat Andres Hospital and
proceeded on foot towards San Antonio Street. As arranged, PO3 Sia and the CI
walked ahead of the others. PO3 Sia and the CI reached the target area first, and
there the CI saw Beran standing some 10 meters away near a ''poso" or deep-well.
After recognizing and pointing Beran to PO3 Sia, the CI approached him and the two
men conversed briefly. Then the CI signaled to PO3 Sia to join them, and he
introduced PO3 Sia to Beran, who then asked the CI how much PO3 Sia was
buying. The CI replied, ''piso lang," or ₱100, and Beran took out something from his
pocket, a small, heat-sealed plastic sachet, which he then handed to PO3 Sia. PO3
Sia took the sachet and pretended to examine it discretely, after which he indicated
to Beran that he was satisfied with its content. He then took out a marked ₱100 bill
which he handed to Beran; all this time the back-up members of the buy-bust team
were watching from strategic locations around the vicinity.
Thereupon, PO3 Sia executed the pre-arranged signal of touching his hair to signify
to the back-up cops that the buy-bust sale of shabu had been consummated, even
as he then placed Beran under arrest. The back-up operatives quickly converged
upon Beran, with PO2 Delos Santos arriving first, to whom PO3 Sia then handed
over the custody of Beran, while he kept the plastic sachet. The buy-bust team
brought Beran to the DAID-WPD office, where PO3 Sia marked the confiscated
plastic sachet with the initials of Beran, JB. He also recorded the incident in the
police blotter, and accomplished the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Exhibit F and
F-1), and the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit G and G-1. He later
brought the seized plastic sachet to the WPD Crime Laboratory for examination,
where after testing it was found to contain the prohibited drug methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.5
In his defense, Beran vehemently denied the above incident. Testifying alone in his
defense, he asserted that on August 26, 2003 at around 2:00 p.m., while he was
resting alone upstairs in his house, five WPD policemen arrived and ordered him to
come with them. He resisted and asked why they were arresting him, but without
apprising him of his constitutional rights they handcuffed and forcibly boarded him in
an owner-type jeep and brought him to the WPD Headquarters. There, two of his
arrestors, PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia, demanded from him the amount of ₱20,000.00
in exchange for his release without any charge. But he could not produce the amount
they asked, and they trumped up a charge against him of illegal sale of shabu.6
The trial of Beran took all of seven years to wind up, mainly on account of many
postponements allegedly due to supervening illnesses or reassignments of the
subpoenaed arresting officers. The prosecution was able to present two witnesses,
PO3 Francia and PO3 Sia, but only PO3 Sia gave a witness account of the drug buy-
bust itself. PO3 Francia admitted that he served as a mere look-out to prevent any
intruder from interfering in the buy-bust operation, and that he did not witness the
buy-bust transaction itself. As for PO3 Decorion, also a member of the buy-bust
team, the RTC per its Order7 dated July 29, 2009 agreed to dispense with his
testimony after the parties stipulated that as the designated driver of the buy-bust
team, he did not see the actual exchange of drug and money between Beran and
PO3 Sia, nor did he witness the actual arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia.
Ruling of the RTC
On April 19, 2010, the RTC of Manila, Branch 13 rendered its judgment,8 the
dispositive portion of which reads:
THEREFORE premises considered and the prosecution having established to a
moral certainty the guilt of the accused JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA JOSE of the
crime charged, this Court in the absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby
sentences the Accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay the fine of five hundred
thousand pesos (₱500,000.00), without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.
In the service of his sentence, the actual confinement under detention during the
pendency of this case shall be deducted from the said prison term in accordance
with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.
The evidence presented is ordered transferred to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) for destruction.
SO ORDERED.9
Beran went up to the CA to interpose the following alleged errors in the RTC
decision, to wit:
I according to the CA have proved beyond reasonable doubt the material facts
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [BERAN] DESPITE THE
ILLEGALITY OF HIS ARREST AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ALLEGED
CONFISCATED PROHIBITED DRUG.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING [BERAN] GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO
ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PROHIBITED DRUG.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING [BERAN] DESPITE THE
POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION21 OF REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 9165.10
Ruling of the CA
In affirming in toto the RTC the CA ruled that Beran was caught in flagrante delicto
as a result of a valid and legitimate buy-bust operation, an entrapment to apprehend
law breakers while in the act of executing their criminal plan.11 Relying solely on the
testimony of PO3 Sia, it found that Beran sold the prohibited drug shabu to an
undercover buyer, PO3 Sia; that Beran was arrested at the moment of the
consummation of the sale transaction and immediately brought to the DAID-WPD
along with the sachet of illegal drug confiscated from him; that when the substance
was subjected to chemical analysis by the WPD Drug Laboratory, the content thereof
was shown to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The CA further held that the arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia without warrant was valid
under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which
provides that "a police officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a
person when an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it." It also cited Section 5(a) of Rule 113, wherein it provides
that "a police officer can arrest a person without warrant when in his presence the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense."
Quoted below at length are pertinent portions of the testimony of PO3 Sia which
attending the buy-bust and establishing the guilt of Beran:
xxxx
============================
DIRECT EXAMINATION
CONDUCTED BY
ACP LIBERTAD RASA ON WITNESS
PO3 KNOW ME SIA
============================
xxxx
Q: How did you know that there was that informant who arrived at your office giving
information about drugs activities of a certain Beran?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina formed a team in DAID office, ma'am.
Q: Did you know why Enderina formed a group at DAID?
A: He relayed to us that we have an Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation, ma'am.
Q: That you will have an Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation where and against whom? xxxx

A: Against one Joselito Beran alias Jose ma am. ACP Rasa:

Q: Where? Q: Aside from the dispatch record what other documents did you prepare?

A: In the area of San Antonio Street Tondo Manila. A: The buy-bust money, ma’am.

Q: Was there anytime that you saw them in front at your office when he relayed the Q: Do you have the buy-bust money with you?
information to Enderina?
A: I will bring it on the next hearing ma’am.
A: Yes ma’am.
Q: How much buy-bust money did you prepare?
Q: What time of the day or the night was that?
A: ₱100.00, ma’am.
A: Between 3-4 pm of August 26 2003 ma am.
Q: Who supplied that ₱100.00 buy-bust money?
Q: And what did your team leader Rodolfo Enderina do as soon as he received that
information? A: He formed his men and then he directed all of us and placed the A: Our team leader, ma’am.
confidential information for interrogation ma’am.
Q: Who is your team leader?
Q: As a matter of standard operating procedure what does an operative of SAID or
DAID do before launching a buy-bust operation? A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, Ma’am.

A: First there must be an information to be received then there was a plan of Q: Aside from the dispatch record, the buy-bust money, what other preparations did
operation and then the documents are required to be accomplished prior to the you do before launching on the operation of buy-bust against one Joselito Beran
conduct of a buy-bust operation ma’am. alias Jose?

Q: What documents if any were you required to prepare prior to your operation? A: There was a preparation of Pre-Operation Report and Coordination Sheet,
however, we cannot fax to the PDEA because the PDEA fax at that time was not
A: Our dispatch record. fully operational, ma’am.

Q: Do you have a copy of this dispatch record? Q: What other documents aside from those already mentioned did you prepare?

A: Yes ma’am. A: That s all, ma’am.

Q: Can you show it to the Court? Q: And what were the other instructions given to you by the team leader, Rodolfo
Enderina?
A: It is with the custodial of DAID ma’am.
A: During our briefing, I was then chosen as the designated poseur-buyer, ma’am.
Q: What else? A: When we parked our vehicle, PO3 Enderina grouped us and told us that at the
area where we were going, the vehicles could not enter San Antonio Street and after
A: The marked money was marked by me and then during the briefing, it was agreed that, the confidential informant was the first who proceeded to the target place,
that the pre-arranged signal was to touch my hair as indication that the deed was ma’am.
done, ma am.
Q: You already said that you already parked your vehicles. So how did you arrive at
xxxx San Antonio Street?

Q: What time did you proceed to San Antonio? A: On foot, ma'am.

A: Around 5:00 of August 26, 2003, ma’am. Q: How did you scout or identify your target person?

Q: How many vehicles did you use? A: Upon arrival in the area of San Antonio, the confidential informant was the first
who arrived and then in a few minutes later, the confidential informant pointed to one
A: We utilized one (1) owner type jeep and the others were on their respective (1) male person in the area
motorcycle or scooter, ma’am.
of San Antonio, ma'am.
Q: And the others were aboard on scooters?
Q: You were saying that, the confidential informant went ahead of you?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
A: No, ma'am. We were together, ma'am.
Q: Who were inside the owner type jeep?
Q: Where did you first notice the presence of the accused?
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, the confidential informant and PO1 (sic) Delos Santos,
ma’am. Q: And who took their scooters? A: Near the alley, ma’am, in the middle of San Antonio where there is a "poso".

A: PO3 Benito Decorion and PO2 Ernie Reyes, ma’am. Q: When pointed to you, how far were you from the accused or your target?

Q: One scooter? A: Approximately 8-10 meters, ma'am.

A: Two (2) scooters ma’am. Q: What was the accused doing when he was pointed at by the confidential
informant to you?
Q: Where did you park your vehicle?
A: He was spotted standing, ma'am.
A: We parked in the area of Gat Andres Hospital, ma’am.
Q: Standing only?
xxxx
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: As soon as you had parked your vehicles, what else happened?
Q: What happened after you saw him standing?
A: The CI went ahead of me to approach the suspect, ma'am.
Q: When you said the CI was ahead of you, about how far away were you following
him?
A: 3-4 meters, ma'am.
Q: What else happened?
A: After that, ma am, the CI and the subject were conversing.
Q: Did you hear what the conversation was all about?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: After that conversation, what happened next?
A: The CI signaled to me to come close to them, ma'am.
Q: As soon as you were already with the group or with the CI and the target person,
what else did you do?
A: I approached them, ma am, then the CI introduced me as the buyer of the
prospected illegal drugs.
Q: What was the reply or the action of Beran?
A: He told the CI magkano ba'', ma'am.
Q: And what did the CI say?
A: The CI told him piso lang . Piso means One Hundred Pesos, ma'am.
Q: After knowing that you were only interested to buy "piso'', what happened after?
A: After that Beran took out something from his pocket, ma’am.
Q: What was that?
A: Beran showed me and the CI a small plastic sachet, ma am.
Q After showing to you, what else did Beran do with the plastic?
A: The subject handed to me one (1) plastic sachet, ma’am.
Q: What did you do after it was handed to you?
A: discretely examined the contents of the plastic sachet and after that, the subject
person demanded for the payment of said stuff, ma’am.
Q: What did you do?
A: gave the marked buy-bust money, ma’am.
Q: What happened after that?
A: After that, the pre-arranged signal was executed, ma’am.
Q What was the pre-arranged signal agreed upon?
A: Touching of the hair, ma’am.
Q: Who was able to recover that buy-bust money?
A: Me, ma’am.
Q: What happened next?
A: The other back-up operatives arrived and PO2 Delos Santos was the first to
respond x x x and I gave the suspect to him for custody, ma’am.
Q: What did you do with that plastic that you bought from the accused Beran?
A: immediately placed him (sic) in my custody, ma’am, and later on it was marked
and forwarded to WPD Drug Laboratory Office for laboratory examination, ma’am.
Q: Who brought that plastic sachet for the laboratory examination?
A: Me, ma’am.
Q: Who placed the marking on that plastic sachet?
A: Me, ma’am. A: It turned out to be positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, ma'am.

Q What marking did you place? Q: What happened next after the examination?

A JB, ma’am. A: After preparing the documents, we presented the case before the inquest fiscal,
ma'am.
Q: Where did you place the marking?
Q: Did you subject the accused for drug test?
A: At the office, ma’am.
A: I cannot remember, ma'am.
Q: If shown that plastic sachet, will you be able to identify it?
Q: You did not prepare a request for drug test?
A: Yes, ma’am.
A: I prepared the request for drug test, ma'am.
Q: Why?
Q: And what was the result of the drug test?
A: I recognized the markings, ma’am.
A: I do not know the result, ma'am. Q: Can you bring the result of the drug test?
Q: What did you use to mark it?
A: "Sa Crime Lab na lang po", ma'am.
A: I think it was a pentel pen, ma'am.
x x x x.12
Q: Aside from this drugs (sic) which you said they requested and you personally
brought for examination at the WPD Crime Laboratory, what other things did you do ====================================
as soon as you arrived at the office? CONTINUATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION
CONDUCTED BY:
A: It was recorded it (sic) in our police blotter, ma'am, and the pertinent documents FISCAL PURIFICACION A. BARING-TUVERA
were prepared. ====================================

Q: Do you have a copy of the police blotter? FISCAL TUVERA:

A: Yes, ma'am, but it's in the office. xxxx

Q: The buy-bust money and the dispatched report are also at your office. Can you Q: Mr. Witness, during your testimony on August 8, 2006, you were asked by former
bring all of those? Prosecutor Rasa if you will be able to identify the specimen which you said you
bought from accused Joselito Beran, do you remember having said that?
A: Yes, ma'am.
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What was the result of the laboratory examination which you said you personally
brought to the laboratory? Q: Will you still be able to identify the specimen if it will be shown to you again?
A: Yes, ma am. I was the one who. . . (interrupted) A: One (1) plastic sachet.

Q: Will you be able to identify it? Q: One plastic sachet only, Mr. Witness, I am showing you a plastic sachet with
markings JB, will you kindly tell us if that is the same plastic sachet that you bought
A: Yes, ma am. from the accused and subsequently marked at the police station?

Q: And how will you be able to identify it, Mr. Witness?
A: I was the one who placed the marking on the alleged shabu.
Q: And what were the markings that you placed on the plastic sachet?
A: This is the plastic sachet subject of the sale, I marked JB on the said plastic
sachet.
FISCAL TUVERA: We manifest Your Honor that [t]he plastic sachet was already
marked as Exhibit B-1 for the prosecution.

A: It was marked JB ma am. Q: What did you use Mr. Witness in buying this shabu?

Q: J? A: We utilized ₱100 bill.

A: JB. Q: Do you have the genuine ₱100 bill with you now Mr. Witness?

Q: And will you kindly tell us who placed the markings JB on the plastic sachet? (pause)

A: I was the one who marked the specimen. Q: Nasa iyo ba yung ₱100 bill?

Q: And where did you place the markings Mr. Witness? A: I have it in my custody.

A: On the plastic sachet. Q: You have it in your custody?

Q: At what time did you place the markings on the plastic sachet? A: But I did not bring it today.

A: After the arrest of the suspect when he was brought to our office for investigation. Q: Why did you not bring it today Mr. Witness?

Q: In other words, when did you place the markings? A: I only knew ma am that I have my hearing on Joselito Beran but I forgot to bring it,
next scheduled hearing nalang po.
A: After 5 pm of August 23, 2003.
Q: Mr. Witness, before you used that buy-bust money to buy shabu from the
Q: And at what place Mr. Witness? accused Mr. Witness, did you place markings on the ₱100 bill?

A: At the office. A: Yes ma’am

Q: I am showing you Mr. Witness a plastic sachet, by the way, how many plastic Q: And what were these markings did you place on the ₱100 bill?
sachets did you buy from the accused?
A: I marked DAID at the left portion of the buy-bust money. A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: And what else did you do aside from placing markings on the ₱100 bill? ACP BARING-TUVERA:

A: The said money was then xeroxed for five (5) pieces and then the original was Q: May I just have this identified, your Honor? Mr. Witness, you said that you were
kept in our custody. the one who placed the markings on this One Hundred Peso (₱100.00) bill. Will you
kindly tell us on what part of this money did you place the markings?
x x x x.13
THE WITNESS
(Continuation of Direct-Examination of Witness PO3 Know me Sia by ACP Baring-
Tuvera) A: I marked DAID at the left center portion of the buy-bust money.

xxxx xxxx

ACP BARING-TUVERA ACP BARING-TUVERA

Q: Mr. Witness, you are here today for the continuation of your direct-examination. Q: Mr. Witness, you said that you were the one -you were the poseur-buyer in this
May we know if you already brought with you the buy-bust money in connection with case. If you will be shown the item again, will you be able to identify it again Mr.
this case? Witness?

THE WITNESS THE WITNESS

A: Yes, ma’am. A: Yes, ma’am.

ACP BARING-TUVERA Q: I am showing to you Mr. Witness -and how will you be able to identify it?

Q: Will you kindly bring it out and show it to this Honorable Court so that the Court A: I was the one who marked it.
may be able to appreciate it?
Q: And what markings did you place on the plastic sachet?
THE WITNESS
A: JB, ma’am.
A: Here, ma’am.
xxxx
COURT:
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: The money is attached to a blank sheet of paper. Will you write something about
it, the case number? Q: And who were present when you marked this plastic sachet at the office?

THE WITNESS THE WITNESS

A: The arresting officers ma’am, my companions in the conduct of the buy-bust Q: Was the laboratory examination actually conducted on the plastic sachet that you
operation, ma am. THE COURT: submitted? A: Yes, ma’am.

Q: Who? Q: And what was the result of the laboratory examination that was conducted on the
specimen that you submitted?
THE WITNESS
A: It yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, ma’am.
A: PO3 Rodolfo Enderina, PO2 Hipolito Francia.
xxxx
THE COURT:
ACP BARING-TUVERA
Q: In the presence of your fellow officers?
Q: After you have arrested or after the buy-bust operation Mr. Witness, do you
THE WITNESS remember having executed any document?

A: Yes, Your Honor. THE WITNESS

ACP BARING-TUVERA A: I executed the Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer. I also prepared the Referral for Inquest,
the Request for Drug Test and the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report.
Q: How about the police investigator, was he also present when you place this
markings? x x x x.14

THE WITNESS
A: In that case ma’am, I was also the investigator.
Q: You were also the investigator. And after you placed the markings on that plastic
sachet Mr. Witness, the plastic sachet containing shabu, what else did you do?
On cross-examination, PO3 Sia was asked why he omitted to mention in his affidavit
his claimed marking of the confiscated sachet of shabu. He could not explain his
oversight except to say that he "forgot to include a mention of the said fact,
ma'am."15
Our Ruling

A: We prepared the laboratory examination, ma’am.
Q: Who prepared the request for laboratory examination?
A: I prepared it, ma’am.
Q: Okay. And after you prepared the request for laboratory examination, what else
happened?
A: And then we submitted the said specimen to the crime laboratory for laboratory
examination.
According to the CA, the following elements are required to sustain Beran's
conviction and these have been shown to be present in the case below, namely: the
identity of the buyer and the seller; the object of the sale and the consideration; and
the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.16 It held that the prosecution was
able to establish the following facts: the identities of the poseur-buyer, PO3 Sia, and
the seller, Beran; the object of the sale, shabu contained in a heat-sealed plastic
sachet handed by Beran to PO3 Sia; and, the consideration which PO3 Sia paid for
the staged purchase, a marked ₱100.00 bill confiscated in the possession of Beran.
Thus, according to the CA, a complete narrative was built of an illegal sale of shabu
leading to the arrest of Beran by PO3 Sia.
We disagree.
The crucial issue in this case is whether, to establish the corpus delicti the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized drug have been preserved in an unbroken chain
of custody. We find no unbroken chain of custody, and we rule that the prosecution
failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged. Beran must be set
free.
Evidentiary gaps in the chain of
custody of the confiscated plastic
sachet cast reasonable doubt on its
integrity.17
It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti which is the
dangerous drug itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable
doubt.18 In People v Pagaduan19 we ruled that proof beyond reasonable doubt in
criminal prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands that unwavering exactitude
be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is the
confiscated illicit drug.20 The case of People v. Tan,21 cited in People of the
Philippines v. Datu Not Abdul,22 elucidates and reminds us why:
"By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures,
the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or
grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks,
and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is
great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases
lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses. Needless to state, the lower court should have exercised the utmost
diligence and prudence in deliberating upon accused-appellants' guilt. It should have
given more serious consideration to the pros and cons of the evidence offered by
both the defense and the State and many loose ends should have been settled by
the trial court in determining the merits of the present case.
Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established, and the
chain of custody requirement under R.A. No. 9165 performs this function in buy-bust
operations as it ensures that any doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed.23 Blacks Law Dictionary describes "chain of custody," as follows:
"In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as the narcotics in a trial of drug
case, must account for the custody of the evidence from the moment in which it
reaches his custody until the moment in which it is offered in evidence, and such
evidence goes to weight not to admissibility of evidence. Com. V. White, 353 Mass.
409, 232 N.E. 2d 335."24
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section
1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements
R.A. No. 9165 nonetheless explains the said term, as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and
time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. To be admissible, the
prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of
the exhibit, from the time it came into the possession of the police officers, until it
was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to the time
it was offered in evidence.25
A review of the facts of this case will readily make evident that the appellate decision
failed to take note of vital gaps in the recording by the apprehending officers of
authorized movements and custody of the seized shabu as we shall point out, and
these gaps compel us to rule that reasonable doubt exists as to the identity of the
very corpus of the offense herein charged, the sachet of shabu recovered from
Beran. In People v. Alcuizar,26 we reiterated the rule that under R.A. No. 9165 the
dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti and that to sustain a
conviction the identity and integrity of the drug must definitely be shown to have
been preserved:
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti
of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been
preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique
characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove
any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence
must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug
actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for
possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.27 (Citation omitted)
Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. links in the custody of the seized drug. Of the six-man buy-bust team, only PO3 Sia
9165 provides that to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the and PO3 Francia testified in court, and PO3 Francia himself twice stated that he did
illegal drugs seized pursuant to a buy-bust operation, or under a search warrant, the not witness the actual buy-bust sale as it was taking-place:
following procedures shall be observed by the apprehending officers, to wit:
(On Cross-examination of PO3 Francia by Atty. Anne Geraldine Agar)
xxxx
xxxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory Q: And what was your participation in this case, Mr. Witness?
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her A; I acted as alalay or back-up, ma'am.
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be Q: Did you act as alalay on that day?
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at A; Yes, ma'am.
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
COURT:
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved Did you see what happened while you were acting as alalay or back-up?
by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items; WITNESS:

x x x x.28 None, your Honor. Malayo po kasi ako.

In People v. Dela Rosa29 we ruled that the prosecution must establish by records or COURT:
testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into the
possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its Wala pala, eh ..
composition, and all the way to the time it is offered in evidence.30 In the instant
case, from the testimony of PO3 Sia it is clear that the apprehending operatives did ATTY.AGAR:
not, immediately after seizure and confiscation of the illegal item, physically inventory
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, his representative or Nothing further, your Honor.
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and an
elected public official, notwithstanding that they were supposed to have been FISCAL:
conducting a planned sting operation. Indeed, it is not gratuitous to state that they
took no efforts whatsoever to observe even a modicum of the above procedures. Redirect, Your Honor.
Worse, the prosecution did not bother to explain why they failed to observe them,
although they knew these procedures were intended to preserve the integrity and COURT:
evidentiary value of the item seized.
Proceed Fiscal.
Moreover, none of the other witnesses of the prosecution could corroborate the
culpatory narrative of PO3 Sia at any of its material points to create the successive
Q: P03 Francia, you were one of those appointed to form a team?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: And you said, you were only as alalay ?
A: Yes, back-up, ma’am.
Q: What does an alalay or back-up do?
A: We are there to prevent any intruder that may prevent our operation, ma’am.
Q: How far were you positioned from the poseur-buyer?
A: More than 5-7 meters, ma’am.
Q: Was there any incident or intruder that stopped you from arresting the accused?
A: None, ma’am.
Q: From where you were, were you able to see the pre-arranged signal by the
poseur-buyer?
xxxx
A: No, I did not see, ma’am.
Q: As a back-up, when did you come to see that the deal was consummated?
A: When my companions moved to Know me Sia to assist him, ma’am.
Q: And what was your last act at that time?
A: "Umalalay," ma’am.31
Incidentally, neither did PO3 Francia corroborate PO3 Sia's claim that he and PO3
Enderina were present when he marked the subject sachet at the precinct.
In People v. Morales,32 we acquitted the accused due to the failure of the buy-bust
team to photograph and inventory the seized items or to give justifiable grounds for
their non-observance of the required procedures. In People v. Garcia,33 the accused
was acquitted because "no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of
the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and
its implementing rules."34 We issued the same ruling in Bondad Jr. v.
People,35 where the police without justifiable grounds did not inventory or photograph
the seized items. We reiterated the same ruling in People v. Gutierrez,36 People v.
Denoman,37 People v. Partoza,38 People v. Robles,39 and People v. dela Cruz.40 In
all these cases, we stressed the importance of complying with the required
mandatory procedures in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 concerning the preservation of
the chain of custody of confiscated drugs in a buy-bust operation.
Further, in Mallillin v. People41 we emphasized that the chain of custody rule requires
that there be testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the object
seized was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched it would describe how and from whom it was received, where it
was and what happened to it while in the possession of the witness, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain.42
The RTC and CA both convicted Beran on the basis alone of the uncorroborated
testimony of PO3 Sia, and despite the buy-bust team s unexplained non-observance
of the procedures laid down in Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165.
As the Court of last resort, we are now called upon to correct this error. Unlike in
People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Mali y Quimno a k a "Linda",43 where we found
that the prosecution adequately established the unbroken links in the chain of
custody of the confiscated drug, and the apprehending officers were able to preserve
the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized and justified their non-
compliance with the above procedures, in the instant appeal we rule that the chain of
custody has not been established at all, and thus the integrity and evidentiary value
of the drug seized has not been preserved.
Contrary to the settled rule in a
buy-bust operation, the confiscated
shabu was not (1) marked in the
presence of Beran (2) immediately
upon confiscation.
Concerning the marking of evidence seized in a buy-bust operation or under a
search warrant, vis-a-vis the physical inventory and photograph, it must be noted
that there are distinctions as to time and place under Section 21 of R A No. 9165.
Thus, whereas in seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and
photograph must be conducted in the place of the search warrant, in warrantless
seizures such as a buy-bust operation the physical inventory and photograph shall
be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, consistent with the "chain of custody" rule. In People v.
Sanchez44 the Court held that:
"Physical inventory and photograph
requirement under Section 21
vis-à-vis "marking" of seized evidence
While the first sentence of Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
of R.A. No. 9165 states that "the apprehending officer/team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same," the second sentence makes a distinction
between warrantless seizures and seizures by virtue of a warrant, thus:
"(a) x x x Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case
of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ
and depend on whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or
through a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation.
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must
be conducted in the place where the search warrant was served. On the other hand,
in case of warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the
apprehending officer/team from immediately conducting the physical inventory and
photography of the items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in
keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify
is the matter of marking of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the
evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory
and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather
than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that
the marking of the seized items—to truly ensure that they are the same items that
enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence should be done (1) in
the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This
step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted
searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits
based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or
theft.45 (Citations omitted and emphases in the original)
It needs no elaboration that the immediate marking of the item seized in a buy-bust
operation in the presence of the accused is indispensable to establish its identity in
court. PO3 Sia admitted that he marked the sachet of shabu only at the DAID-WPD
precinct, several kilometers from the buy-bust scene, as well as impliedly admitted
that Beran was not then present. Indeed, none of the buy-bust team attested that
they saw him take custody of the confiscated shabu and later mark the sachet at the
DAID-WPD office.
Also, the operatives rode in separate vehicles on the trip back to the WPD, and PO3
Sia took a scooter with another teammate, who could then have attested as to his
exclusive custody of the subject drug, but that person was not presented to affirm
this fact. So even granting that P03 Sia did mark the same sachet at the precinct,
breaks in the chain of custody had already taken place, first, when he confiscated it
from Beran without anyone observing him do so and without marking the subject
sachet at the place of apprehension, and then as he was transporting it to the
precinct, thus casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links to prove the
corpus delicti.
It has been held that "while a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to
achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution
of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and
even substitution and exchange."46 Moreover, as the investigator of the case, PO3
Sia claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there is
no showing who the laboratory technician was who received the drug from him. The
records also show that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next
day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All
these leave us with no conclusion but that there is serious doubt that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised.
Lapses in the strict compliance with
the requirements of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 must be explained in
terms of their justifiable grounds,
and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized must be
shown to have been preserved.
In People v. Coreche,47 we explained that the above-cited rules are intended to
narrow the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence, as expressed in
Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165.1âwphi1 As noted by the Court which is worth
stating:
RA 9165 is silent on when and where marking should be done. On the other hand,
its implementing rules provide guidelines on the inventory of the seized drugs, thus:
"the physical inventory x x x shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures" (Section 21(a)
of Implementing Rules and Regulations). In People v. Sanchez G.R. No. 175832,
15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194), we drew a distinction between marking and
inventory and held that consistent with the chain of custody rule, the marking
of the drugs seized without warrant must be done "immediately upon
confiscation" and in the presence of the accused.
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence
found legislative expression in Section 21(1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized
dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on
the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team
having initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to "immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof." Although RA 9165 is
silent on the effect of non-compliance with Section 21(1), its implementing guidelines
provide that "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items." We have interpreted this provision to mean
that the prosecution bears the burden of proving "justifiable cause" (People v.
Sanchez, id.; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, 25 February 2009, 580 SCRA
259).48
In Sanchez, we recognized that under varied field conditions the strict compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible,
and we ruled that under the implementing guidelines of the said Section "non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items."49 But we added that the prosecution bears the burden of
proving justifiable cause."
Thus, in Almorfe, we stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the
prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the
integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.50 In
People v. de Guzman,51 we emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-
compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
grounds are or that they even exist.52
In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer an explanation for why an
inventory and photograph of the seized evidence was not made either in the place of
seizure and arrest or at the police station, as required by the Implementing Rules in
case of warrantless arrests, or why the marking of the seized item was not made at
the place of seizure in the presence of Beran. Indeed, the very identity of the subject
shabu cannot be established with certainty by the testimony alone of PO3 Sia since
the rules insist upon independent proof of its identity, such as the immediate marking
thereof upon seizure. And as we already noted, PO3 Sia claimed that he personally
transported the shabu to the WPD station, yet other than his lone testimony there is
no other evidence of his exclusive and uninterrupted custody during the interval from
seizure and transportation to turn over at the WPD. Then, the record shows that PO3
Sia submitted the sachet of shabu for laboratory examination only the next
day,53 and therefore presumably he retained custody of the subject sachet overnight.
In view of his self-serving admission that he marked the sachet only at the precinct,
but without anyone present, along with his lack of mention of the laboratory
technician or officer who received the sachet from him, the charge that the subject
drug may have been tampered with or substituted is inevitable.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated March 9,
2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04466 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
Joselito Beran y Zapanta is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. His immediate RELEASE from detention is
hereby ORDERED unless he is being held for another lawful cause. Let a copy of
this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City
for immediate implementation, who is then also directed to report to this Court the
action he has taken within five (5) days from his receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
HOWEVER, NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 DOES NOT NECESSARILY
RENDER THE ARREST ILLEGAL OR THE ITEMS SEIZED INADMISSIBLE. . Criminal Case No. 12360-D
WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IS THAT THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF
THE SEIZED ITEMS ARE PRESERVED WHICH WOULD BE UTILIZED IN THE On or about April 22, 2003, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of
DETERMINATION OF THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED. this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to
sell, possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did then and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 175928 there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to
Plaintiff-Appellee, Police Officer Joselito Esmallaner, a police poseur buyer, one (1)
Present: small heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline
YNARES-SANTIAGO, substance weighing three (3) centigrams (0.03 grams), which was
Chairperson, found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[6]
- versus - CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA,* and
REYES, JJ. Criminal Case No. 12361-D
Promulgated: On or about April 22, 2003, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of
ALVIN PRINGAS y PANGANIBAN this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to
Accused-Appellant. August 31, 2007 possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and
control three (3) small heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing
white crystalline substance weighing, the following to wit:
DECISION
(a) twenty-five (25) decigrams (0.25 grams);

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: (b) two (2) centigrams (0.02 grams); and

On appeal before Us is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. (c) two (2) centigrams (0.02 grams).

CR-HC No. 00303 dated 31 August 2006 which affirmed in toto the decision[2] dated
16 August 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154,
convicting accused-appellant Alvin Panganiban Pringas of Violation of Sections
5,[3] 11[4] and 12[5] of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On 25 April 2003, appellant was charged before the RTC of Pasig City with
Violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 under the following
informations:
for a total of twenty-nine (29) decigrams (0.29 grams), which were
found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[7]
Criminal Case No. 12362-D
On or about April 22, 2003, in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to
possess drug paraphernalia, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in is possession, custody and control, the
following to wit:
 (a) one (1) small tape-sealed transparent plastic bag
containing four (4) smaller unsealed transparent plastic
bags each with traces of white crystalline substance;
(b) one (1) improvised water pipes containing traces
of white crystalline substance;
(c) two (2) empty strips of aluminum foil;
During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the existence and the
contents of the Request for Laboratory Examination[13] and the Forensic
Chemist Report,[14] with the qualification that the subject of the forensic report
was not taken from him, and if ever same was taken from him, it was obtained
illegally.[15]

(d) one (1) pin; With the termination of the pre-trial conference, the cases were heard jointly.

(e) one (1) pair of scissors;

The prosecution presented two witnesses: PO1 Joselito Esmallaner[16] and
(f) one (1) improvised bamboo tongs; SPO3 Leneal Matias,[17] both members of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of

(g) one (1) pack of empty small transparent plastic the Pasig City Police Station.
bag;
The version of the prosecution is as follows:
(h) one (1) improvised burner; and

(i) two (2) disposable lighters. On 22 April 2003, SPO4 Danilo Tuao, Officer-in-Charge of the Station Drug
all are fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police Station, designated PO1 Joselito
any dangerous drug into the body.[8] Esmallaner to act as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation to be conducted against
appellant along Beverly Street, Barangay Buting, Pasig City. At around 10:30 p.m.,

On 30 April 2003, appellant, having been charged without the benefit of a preliminary the buy-bust team headed by SPO3 Leneal Matias arrived at the target area. PO1

investigation, filed a motion for reinvestigation.[9] On 14 May 2003, the trial court Esmallaner and the informant proceeded to the unnumbered house

granted the motion and ordered the Pasig City Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary of appellant, while SPO3 Matias and the other members of the team positioned

investigation.[10] With the finding of the City Prosecutor that no cogent reason existed themselves around ten (10) meters away to serve as back-up.

to modify or reverse its previous finding of probable cause against accused-

appellant, the trial court set the cases for arraignment and trial.[11] After the informant knocked on appellants front door, the latter came out. Upon
recognizing the informant, appellant asked, Pare, ikaw pala. Bibili ka ba? The

When arraigned on 4 September 2003, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de informant who was standing next to PO1 Esmallaner replied Oo, itong kasama ko

oficio, pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.[12] kukuha. Appellant then asked PO1 Esmallaner how much drugs he intended to buy
to which PO1 Esmallaner replied, P100 lang. PO1 Esmallaner thereafter gave a one
hundred peso (P100.00) bill to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant went inside
the house. Appellant returned and handed to PO1 Esmallaner a plastic sachet
containing a white crystalline substance later found to be shabu.[18]
Upon receiving the plastic sachet, PO1 Esmallaner grabbed appellants hand and got
the P100.00 bill from the right front pocket of appellants pants. He introduced himself
as a police officer and informed the appellant of his violation and his constitutional
[19]
rights. PO1 Esmallaner then marked the plastic sachet and placed his initials JE
on the upper right portion of the P100.00[20] bill with serial number FX230133.[21]
After seeing that PO1 Esmallaner tried to grab the hand of appellant, who was able
to run inside the house and tried to lock the door, SPO3 Matias and the other
members of the team followed PO1 Esmallaner inside appellants house. Matias saw
[22]
three pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a white
crystalline substance which turned out to be shabu, two disposable lighters,[23] six
[24]
strips of aluminum foil with traces of shabu, improvised water pipe used as
tooter,[25] improvised burner,[26] wooden sealer, small scissors,[27]14 pieces of
transparent plastic sachets,[28] and one small needle[29] on top of a small chair
(bangkito). The items confiscated were marked and turned over to the Investigator
who requested laboratory examination on said items.
On 23 April 2003, Chemistry Report No. D-733-03E[30] was issued with the
conclusion that the four sachets, together with four other unsealed transparent
plastic bags and a water pipe used as tooter, taken from appellant, were positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). On the same date, poseur-buyer PO1
Esmallaner and team leader SPO3 Matias executed their Joint Affidavit of Arrest.[31]
For the defense, appellant[32] took the witness stand together with his
common-law wife, Gina Dean.[33]
Appellant and his common-law wife deny that a buy-bust occurred. Appellant
claims that at about 10:00 p.m. of 22 April 2003, he and his common-law wife were
with their three children in their house in Beverly Street, Buting, Pasig City, when
somebody kicked the door of their house. Appellant was in the comfort room, while
his common-law wife was in the bedroom taking care of their children. Thereafter,
four persons, later identified as police officers Esmallaner, Mapula, Espares and
Familiara, entered without any warrant of arrest or search warrant. He asked them
what they wanted and he was told that they were going to arrest him. When he
asked for the reason why he was being arrested, he was told that he would just be
informed in their office. With his hands on his back, appellant was handcuffed. The
policemen subsequently conducted a search in the house, but they neither
recovered nor took anything.After that, appellant was brought to the police station,
investigated and placed in jail. He added that the violent entry made by the
policemen was witnessed by some of his neighbors, namely, Buboy, Macmac and
Zaldy, who were then having a drinking session.
On 19 August 2004, the trial court promulgated its decision finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. It disposed of the cases as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the accused ALVIN
PRINGAS is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and he is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Accused ALVIN PRINGAS is also found GUILTY OF Violation of
Section 11 of the same law and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1)
DAYto FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of imprisonment and to pay a fine
of P400,000.00 and also of violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165, and
he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment from SIX (6)
MONTHS(and) ONE (1) DAY as minimum to THREE (3)
 YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as maximum, and to pay a fine
of P10,000.00.
Considering the penalty imposed, the immediate commitment of the
accused to the National Bilibid Prisons is ordered.
The Court fully realizes that the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense committed by the accused is quite severe. However, the Court
will not question the wisdom of the law and of the legislators who
passed it. Dura lex, sed lex. The only thing that the Court can do is to
recommend that the accused be pardoned after he shall have served
the minimum period of the penalty imposed on him.[34]
On 3 September 2004, appellant, through counsel, appealed the decision to the
[35]
Court of Appeals via a Notice of Appeal. With the filing of the Notice of Appeal, the
[36]
trial court transmitted the records of the case to the Court of Appeals for review
[37]
pursuant to People v. Mateo.
In its Decision dated 31 August 2006, the Court of Appeals dismissed appellants
[38]
appeal and affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
Unsatisfied, appellant appealed his conviction before this Court by way of a Notice of
Appeal.[39]
With the elevation of the records to the Court and the acceptance of the appeal, the
parties were required to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired,
[40]
within 30 days from notice. The parties manifested that they were not filing
supplemental briefs, arguing that the issues of the case had been discussed in their
[41]
respective briefs.
Appellant makes a lone assignment of error, to wit:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED
DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE HAVING
BEEN OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 21 AND 86,
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
Appellant argues that the apprehending police officers failure to comply with the
provisions (Sections 21 and 86) of Republic Act No. 9165 casts doubt on the validity
of appellants arrest and the admissibility of the evidence allegedly seized from
him. He maintains that since the procurement of the evidence, both documentary
and testimonial, during the buy-bust operation was violative of said law and of his
constitutional right against illegal arrest, the same should not have been received in
evidence to prove his guilt they being inadmissible under the law.
Appellant claims that the police officers violated Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165
when the alleged buy-bust operation that led to the apprehension of appellant was
conducted without the involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA). It is his contention that nowhere in the Joint Affidavit of Arrest executed by
the members of the arresting team was it shown that the buy-bust operation was
conducted with the assistance, coordination, knowledge or consent of the PDEA.
We find this claim untenable.
In the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, it is stated that That, on or about 10:30 PM April 22,
2003, as instructed by SPO4 DANILO TUAO, OIC/SDEU, this Office effected a
coordination to (sic) Metro Manila Regional Office of PDEA and formed a team of
SDEU operatives with a confidential informant to conduct anti-narcotics/Buy-bust
operation against the said person x x x.[42]This portion of the affidavit clearly negates
appellants claim that the buy-bust operation subject of the case was not with the
involvement of the PDEA. Even assuming ex gratia argumentithat the
aforementioned statement was not contained in the affidavit, appellants claim of lack
of involvement of the PDEA will render neither his arrest illegal nor the evidence
seized from him inadmissible. Quoting People v. Sta. Maria,[43] we resolved the very
same issue in this wise:
Appellant would next argue that the evidence against him was
obtained in violation of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165
because the buy-bust operation was made without any involvement of
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Prescinding
therefrom, he concludes that the prosecutions evidence, both
testimonial and documentary, was inadmissible having been procured
in violation of his constitutional right against illegal arrest.
The argument is specious.
Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:
Sec. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All
Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and
Transitory Provisions. The Narcotics Group of the PNP,
the Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs
Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby abolished;
however they shall continue with the performance of
their task as detail service with the PDEA, subject to
screening, until such time that the organizational
structure of the Agency is fully operational and the
number of graduates of the PDEA Academy is
sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That
such personnel who are affected shall have the option
of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain with
their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be
immediately reassigned to other units therein by the
head of such agencies. Such personnel who are
transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall
be extended appointments to positions similar in rank,
salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to
their respective positions in their original mother
agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different
offices and units provided for in this Section shall take
effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of
this Act: Provided,That personnel absorbed and on
detail service shall be given until five (5) years to finally
decide to joint the PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the
investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all
other crimes as provided for in their respective organic
laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation
being conductetd by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-
drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the
provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead
agency.The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall
immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided,
further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs
shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all
drug related matters.
Cursory read, the foregoing provision is silent as to the consequences
of failure on the part of the law enforcers to transfer drug-related
cases to the PDEA, in the same way that the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 is also silent on the
matter. But by no stretch of imagination could this silence be
interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the
participation of PDEA illegal nor evidence obtained pursuant to such
an arrest inadmissible.
It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where great
inconvenience will result from a particular construction, or great public
interests would be endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done,
such construction is to be avoided, or the court ought to presume that
such construction was not intended by the makers of the law, unless
required by clear and unequivocal words.
As we see it, Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall
be the lead agency in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-
related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess
authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal
drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. Additionally,
the same provision states that PDEA, serving as the implementing
arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board, :shall be responsible for the
efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as
 provided in the Act. We find much logic in the Solicitor Generals
interpretation that it is only appropriate that drugs cases being
handled by other law enforcement authorities be transferred or
referred to the PDEA as the lead agency in the campaign against the
menace of dangerous drugs. Section 86 is more of an administrative
provision. By having a centralized law enforcement body, i.e., the
PDEA, the Dangerous Drugs Board can enhance the efficacy of the
law against dangerous drugs. To be sure, Section 86(a) of the IRR
emphasizes this point by providing:
(a) Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and Other Agencies.
The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act,
while the PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall
continue to conduct anti-drug operations in support of the PDEA x x
x. Provided, finally, that nothing in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the
NBI, other law enforcement personnel and the personnel of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting lawful arrests
and seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113
of the Rules of Court.
As regards the non-participation of PDEA in a buy-bust operation, we said:
[T]he challenged buy-bust operation, albeit made without the
participation of PDEA, did not violate appellants constitutional right to
be protected from illegal arrest. There is nothing in Republic Act No.
9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to
make an arrest made without the participation of the PDEA illegal and
evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.Moreover,
the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make arrests.[44]
As regards Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, appellant insists there was a
violation of said section when pictures, showing him together with the
confiscated shabu, were not immediately taken after his arrest. He added that the
Joint Affidavit of Arrest of the apprehending team did not indicate if the members
thereof physically made an inventory of the illegal drugs in the presence of the
appellant or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and given a copy thereof. In short, appellant insists
that non-compliance with Section 21 regarding the custody and disposition of the
confiscated/seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia, i.e., the taking of pictures
and the making of an inventory, will make these items inadmissible in evidence.
We do not agree. Section 21 reads:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof.
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not
fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team.[45] Its non-compliance 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. In the case under consideration, we find that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the items involved were safeguarded. The seized/confiscated
items were immediately marked for proper identification. Thereafter, they were
forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination.
Though the justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21 was not expressly
stated by the arresting/buy-bust team, this does not necessarily mean that appellants
arrest was illegal or the items seized/confiscated inadmissible. In the case at bar, as
in Sta. Maria, the justifiable ground will remain unknown because appellant did not
question during the trial the custody and disposition of the items taken from
him. Assuming that Sections 21 and 86 were indeed breached, appellant should
have raised these issues before the trial court. This, he did not do. Never did he
question the custody and disposition of the items that were supposedly taken from
him. It was only on appeal before the Court of Appeals that he raised them. This, he
cannot do. 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 9165 were
not raised before the trial court but were raised instead 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.[46]
Appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No.
9165. Appellant was charged with violation of Section 5 for selling 0.03 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The elements necessary for the
prosecution of 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.[47] What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[48]
The evidence for the prosecution showed the presence of all these elements. The
poseur-buyer and the team leader of the apprehending team narrated how the buy-
bust happened, and that the shabu sold was presented and identified in court. The
poseur-buyer, PO1 Joselito Esmallaner, identified appellant as the seller of
the shabu. Esmallaners testimony was corroborated by the team leader, SPO3
Leneal Matias. The white crystalline substance weighing 0.03 grams which was
bought from appellant for P100.00 was found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) per Chemistry Report No. D-733-03E.
In this jurisdiction, the conduct of a buy-bust operation is a common and accepted
mode of apprehending those involved in the illegal sale of prohibited or regulated
drugs. It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug
dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[49] 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 operation
deserve full faith and credit.[50]
In the case at bar, we find the testimonies of PO1 Joselito Esmallaner and SPO3
Leneal Matias credible. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which
are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respects when no
glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is
that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having
heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial.[51] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said
findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[52] Finding no reason to depart from
the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we stand by their findings.
We, likewise, uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties. Said presumption was not overcome, as there was no evidence showing that
PO1 Joselito Esmallaner and SPO3 Leneal Matias were impelled by improper
motive. Appellant and his common-law wife testified that the members of the buy-
bust team were complete strangers.[53]
Appellants defense that there was no buy-bust operation deserves scant
consideration. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller of
the shabu can no longer be doubted.Against the positive testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, appellants plain denial of the offenses charged,
unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail. [54]
Being
his common-law wife, we find Gina Dean not to be a credible witness. Appellant said
three of his neighbors witnessed the violent entry made by the policemen in his
house, but he failed to present them or any of them to prove his point.
Appellant was, likewise, charged with possession of three sachets of shabu with a
total weight of 0.29 gram. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 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.[55] All these elements have been
established.
SPO3 Leneal Matias narrated how he discovered the three pieces of heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance and other drug
paraphernalia on top of a small chair (bangkito) in the house of appellant.
Q. After the accused handed something to PO1 Esmallaner, what
else happened?
A. I saw PO1 Esmallaner try to grab the hand of the accused, but the
accused was able to run inside their house, and tried to close
the door, sir.
Q. As a member of the back-up team upon seeing this incident, what
did you do, if any?
A. We gave support to PO1 Esmallaner, sir.
Q. Will you please tell us what kind of support did you give to PO1
Esmallaner?
A. To arrest the accused, sir.
Q. What did you do in particular?
A. PO1 Esmallaner followed the accused inside me and my group
followed Esmallaner also inside the house, sir.
Q. So, in other words you, and your co-members also went inside the
house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When [you] went inside the house, what did you find out if any?
A. PO1 Esmallaner accosted the accused, while I discovered three (3)
pieces of heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
undetermined amount of white crystalline substance
suspected to be shabu, and other paraphernalia on top of the
small bangkito, sir.
Q. Were these three (3) sachet and paraphernalia were scattered on
the small bangkito?
A. Yes, sir.
 Q. And what did you do, if any when you discovered the presence of
these items?
A. I confiscated it and then I marked it, sir.
Q. When you said it what would this?
A. The drug paraphernalia, and the heat plastic sachet, sir.
Q. Could you remember one by one what are those paraphernalia
that you confiscated and marked it?
A. The paraphernalia are two (2) disposable lighter colored red and
yellow, six (6) pieces of small stripe of aluminum foil with
traces of suspected shabu improvised water pipe used as
tooter, improvised burner, wooden sealer, and the three (3)
pieces heat plastic sachet, fourteen (14) pieces of transparent
plastic sachet. That is all I can remember, sir.
Q. Did you place markings on that items that you confiscated?
A. Yes, sir.[56]
Appellant was indeed the owner of these items for they were found in his house on
top of the bangkito following the buy-bust operation and after his arrest. The
substance in the plastic sachets was shabu as confirmed by Chemistry Report No.
D-733-03E. Finally, the drug paraphernalia seized are sufficient to prove that
appellant also violated Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Reviewing the penalties imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, we find them to be in order.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00303 dated 31 August 2006 which
affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch
154, convicting accused-appellant Alvin Panganiban Pringas of Violation of Sections
5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
IN A PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, LIKE
SHABU, WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THE FACT THAT THE POSEUR-BUYER
RECEIVED SHABU FROM THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND THE SAME WAS
PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE IN COURT
[G.R. No. 130922. November 19, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO REQUIZ alias
Fred, accused-appellant.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J.:
ALFREDO REQUIZ appeals from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Pasay City finding him guilty of violating Sec. 15 of RA 6425, The Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended by RA 7659,[1] and sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00. The object of the crime consisting of
one (1) pack of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu)
weighing 248.66 grams was ordered forfeited by the trial court in favor of the
Government, to be turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper
disposition.[2]
The facts: In the early morning of 2 July 1996 a police informant by the name of
"Boy Mata" reported at the PARAC II headquarters in Quezon City that he met
accused-appellant Alfredo Requiz who lived along Estrella Street in Pasay City and
who could sell large quantities of shabu. Police Inspector Ferdinand Marticio, Deputy
Intelligence Officer of PARAC II, immediately dispatched SPO4 Junvoy Yacat and
"Boy Mata" to meet accused-appellant and conduct a "test-buy." They were further
instructed, if the "test-buy" was successful, to close a deal for the purchase of about
250 grams of shabu. Marticio gave Yacat P200.00 and some expensive pieces of
jewelry to convince accused-appellant of his capacity to buy large quantities of
drugs.
Yacat and "Boy Mata" then proceeded to the house of accused-appellant
Alfredo Requiz on Estrella St., Pasay City. Requiz was not at home, but one
Conrado de la Cruz invited them in. "Boy Mata" immediately left the house to look for
accused-appellant and returned after ten (10) minutes with someone who introduced
himself as "Fred" (accused-appellant Alfredo Requiz). Yacat gave "Boy Mata"
the P200.00 to buy shabu from Requiz for the groups consumption. Requiz
immediately produced the stuff from his pocket and prepared the sniffing
paraphernalia.
The group had a "jamming" session during which Yacat negotiated with Requiz
for the sale of 250 grams of shabu, 50 grams of which, he explained, would be for
his consumption and 200 grams would be sent to his cousins in Samar. Requiz
agreed to deliver the drugs in the same place at 5:00 o'clock that afternoon.
Thereafter, Yacat and "Boy Mata" returned to the headquarters of PARAC II in
Quezon City and reported to Marticio that the projected sale would be at 5:00 oclock
in the afternoon. Marticio immediately prepared the "buy-bust" money in the amount
of P43,000.00 in paper bills which were laced with ultra-violet fluorescent powder on
top and at the bottom of the bundle. Then he organized his "buy-bust" team
composed of Yacat, Police Officer Abelardo Ramos and himself as Team Leader.
At 1:30 in the afternoon the team proceeded to Harrison Plaza for the final
briefing. Shortly before 5:00 oclock, Yacat drove his car towards Estrella Street
followed by Marticio and Ramos in another car. Upon reaching the place, Yacat
parked his vehicle facing Harrison Street where Marticio and Ramos could see and
observe him from a distance.
Yacat waited for about ten (10) minutes. Then accused-appellant Requiz
appeared and asked Yacat if he had the money. Yacat showed him the bundle of
money. Requiz then left and returned with something wrapped in a newspaper. He
went into the car through the right front door and handed the illegal merchandise to
Yacat who unwrapped the package and, after being satisfied that it was
indeed shabu, handed the marked money to accused-appellant. Simultaneously,
Yacat switched on the "hazard" lights of his car, a pre-arranged signal to Marticio
and Ramos that the sale had been consummated.
Marticio and Ramos inched their way towards the car of Yacat. Marticio then
entered through the right front door and arrested Requiz, while Ramos entered
through the rear door. Stunned, Requiz timidly submitted himself to the arresting
officers. He was handcuffed. He was then ordered by Marticio to accompany him to
the house where they had the "jamming" session earlier in the morning, and there he
found Conrado de la Cruz whom he invited for questioning at the PARAC II
headquarters in Quezon City.[3]
Acting on the request of PARAC II for laboratory examination,[4] Forensic Analyst
Ophelia Sotelo of the PNP Crime Laboratory conducted examinations on both hands
of Requiz and the specimen submitted by the arresting officers consisting of a white
crystalline substance packed in cellophane. The examinations yielded positive
results, i.e., ultraviolet fluorescent powder was found on both hands of Requiz and
the white crystalline substance was identified as methamphetamine
hydrochloride weighing 248.99 grams.[5]
Accused-appellant gave a different version. He denied having sold shabu to the
police officers claiming that when he came to the house of Conrado de la Cruz at
around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of 28 June 1996 he saw de la Cruz seated in a
sofa with a short, stout man in civilian clothes who suddenly pulled a gun and
arrested him together with de la Cruz allegedly for drug pushing. He claimed that
during intense interrogation at the PARAC II headquarters in Quezon City he was
forced to admit that he was a pusher. He was likewise brought to a crime laboratory
at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning of 29 June 1996 where a forensic chemist
placed two (2) P100.00 bills dusted with ultraviolet fluorescent powder on his hands
to transfer the powder to his palms. He further alleged that after four (4) days from
the date of his arrest the police decided to file the instant complaint, making it appear
that he was apprehended on 2 July 1996 and not 28 June 1996 to escape criminal
liability for detaining him for more than three (3) days without filing any charges
against him. He contends in this appeal that the trial court erred in: (a) not finding
that the Information was defective; (b) believing that the alleged "buy-bust" operation
really took place; and, (c) finding that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged.
The errors raised hinge on the credibility of witnesses. As we have consistently
stressed in the majority of appeals in criminal cases, appellate courts give weight,
and at times even finality, to the findings of the trial judge who is in a better position
to determine the credibility of witnesses as he can observe firsthand their demeanor
and deportment while testifying. Appellate courts do not have the vantage position of
the trial judge.They only rely on the cold records of the case and on the judge's
perception of the evidence before him.
There is no doubt from the records that accused-appellant was
caught in flagrante delicto, i.e., in the act of selling shabu. The evidence for the
prosecution is both substantial and convincing. At its core is the testimony of SPO4
Junvoy Yacat, the poseur-buyer in the "buy-bust" operation conducted by a team of
police officers from PARAC II. He categorically pinpointed accused-appellant as the
person who sold to him approximately 250 grams of shabu, thus -
 Q: What happened after Alfredo Requiz arrived? x x x x
A: He asked me: "dala mo ba ang pera?" and I replied "Oo naandito.
Q: When you told him that you have (sic) the money, what was his reaction?
A: Alfredo Requiz told me: "hintayin mo ako sandali, babalik ako. x x x x
Q: What happened when he returned?
A: He went inside my car bringing with him the suspected shabu wrapped in a
newspaper x x x x
Q: How did you know that it was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu?
A: After I unwrapped the same, your Honor.
Q: After unwrapping the same, what did you see?
A: Alfredo Requiz held (sic) to me the newspaper which I unwrapped and saw the
physical appearance of the shabu.
Q: Please describe to us the shabu after unwrapping the same?
A: It was placed inside the sealed cellophane x x x x
Q: After this thing was handed to you by Alfredo Requiz, what else transpired
next?
A: Alfredo Requiz demanded the money.
Q: After demanding the money from you, what did you do?
A: I handed to him the marked money and he received it with his bare hands.
Q: How thick is the wad of money which you handed to him?
A: Approximately 5 inches thick, sir.
COURT: You said mark money, why do you say it is mark money?
A: Because the same was dusted with ultraviolet powder, sir.[6]
Such testimony of SPO4 Yacat was strongly reinforced by the individual
testimonies of Police Inspector Marticio, team leader of the "buy-bust" operation who
himself arrested accused-appellant, and Forensic Analyst Ophelia Sotelo who
concluded on examination that what was taken from accused-appellant
was shabu and that the latter was tested positive of ultraviolet fluorescent powder on
both hands. As can be gleaned from the assailed decision of the trial court, the
narration of events by the police officers was positive, credible, probable and entirely
in accord with human experience. It bears all the earmarks of truth that it is
extremely difficult for a rational mind not to give credence to it. The police officers
testified in a clear, precise and straightforward manner, and even the rigid cross-
examination by the defense and searching questions by the court failed to disturb the
essence of their testimonies.
The allegation of accused-appellant that he was just a victim of a police frame-
up - arrested for no apparent reason, forced to admit ownership of the subject shabu,
and directly incriminated for drug trafficking - is simply too hollow and obviously self-
serving. Stronger proof is needed to overcome the findings of the trial court.
Indeed, we cannot discern any improper motive, and no such motive was ever
imputed to them by accused-appellant, as to why the police would fabricate evidence
and falsely implicate him in such a serious offense.From all the attendant
circumstances, it appears that these police officers were simply carrying out their
mission to curb drug abuse. The absence of evidence as to the improper motive
actuating the principal witnesses for the prosecution strongly sustains the conclusion
that no such improper motive existed, and that their testimony is worthy of full faith
and credit.
It would not be amiss to point out that the prosecution witnesses are not just
ordinary witnesses but law enforcers. As compared to the baseless disclaimers of
accused-appellant, the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses is far
more 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. [7] We find
no reason from the evidence at hand to discredit their declarations.
As to his claim that he was framed, the exact term should have been
"entrapped." A "buy-bust" operation is a form of entrapment whereby narcotics
agents employ a poseur-buyer to trap or capture drug traffickers.Oftentimes it is the
only effective way of apprehending drug pushers in the act of peddling their
prohibited wares. In the instant case, records show that accused-appellant had a
ready supply of shabu for sale and disposition to anyone willing to pay the
price. When police officer Yacat met accused-appellant for the first time, he readily
quoted his price and set the actual delivery the very same day. The acts of the police
officers from PARAC II clearly constitute entrapment which is not prohibited by law.
Accused-appellant insists that the Information is fatally defective since it alleged
that the crime was committed on 2 July 1996 when the truth is he was actually
arrested on 28 June 1996 or four (4) days before 2 July 1996. He relies, albeit
erroneously, on the testimony of SPO2 Antonio Canoy who purportedly testified that
on 29 June 1996 the mother of accused-appellant, Corazon Requiz, went to him at
the Pasay City Police Station looking for her son.
 The argument is specious. Primarily, there is nothing in the testimony of SPO4
Canoy which shows that it was Corazon Requiz who approached him on 29 June
1996 looking for her son, herein accused-appellant.SPO4 Canoys testimony reads -
Q: On that said date, 29 June 1996, at around 7:00 in the morning, do you recall a
woman by the name of Corazon Requiz approaching you, while you were on
duty?
A: I saw a woman approaching me and looking for her son, but I do not
recall the name of the woman, Maam.
Q: Do you recall the reason why this woman who approached you was looking for
her son?
A: According to her, her son was arrested together with another man by an
unidentified law enforcer, Maam (underscoring supplied).[8]
Moreover, other than the self-serving allegation of accused-appellant, we find no
evidence on record that he was actually arrested on 28 June 1996. On the contrary,
both testimonial and documentary evidence clearly and unequivocally point to 2 July
1996 as the date of the arrest, and not 28 June 1996.[9]
But even assuming ex-gratia argumenti that the prosecution committed an error
in the allegation of the date of the commission of the crime in the Information, such
mistake does not impair the validity of the Information. Time is not a material
ingredient of drug pushing. Hence it need not be stated with precision, and the
criminal act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual
date on which it was committed as the Information or Complaint will
permit.[10] Discrepancy of a few days between the time of the sale of illegal drugs set
out in the Information and that established by the evidence does not constitute an
error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score. It does
not affect the essential rights of accused-appellant, as the defect is merely formal
rather than substantial in character.[11]
The defense likewise strives to establish the innocence of accused-appellant by
claiming that no drug pusher in his right mind would sell to a stranger 250 grams
of shabu on a busy street like Estrella Street, and certainly not in broad daylight,
inasmuch as activities such as this are done clandestinely.
We are not persuaded. If pushers peddle drugs only to persons known to them,
then drug abuse would certainly not be as rampant as it is today and would not pose
a serious threat to society. We have found in many cases that drug pushers sell their
prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as
well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become
increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, 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 and the acts constituting sale and
delivery of the prohibited drugs.[12]
Finally, accused-appellant points to certain circumstances which supposedly
show that the "buy-bust" operation could not have taken place, to wit: (a) Yacat, the
arresting officer, participated in the "pot-session" with accused-appellant together
with Conrado de la Cruz and "Boy Mata;" (b) The prosecution failed to present as
witnesses "Boy Mata," the police informer, and Mr. Gene Palomo, the movie director
who lent the money and pieces of jewelry used by the police during the "buy-bust"
operation; (c) The prosecution failed to explain why Conrado de la Cruz was freed
without any charges being filed against him; and, (d) It was highly impossible for the
ultraviolet powder to have remained on the hands of accused-appellant after several
hours, and after touching so many things prior to his physical examination by
Forensic Analyst Ophelia Sotelo.
As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the foregoing circumstances do
not disprove the fact that accused-appellant actually sold 248.66 grams of shabu to a
police officer. In the prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs, like shabu, what is
material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti. The circumstances enumerated above are
of no great significance in establishing the guilt or innocence of accused-
appellant. What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received shabu from
accused-appellant and the same was presented as evidence in court.
Moreover, the matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for
accused-appellant or even the trial court to decide. Discretion belongs to the
prosecutor as to how the prosecution should present its case.He has the right to
choose whom he would present as witnesses.
Certainly, the non-presentation of "Boy Mata" and Gene Palomo in court is not a
crucial debacle for the prosecution. As the prosecutor had other witnesses - police
members of the "buy- bust" team - who could sufficiently prove the criminal operation
of accused-appellant, he could dispense with the evidence to be provided by "Boy
Mata" and Gene Palomo, which would merely be corroborative.
On the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder on the hands of accused-
appellant even after the lapse of several hours prior to his physical examination,
Forensic Analyst Ophelia Sotelo, an expert witness, testified that the ultraviolet
fluorescent powder would remain for as long as the subject did not wash his hands.
All told, this Court is satisfied that the evidence against accused-appellant has
overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence and established his guilt
beyond any scintilla of doubt. We sustain the penalty of reclusion perpetua and fine
of P5,000,000.00 imposed by the trial court on accused-appellant, it appearing that it
 is in accordance with Sec. 15, RA 6425, The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as REYES, J.:
amended by RA 7659.
Illegal drug trade is the scourge of our society. Drug pushers are merchants of
death, "killers without mercy who poison the mind and deaden the body."[13] Their
pernicious commodities cause so much physical, mental and moral pain not only to
the immediate victims of their greed, but also, and more especially, to the families of This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
their victims. Hence, they deserve no mercy. filed by Reynaldo Posiquit @ “Chew” (petitioner) assailing the Decision1 dated April
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the trial court dated 20 June 1997 29, 2009 and Resolution2dated April 14, 2010 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in
convicting accused-appellant ALFREDO REQUIZ of violating Sec. 15
of The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA 7659, and sentencing him CA-G.R. CR No. 31214 which, inter alia, affirmed the conviction of the petitioner
to reclusion perpetua as well as to pay a fine of Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00), and Jesus Saunar (Saunar) for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
is AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.
9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
SO ORDERED. 2002.”

THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF CONSPIRACY IS NOT APPRECIATED IN THE CRIME This Court notes that Saunar did not join the petitioner in filing the instant
OF POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. 9165. THE CRIME OF
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DOES NOT petition. Thus, our discussion would be limited to the petitioner’s case.
EXIST

REYNALDO POSIQUIT @ “Chew”, G.R. No. 193943

On the strength of a Search Warrant issued by Executive Judge Romulo
Petitioner,
Villanueva of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ligao City, the combined forces of
- versus - Albay Police Provincial Office, Liban Police Station, Polangui Police Station and the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted a search on the house of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Saunar in Barangay Kinale, Polangui, Albay on September 18, 2002.
Respondent.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Before the search team arrived, the petitioner, Saunar, Ricardo Morada and
Myla Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz) were inside Saunar’s house engaged in an activity which
seemed like a pot session. Upon the arrival of the search team’s vehicles in front of
RESOLUTION Saunar’s house, the group of the petitioner scampered towards the back of the
adjacent house. While attempting to escape, the petitioner threw his wallet away.
However, members of the search team caught up with the petitioner and, thereupon,
recovered his wallet which contained three small plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substances.
Meanwhile, the other members of the search team, after showing the search
warrant to Saunar and his wife, proceeded to conduct the search. The search
yielded, among others, three small plastic sachets and one big plastic bag containing
white crystalline substances and a stick of dried marijuana leaves. After the search
was completed, the search team prepared a receipt of the items seized which was
signed by the members of the search team and Saunar. Pictures of the seized items
were thereafter taken. The petitioner and Saunar were then brought to the police
station.
The following day, SPO4 Herminigildo Caritos brought the seized items to the
Philippine National Police – Regional Crime Laboratory at Camp Simeon Ola,
Legaspi City where it was examined by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Josephine Clemen.
Laboratory tests on the seized items confirmed that the plastic sachets contained a
total of 3.548 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu and that the
confiscated stick was indeed dried marijuana leaves weighing 0.2869 grams.
Thus, in an Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 4650, the petitioner
and Saunar were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 before
the RTC of Ligao City.
The petitioner denied the allegations against him and claimed that, at the
time of the search in Saunar’s house, he and the group of Saunar were just having a
drinking spree. When he and Dela Cruz were about to go home, the search team
immediately arrived at the said house and pointed their guns at them. He insisted
that he ran away because he was surprised. When the armed men caught up with
him, the former boxed him on the nape and had him handcuffed. The petitioner
admitted ownership of the wallet that was seized by the search team but denied that
it contained plastic sachets containing shabu.
After due proceedings, the RTC of Ligao City, on September 25, 2007,
rendered a Joint Judgment3 finding the petitioner and Saunar guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. They were then sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from thirteen years as minimum to
fifteen years as maximum and to each pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. In
convicting the petitioner, the RTC of Ligao City intimated that his flight can only be
interpreted as a deliberate intention of a guilty person to prevent apprehension.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner and Saunar appealed from the said
disposition to the CA. The petitioner and Saunar asserted that the confiscation,
inventory and taking of pictures of the seized items were not conducted in the
presence of a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
an elected public official, contrary to Section 21 (a) of R.A. 9165. They likewise
asserted that the chain of custody of the seized items was not clearly established by
the prosecution.
 On April 29, 2009, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision4 affirming in At the outset, this Court notes that the filing of the instant petition is
toto the September 25, 2007 Joint Judgment of the RTC of Ligao City. The CA held accompanied by glaring lapses on the part of the petitioner which would warrant its
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution adequately showed that the substance outright denial.
confiscated was the same specimen submitted for laboratory tests.

A copy of the April 14, 2010 Resolution of the CA denying the petitioner’s
On the absence of a representative from the media, the DOJ and an elected motion for reconsideration was received by the latter on May 5, 2010. The petitioner
public official during the confiscation, inventory and taking of pictures of the seized had, following the reglementary 15-day period from receipt of the denial of his motion
items, the CA held that the presence of the said persons becomes mandatory only in for reconsideration by the CA,6 until May 20, 2010 within which to file a petition for
the absence of the persons from whom the confiscated items are taken or their review on certiorari under Rule 45 with this Court.
representative. In any case, the CA pointed out that the integrity and identity of the
seized items still stand as the prosecution was able to show an unbroken chain of
custody over the same. The petitioner and Saunar sought to reconsider the April 29,
The petitioner, by himself, filed instead with this Court a Motion for Extension
2009 Decision but the same was denied by the CA in its April 14, 2010 Resolution.5
of Time to Appeal/ For Review.7 The said Motion was sent by the petitioner through
JRS, a private courier, on May 20, 2010 and was actually received by this Court on
May 21, 2010. Thus, the said Motion for Extension was filed a day late.
Undaunted, the petitioner instituted the instant petition for review
on certiorari asserting the following arguments: (1) the CA erred in convicting the
petitioner for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in conspiracy with Saunar;
It is a basic rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time to file a
(2) the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were not proven beyond
pleading must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. The
reasonable doubt; and (3) the chain of custody of the seized items was not clearly
court’s discretion to grant a motion for extension is conditioned upon such motion’s
established by the prosecution.
timeliness, the passing of which renders the court powerless to entertain or grant
it. Since the motion for extension was filed after the lapse of the prescribed period,
there was no more period to extend.8
The petition is denied.
 Also, the said motion for extension was not accompanied by a proof of
service thereof to the adverse party. In view of the foregoing, the instant petition
indubitably warrants outright denial. Nonetheless, even if we are to disregard the
said procedural lapses, the instant petition would still be denied.
A perusal of the arguments set forth by the petitioner in support of the instant
petition would clearly show that the same only raised questions of fact. The petition
failed to show extraordinary circumstance justifying a departure from the established
doctrine that findings of fact of the CA are conclusive on the Court and will not be
disturbed on appeal. The issue on whether the prosecution was able to establish the
elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and whether the prosecution was
able to show an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs are
factual in nature and, hence, not proper subjects of a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45.
Anent the petitioner’s contention that the CA erred in convicting him for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in conspiracy with Saunar, this Court
finds the same utterly specious. First, an astute perusal of the April 29, 2009
Decision of the CA and the September 25, 2007 Joint Judgment of the RTC of Ligao
City would show that the circumstance of conspiracy was not, in any manner,
appreciated by the said courts against the petitioner. What the said courts held was
that both the petitioner and Saunar were separately found in possession of
dangerous drugs making them each liable under R.A. 9165.
Second, contrary to the tenor of the petitioner’s argument, the crime of
conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist. Simply put, the
circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of
dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. The fact that the
Information for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 that was filed against
the petitioner and Saunar alleged that they “conspired and helped each other” is
immaterial. In any case, the said Information sufficiently alleged that the petitioner
and Saunar were caught in possession of dangerous drugs, contrary to Section 11,
Article II of R.A. 9165.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition
is DENIED.
A BUY-BUST OPERATION IS ONE FORM OF ENTRAPMENT EMPLOYED BY
PEACE OFFICERS AS AN EFFECTIVE WAY OF APPREHENDING A CRIMINAL IN
THE ACT OF COMMITTING AN OFFENSE, AND MUST BE UNDERTAKEN WITH
DUE REGARD FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL SAFEGUARDS
G.R. No. 192913 June 13, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOEL REBOTAZO y ALEJANDRA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
SERENO, CJ.:
Before us is a Notice of Appeal1 dated 9 September 2009 from the Decision2 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 00443. The CA affirmed the
Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City in Criminal
Case Nos. 16394 and 16395, convicting appellant Joel Rebotazo y Alejandria of
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165) or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
As culled from the records, the prosecution’s version is herein quoted:
On February 27, 2003, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, informant Orly Torremocha
went to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) office in Dumaguete City to report
that appellant was selling several sachets of shabu in his possession. The informant
also told the NBI that he was going to meet with appellant later, as the latter was
looking for a motorcycle to be used in looking for his missing wife.
Based on this information, the NBI planned a buy-bust operation and formed a buy-
bust team, which was composed of: (1) NBI Agent Miguel Dungog; (2) Atty.
Dominador Cimafranca; (3) Louie Diaz; and (4) Torremocha. For lack of personnel,
Diaz, son of the NBI Dumaguete chief, volunteered to be the poseur-buyer. It was
planned that appellant and Torremocha would pass by Shakey’s Pizza Plaza in Rizal
Boulevard on board a motorcycle. Diaz would then flag them down and discreetly
ask where he could buy shabu.
After a briefing, at around 4:30 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team,
with the exception of Torremocha, proceeded to Shakey’s and positioned
themselves in strategic locations to ensure that they can witness the entrapment.
With the team was media representative Ivan Bandal.
As planned, appellant and Torremocha passed by Shakey’s on board a motorcycle.
Diaz flagged them down, and Torremocha introduced him to appellant. After a brief
conversation, Diaz told appellant that he was interested in buying shabu and handed
to him the ₱300 marked money. In exchange, appellant handed to Diaz a plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance.
Upon completing the transaction, Diaz executed the pre-arranged signal by removing
his cap. Dungog and Cimafranca then rushed to Diaz and appellant’s location and
effected the latter’s arrest. Appellant was subjected to a body search, and, in the
process, voluntarily informed the NBI agents that he had another sachet of shabu
inside one of his socks. Dungog recovered the said sachet, as well as some money
from appellant’s wallet, including the marked money given by Diaz. Dungong also
marked the two (2) plastic sachets with the following initials: (1) NBI-DUMDO-
02/20/03/REBOTASO/BB/01; and (2) NBI-DUMDO-02/20/03/REBOTASO/Pos/02.
Photographs were also taken of appellant with the seized items. After being informed
of his constitutional rights, appellant was brought to the NBI office.
At the NBI office, Dungog conducted an inventory of the seized items in the
presence of appellant, media representative Maricar Aranas, and a representative
from the Department of Justice. The NBI Dumaguete Chief likewise prepared a letter
request for laboratory examination of the seized substance, which Dungog brought
to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Negros Oriental Provincial Office.
Police Inspector Josephine L. Llena received the request and examined the
specimen, which tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The results of
the laboratory examination were embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-026-37.
Appellant also underwent a drug test, and tested positive for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.4(Citations omitted)
On the other hand, appellant’s version is as follows:
The accused claimed that on February 27, 2003, one Orly Torremocha let him ride
on his motorcycle and they went around the city. He knew this Orly Torremocha as
he was his schoolmate at NOHS and has been his long time friend. After a while,
they went to Shakey’s at Rizal Boulevard as Torremocha invited the accused for
snacks. They seated themselves outside of the main store, as there were also tables
there for customers. They first ordered siopao but since there was none, they instead
ordered pizza. While they waited for their order, this Torremocha was busy texting on
his cell phone. After a while, a certain Louie Diaz came and handed money to
Torremocha. The money was placed on the table. Torremocha then got a lighter and
something that was lengthy which contained shabu. After cutting the lengthy
something, Torremocha gave half of it to Diaz who then left. After about three [sic]
minutes, NBI Agents Dungog and Cimafranca rushed and pointed something to him.
The accused raised his hands, but remained seated. The NBI agents searched him
but found nothing on him. The accused was arrested, but was not informed of his
constitutional rights. The accused was brought to the NBI Office and was searched
again. The agents did not recover anything from him as in the earlier search made
on him. At the time of his arrest, the accused was wearing pants, a T-shirt and
slippers only. The accused had no socks at that time. The accused was forced to
sign a document known as Inventory of Dangerous Drugs dated February 20, 2003.
The accused had no lawyer at that time. The accused complained to the inquest
prosecutor that he was forced to sign a document without being explained [sic] as to
what it was all about.5
Consequently, on 30 June 2003, two amended informations were filed against the
appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. The two amended
informations are quoted herein below:
In Criminal Case No. 16394:
That on or about the 27th day of February 2003, in the City of Dumaguete,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not
being then authorized by law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell and deliver to one NBI poseur-buyer approximately 0.12 gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
That the accused is positive for use of Methamphetamine as reflected in Chemistry
Report No. CDT-018-07. [sic]
Contrary to Section 5, Article 2 of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002)."
In Criminal Case No. 16395:
That on or about the 27th day of February 2003, in the City of Dumaguete,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not
being then authorized by law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
possess and keep approximately 0.07 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
That the accused is positive for use of Methamphetamine as reflected in Chemistry
Report No. CDT-018-03.
Contrary to Section 11, Article 2 of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002)."
After the case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City,
appellant was arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty. The two cases were then
consolidated and jointly tried.6
On 16 May 2006, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment,7 the dispositive portion of
which is herein quoted:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as
follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 16394, the accused Joel Rebotazo y Alejandria is hereby
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of 0.12 gram of
Methamphetamine or shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and
is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00).
The 0.12 gram of Methamphetamine or shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
2. In Criminal Case No. 16395, the accused Joel Rebotazo y Alejandria is hereby
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 0.07
gram of Methamphetamine or shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years
and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to
pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00).
The 0.07 gram of Methamphetamine or shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in
favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused shall be credited with the full time during
which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED.
In its ruling, the RTC gave more weight to the evidence presented by the
prosecution. It relied on the testimony of Louie Diaz, the poseur-buyer who narrated
how the illegal sale took place, presented in court the evidence of the corpus delicti,
and positively identified appellant as the seller of the shabu.8 It also gave credence
to the testimony of the two police officers, Police Inspector Josephine S. Llena and
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Agent Miguel Dungong, who were both
"presumed to have acted regularly in the performance of their official functions, in the
absence of clear and convincing proof to the contrary or that they are motivated by ill
will."9
Upon intermediate appellate review, the CA rendered a Decision10 on 31 July 2009,
to wit:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the joint judgment rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 30 of Dumaguete City dated May 16,
2006 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
In convicting appellant of the crimes charged, the CA affirmed the factual findings of
the RTC11 on the premise that witness Diaz and Dungog had clearly and
convincingly established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The fact that the CA did
not find any ill motive on the part of these witnesses to falsely implicate
appellant12 only bolstered his conviction.
Moreover, the factual discrepancies pointed out by appellant referred only to minor
and insignificant details, which, "when viewed with the prosecution witnesses’ clear
and straightforward testimonies, do not destroy the prosecution of the
case." 13 These discrepancies have in fact been clearly explained by the witnesses in
their testimonies.
ISSUE
From the foregoing, the sole issue before us is whether or not the RTC and CA erred
in finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant
appellant’s conviction for the crimes charged.
THE COURT’S RULING
Appellant argues14 that the RTC and CA erred in appreciating the factual evidence
on record. In particular, he notes that the prosecution failed to establish the
existence of the marked money supposedly recovered. When Prosecutor Escorial
asked witness Diaz why the serial numbers the former read from a bunch of peso
bills presented in evidence were not marked, Diaz was unable to answer.15 Later in
the proceedings, the prosecution managed to offer only two supposedly marked bills,
but no explanation was offered as to why the third bill was missing.16
Appellant also harps on some factual discrepancies, to wit:
1. The Prosecution admitted that the inventory report does not contain the
signature of any elected official (Pls. see Pre-Trial Order).
2. The prosecution admitted that in his affidavit, the arresting officer NBI
Agent Miguel Dungog named Ivan Bandal as the media representative, while
in the inventory report, the named media representative is Maricar Aranas
(Kindly see Pre-Trial Order).
3. Prosecution admitted that the inventory report is dated February 20, 2003,
seven (7) days before the date of the alleged incident, which is February 27,
2003.
4. The marking on Specimen "A" (evidence-shabu, prosecution’s Exh. "D")
bears the date "02/20/03" which is February 20, 2003, seven (7) days before
the date of the alleged incident in question, February 27, 2003 (pls. see TSN
November 7, 2005, p. 3). The marking on Specimen "B" (evidence-shabu,
prosecution’s Exh. "E") bears the date "02/20/03" which is February 20, 2003,
seven (7) days before the date of the alleged incident in question, which is
February 27, 2003 (pls. see TSN November 7, 2005, p. 4).17
In addition, he questions the failure of the prosecution to indicate the name of the
person who affixed his signature to the inventory as a Department of Justice (DOJ)
representative.18
Appellant further argues that no one from the prosecution testified on the manner in
which the seized drugs were handled and the measures undertaken to preserve their
integrity and evidentiary value.19 Specifically, the prosecution "failed to account for
the whereabouts of the seized drugs from the time the forensic chemist was done
with examining the same, up to the time they were identified by her in court, as the
said pieces of evidence appear to have been already in the court’s custody when
she testified."20
Lastly, appellant questions the NBI’s lack of coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Allegedly, the NBI failed to send a filled-out pre-
coordination form by facsimile message, as required by R.A. 9165 and its
implementing rules and regulations.21 Because of this omission, appellant argues
that the buy-bust operation should be considered unauthorized, and his subsequent
arrest illegal. The evidence supposedly obtained thereby must be declared
inadmissible.22 Hence, the cases of drug-pushing and possession of prohibited drugs
must fall together.23
On the part of the prosecution, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) insists that
there is nothing in the law that requires the prosecution to present the marked
money. The non-presentation does not create any hiatus in the evidence, provided
that the prosecution adequately proves the sale.24 Moreover, as against the
straightforward and consistent testimonies of its witnesses, the supposed
inconsistencies cited by appellant refer only to minor and insignificant details that do
not destroy the prosecution’s case.25 On the lack of coordination with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the OSG asserts that it does not violate
appellant’s constitutional right against illegal arrests, because there is nothing in R.A.
9165 that mandatorily requires coordination with the PDEA.26
I
Buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures, provided they are
undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.
At the outset, buy-bust operations are legally sanctioned procedures for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. These operations are often utilized by
law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution
of their nefarious activities.27 A busy-bust operation is one form of entrapment
employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act
of committing an offense,28and must be undertaken with due regard for constitutional
and legal safeguards.29
However, as we have observed in People v. Garcia,30 while this kind of operation has
been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise
conducted covertly and in secrecy, it has a significant downside that has not
escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the
most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. Thus, in People v.
Tan,31 courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases, lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.
Jurisprudence has consistently held that the procedural safeguards enunciated in
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be strictly observed, among which are provided as
follows:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment,
the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a
qualitative and quantitative examination;
xxxx
Guided by the above-quoted provision, we find no cogent reason to overturn
appellant’s conviction.
We affirm the appellant’s conviction for the following reasons, in response to the
claimed errors of the CA, as raised by the appellant.
1. The marked money does not need
to be presented in Court.
We are not impressed by the alleged failure of the prosecution to present the marked
money in Court.
The Court has been categorical in declaring that neither law nor jurisprudence
requires the presentation of any money used in a buy-bust operation.32 Failure to
mark the money or to present it in evidence is not material, since failure to do so will
not necessarily disprove the sale.33 If at all, the marked money merely serves as
corroborative evidence in proving appellant’s guilt.34 Stated differently, in prosecuting
a case for the sale of dangerous drugs, the failure to present marked money does
not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution, as long as the sale of
dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is
presented before the court.35
As stated in the records, the testimony of prosecution witness Louie Diaz sufficiently
established the sale and identified the dangerous drug in court:36
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY PROS. E. ESCORIAL
xxxx
Q: Now can you remember any unusual incident that happened in the afternoon of
February 27, 2003?
A: At 3:30 in the afternoon there was an informant who arrived.
xxxx
Q: And when this informant arrived in the Office of the NBI, Dumaguete City, what A: We proceeded to the Shakey’s at the boulevard.
transpired next?
Q: Here in Dumaguete City?
A: He had reported something regarding the drug pushing activity of Mr. Joel
Rebotazo. A: Yes, sir.

Q: To whom it was reported? Q: What boulevard is that?

A: To my father who was a chief. A: Boulevard, sir.

Q: And where were you when it was reported to your father? Q: Rizal boulevard near?

A: I was at the office, sir, because that was my vacant. A: Near Bethel.

Q: Vacant time? Q: And did you arrive thereat?

A: Yes, sir. A: 4:30, sir, after the briefing, sir, we arrived there at 4:30 already.

Q: So what happened next when that informant informed your father about the
transaction?
A: He forwarded it to his operative who was Miguel Dungog.
Q: And what happened next?
A: So we designed something for operation and we had our briefing.
Q: And what happened at the Rizal boulevard near the Shakey’s or at the Shakey’s?
A: At the Shakeys. So the plan was for the informant and Joel Rebotazo to
accompany him. And then they were having a conversation at the Shakey’s and I
pretended to be a buyer.
Q: And since you pretended to be the buyer, was there any conversation made
between you as the buyer with the accused Joel Rebotazo?

Since there was a lack of personnel at that time so I volunteered to be a poseur- A: Yes, sir.
buyer.
Q: Can you tell the Honorable Court what was that conversation?
Q: Then after you volunteered as poseur buyer?
A: I bought drug from him worth ₱300. Our bridge was the informant because the
A: So we had a briefing. informant and him know each other and me, I was just a buyer.

Q: What was that briefing all about?
A: We are going to conduct a buy bust on Joel Rebotazo.
Q: What happened next during the briefing, there was a plan to conduct buy bust on
Joel Rebotazo?
Q: What happened when you informed the accused Joel Rebotazo of your desire to
buy shabu?
A: As I bought from him in the amount of Three hundred, he also gave me an
exchange of the amount that I gave.
 xxxx A: Yes, sir.

Q: So after you informed the accused Joel Rebotazo of your desire to buy shabu, Q: What happened after you took off your hat?
this Joel Rebotazo acceded to your proposal?
A: They already assaulted. They apprehended Joel Rebotazo.
A: Yes.
Q: Who approached both of you?
Q: And since he acceded to your proposal to buy shabu, what transpired next?
A: Miguel Dungog and Doming Cimafranca, the operatives.
A: That’s it. I gave him three hundred and the shabu that is also worth ₱300 he also
gave it to me. Q: By the way, if this Joel Rebotazo is inside this courtroom, will you be able to
identify him?
Q: What particular hand?
A: Yes, sir.
A: Right hand, Your Honor.
Q: Kindly point to us?
Q: That you tendered that money?
A: There (witness is pointing to the person wearing orange t-shirt who when asked
A: Yes, Your Honor. as to his name answered Joel Rebotazo).

Q: What about Joel Rebotazo, what particular hand of Joel Rebotazo? Q: Now if that shabu will be shown to you, will you be able to identify that shabu?

A: The same, Your Honor. A: Yes, sir.

Q: The same what? Q: There are two (2) of this shabu in front of you, kindly go over these two (2)
sachets of shabu, identify the same and tell the Honorable Court what particular
A: Right hand. sachet of shabu was the one that was the subject of the buy bust transaction?

Q: So after there was an exchange of money made by you and the receiving of the A: This is the one (witness is handling over the plastic which contained the sachet).
shabu from Joel Rebotazo, what happened next?
xxxx
A: When I gave the money, he also gave me the stuff, the shabu. I gave a go signal
to the operatives. Q: There is another sachet of shabu aside from the one that you have just identified,
what is this shabu all about?
Q: What signal were you talking about?
A: Actually this was placed in a bigger sachet and it was being divided into two (2),
A: Since I was wearing a hat at that time, sir, our agreed signal with the operatives is this one (witness is touching the other plastic container). It was left on the accused.
for me to take off.
Q: Where was it? Do you know where was it recovered?
Q: And were you able to take off your hat?
A: He inserted it in his socks. A: Yes, and we arranged signals.

This testimony was sufficiently corroborated by witness Miguel Dungog:37 xxxx

DIRECT EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY PROS. ESCORIAL Q: But what have you observed between the two?

xxxx
Q: Can you remember where you were in the afternoon of February27, 2003?
A: We were at the Rizal Boulevard conducting buy bust operation.
A: We observed that there was an exchange and then the signal was given that the
sale was completed.
Q: What was the exchange which you mentioned? Can you describe to us what
particular hand of Louie Diaz was extended to accused Joel Rebotazo?

Q: When you say "we," who were your companions in conducting a buy bust
operation?
A: Dominador Cimafranca and other assets of the NBI.
Q: Such as?
A: Louie Diaz and also a media representative, Ivan Bandal.
A: His right hand but another thing was given also in exchange from Joel Rebotazo.
Q: Did you see what was given by Louie Diaz to Joel Rebotazo?
A: No, Sir.
Q: What about the thing that you saw in the extended hand of Joel Rebotazo given
to Louie Diaz?

Q: And considering that you were there at the Rizal Boulevard particularly at the A: I have not seen the thing given by Joel Rebotazo to Louie Diaz. It was Louie Diaz
Shakey’s Pizza Plaza, what transpired thereat at the time? who personally received the item, Sir.

A: We conducted the buy bust operation, using Louie Diaz as the poseur-buyer. We Q: After the transaction you said there was a signal?
successfully conducted the buy bust operation against Joel Rebotazo.
A: Yes, Sir, there was a signal.
Q: Who is this Louie Diaz?
Q: What was the signal?
A: He is the son of our former chief in Dumaguete City.
A: Taking off the cap of Louie Diaz, Sir.
Q: Where were you when this Louie Diaz conducted the buy bust?
Q: Are you telling this Honorable Court that Louie Diaz was wearing a cap?
A: I was in the vicinity, I was at a seeing distance.
A: Yes, Sir, he was wearing a cap.
Q: When you say you were in the vicinity, how far were you?
Q: What kind of cap?
A: About four or five meters away, Sir.
A: A baseball cap.
Q: When you say you are at a seeing distance, was it clear at that time?
Q: Then after the signal what happened next? although the chain was not narrated step-by-step, the accountability for each transfer
of the seized drugs was proven. Witness Dungog testified on this matter, to wit:42
A: I immediately went to them and told Joel Rebotazo to freeze and stay calm, that
we are NBI and this is a buy bust operation. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY PROS. ESCORIAL

Q: Who told Joel Rebotazo? xxxx

A: Me, Sir. Q: In other words you effected the arrest?

Q: In other words you effected the arrest? A: Yes, Sir, I effected the arrest and after I told him that, a frisked [sic] was made on
his body and the he voluntarily told me that another pocket was in his sock.
A: Yes, Sir, I effected the arrest and after I told him that, a frisked [sic] was made on
his body and then he voluntarily told me that another pocket [sic] was in his sock. xxxx

Evidently, there is no need to present the marked money in court, because the
prosecution has satisfactorily shown how the illegal sale took place and positively
identified the packets of shabu, subjects of this case.
2. The prosecution has sufficiently
established the chain of custody.
Appellant also argues that no one from the prosecution testified on the manner in
which the seized drugs were handled and the measures undertaken to preserve their
integrity and evidentiary value.38 Specifically, the prosecution "failed to account for
the whereabouts of the seized drugs from the time the forensic chemist was done
with examining the same, up to the time they were identified by her in court, as the
said pieces of evidence appear to have been already in the court’s custody when
she testified."39
Q: When you effected the arrest what happened next?
A: The two (2) sachets of shabu were marked as 1 and 2 and the subject Joel
Rebotazo was taken to the NBI office for proper inventory taking and other standard
procedures done in the NBI office.
Q: You made these markings on the sachets at the crime scene?
A: Yes, Sir.
xxxx
Q: In the sachet are markings. Can you identify what are these markings and who
made those writings?

We have held that as a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain-of-custody rule A: NBI-DUMDO-02/20/03/REBOTAZO/BB/01
requires that the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is Q: Who made those markings?
what the proponent claims it to be.40 This would ideally cover the testimony about
every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered
A: Myself, Sir.
in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description
of the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.41 Q: And what is the meaning of that marking?

An examination of the records would reveal that the prosecution has sufficiently A: BB/01 is the product of the buy bust.
established the chain of custody in this case. The testimonies of Miguel Dungog and
Josephine S. Llena, forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, reveal that xxxx
Q: Kindly proceed to the other sachet. DIRECT EXAMINATION CONDUCTED BY PROS. ESCORIAL

A: NBI-DUMDO-02/20/03/REBOTAZO/POS/02 xxxx

Q: Who made that marking. Q: Police Inspector Josephine S. Llena, since [sic] when did you receive this letter
request together with the specimen submitted in relation to this case together with
A: Me, Sir, [ sic] the seized items?

Q: And what is the meaning of that? A: The letter request which came from the Chief of the NBI stationed here in
Dumaguete City together with the specimen subject in this case were received in our
A: POS/02 is the one recovered in his possession, Sir. office on February 28, 2003 at 9:20 in the morning.

xxxx xxxx

Q: You also mentioned that you have issued a receipt at the NBI office?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Attached to the records of the case, found on page 19 is an inventory of
dangerous drugs which is already marked as Exhibit "E" for the prosecution. Kindly
go over this and identify the same.
A: This is the same inventory of dangerous drugs we made at the NBI office.
xxxx
Q: Now, after you received this letter request for laboratory examination together
with the 2 sachets of shabu in relation to these cases, what did you do with them?
A: The specimen were subjected into [sic] physical and chemical examination.
The prosecution of cases involving illegal drugs depends largely on the credibility of
the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.44 Credence is usually
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.45Failure to impute ill motive on the part of the police officers who conducted
the buy-bust operation46 will only sustain the conviction of the accused.

Q: You also said awhile ago that you were the officer who submitted the letter
request to the PNP crime laboratory together with the confiscated drugs, for
examination?
A: Yes, Sir.
xxxx
Q: There is a signature at the bottom portion along with the word, "Delivered by" and
followed by a handwritten name Miguel L. Dungog. Whose signature is this?
A: This is my signature, Sir.
On the other hand, witness Llena testified as follows:43
3. Minor inconsistencies, when
referring only to minor details and
which are fully explained, do not
destroy the prosecution’s case.
The supposed factual discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence do not hold
water.1avvphi1 The rule on material inconsistencies has been enunciated by this
Court several times. In People v. Arcega,47 we have held that "by and large, the
‘material inconsistencies’ asserted by the accused-appellant which allegedly create
grave doubts are, on the contrary, too minor, trivial and inconsequential to affect the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the inconsistencies having been fully and
sufficiently explained during trial by the witnesses themselves, and their explanations
having been accepted by the Trial Court. Besides, it has been held, time and again,
that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not
destroy the witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase Considering that the integrity of the seized drugs has been maintained, and that the
any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony." drugs were immediately marked for proper identification, the absence of an elected
official during the inventory-taking should not be deemed fatal to the prosecution’s
On this score, we agree with the findings of the CA that the prosecution has case.51
sufficiently explained the factual discrepancies.
Second, the alleged confusion in the identity of the media representatives was
First, on the lack of signature of an elected official and the failure to indicate the thoroughly explained by witness Dungog in the following manner:52
name of the person who affixed his signature as DOJ representative in the inventory
report, jurisprudence has maintained that "non-compliance by the apprehending/buy- Q: You mentioned a while ago that Ivan Bandal was present during the buy-bust?
bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor,
and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, A: Yes, Sir.
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him Q: Was he able to sign in the inventory?
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 A: No, Sir.
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."48
Q: Why?
It appears from the records that the NBI tried to contact barangay officials to attend
the inventory-taking, but none arrived.49 Such effort on the part of the NBI agents A: During the conduct of the buy bust operation, he was called by his office at
and the consequent failure of said elected officials to appear should be considered Silliman University, so he was not around in the actual buy bust. He was around in
sufficient justifiable ground so as to excuse the prosecution from complying with this the initial plan and going to the site.
particular requirement. As to the question of the identity of the DOJ representative,
witness Dungog clarified the same in his cross-examination, thus:50
During the cross-examination, he further stated:53
Q: That at the time of the signing of the Inventory of Drugs, you were not able to
Q: But specifically you mentioned a media practitioner?
identify the DOJ Representative?
A: Yes, Sir.
A: Yes.
Q: Ivan Bandal?
Q: And you cannot remember his face or his name?
A: Yes, Sir.
A: I think it was Michael Fabe.
Q: But as you stated he was no longer present during the actual buy bust?
Q: Are you sure of that?
A: Yes, Sir.
A: I am sure that it is Michael Fabe.
Q: And when you conducted therefore, the actual buy bust operation there was no
Q: But during the time of the cross-examination, do you admit that you did not
representative from the media?
remember him at that time?
A: None, Sir.
A: I had a hard time to recall [sic].
Q: And thereafter, after the buy bust operation you effected the arrest, you seized
the objects and you went to the NBI office, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And it was the time you conducted the inventory, right?
A: The formal inventory, right?
Q: And it was at this time that a media [sic] was present, and was represented by
another personality Aranas?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: The name?
A: Maricar Aranas.
Q: Present as representative of the media who was not present during the actual buy
bust operation?
A: Yes, Sir.
Third, on the discrepancy between the inventory report and the actual incident,
including the markings on Specimen "A" and Specimen "B," the discrepancy was
also explained by Dungog, as follows:54
Q: Now on the second page of your affidavit, particularly on paragraph 5 it reads...
"Hereunder is an inventory of dangerous drugs confiscated from the possession of
Joel Rebotazo, to wit: one heat sealed transparent plastic pack if white crystalline
granules believed to be shabu marked as NBI-DUMDO-
02/20/03/REBOTAZO/BB/01; No. 2, one heat sealed transparent plastic pack of
white crystalline granules believed to be shabu marked as NBI-DUMDO-
02/20/03/REBOTAZO/POS/02. What is the meaning of this NBI-DUMDO-02/20/03?
A: That corresponds to the date but in that case, there was an inadvertence because
we were thinking that it was February 20 at that time. Nobody noticed. We noticed
the inadvertence on February 28, the following day.
Q: You did not correct that?
A: I have corrected that in my affidavit, Sir.
II
The NBI’s lack of coordination with the PDEA
cannot exculpate the appellant.
The NBI’s lack of coordination with the PDEA cannot be given weight or
credence.1âwphi1 Section 86 of R.A. 9165 reads:
SEC. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs
into the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. – The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the
Narcotics Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction Unit are hereby
abolished; however they shall continue with the performance of their task as detail
service with the PDEA, subject to screening, until such time that the organizational
structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number of graduates of the PDEA
Academy is sufficient to do the task themselves: Provided, That such personnel who
are affected shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA or remain
with their original mother agencies and shall, thereafter, be immediately reassigned
to other units therein by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are
transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be extended appointments to
positions similar in rank, salary, and other emoluments and privileges granted to their
respective positions in their original mother agencies.
The transfer, absorption and integration of the different offices and units provided for
in this Section shall take effect within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this
Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service shall be given until five
(5) years to finally decide to join the PDEA.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and
the PNP on all other crimes as provided for in their respective organic laws:
Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI, PNP or
any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of
this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force
shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI,
PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on
all drug related matters.
In People v. Sta. Maria,55 we have held thus:
Cursory read, the foregoing provision is silent as to the consequences of failure on
the part of the law enforcers to transfer drug-related cases to the PDEA, in the same
way that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 is
also silent on the matter. But by no stretch of imagination could this silence be
interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA
illegal nor evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.
It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where great inconvenience
will result from a particular construction, or great public interests would be
endangered or sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction is to be avoided,
or the court ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers
of the law, unless required by clear and unequivocal words.
As we see it, Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the "lead
agency" in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore,
other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as
the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter.
Additionally, the same provision states that PDEA, serving as the implementing arm
of the Dangerous Drugs Board, "shall be responsible for the efficient and effective
law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical as provided in the Act." We find much logic in the
Solicitor General’s interpretation that it is only appropriate that drugs cases being
handled by other law enforcement authorities be transferred or referred to the PDEA
as the "lead agency" in the campaign against the menace of dangerous drugs.
Section 86 is more of an administrative provision. By having a centralized law
enforcement body, i.e., the PDEA, the Dangerous Drugs Board can enhance the
efficiency of the law against dangerous drugs. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied).
In other words, the lack of coordination with the PDEA cannot in and of itself
exculpate appellant. For as long as the mandatory requirements of R.A. 9165 have
been complied with, the buy-bust operation remains legal, and appellant’s conviction
shall be upheld.
III
The '"fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine cannot apply
in the face of a valid buy-bust operation.
Given the circumstances above, appellant’s arrest cannot be considered illegal. Time
and again, we have ruled that the arrest of the accused in flagrante during a buy-
bust operation is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.56 From
the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the
arrest illegal.57
As we held in People v. Marcelino,58 the illegal drug seized was not the "fruit of the
poisonous tree," as the defense would have this Court to believe. The seizure made
by the buy-bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule
126, Section 13 of the Rules of Court.59 Since the buy-bust operation was
established as legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and a warrant was
not needed to conduct it.60
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR- No. 00443 dated 31 July 2009 is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PRACTICE OF INDUCING SUSPECTS TO SIGN RECEIPTS FOR PROPERTY
ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED FROM THEIR POSSESSION IS UNUSUAL AND
VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. THE
INVENTORY RECEIPT AND RELATED PAPERS SIGNED BY THE ACCUSED ARE
INADMISSIBLE FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THEIR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
AND AT THE SAME TIME AN INDICATION OF THE IRREGULARITY IN THE
MANNER BY WHICH THE SEARCHING TEAM CONDUCTED THE SEARCH OF
THE RESIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED.
G.R. No. L-69844 February 23, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROMEO POLICARPIO y MIRANDA, accused-appellant.
GANCAYCO, J.:
Convicted of violation of Section 4 Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended in a
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, the dispositive part of which reading as
follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
for Violation of Section 4. Article II of Republic Act 6425 as amended,
the court hereby sentenced the accused to suffer a penalty of
CADENA PERPETUA and to pay a fine of P30,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency with costs against the
accused.
The accused shall be entitled to the full term of his preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Republic Act 6127, provided he abides by the rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners, otherwise, he shall only be entitled
to 4/5.
accused Romeo Policarpio y Miranda now interposed, this appeal to this Court
alleging that the trial court committed the following assigned errors:
I arrived at Bagong Bayan, Kalawaan, Darangan, Binangonan, Rizal.
THE LOWER COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
WERE VIOLATED BY THE APPREHENDING NARCOTICS
AGENTS.
II
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS APPREHENDED IN THE ACT OF SELLING
MARIJUANA, OR IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER, AND IN FAILING
TO FIND THAT HE WAS CHASED AND CAUGHT IN A RICEFIELD
BETWEEN SITIOS BAGONG BAYAN AND SAN JUAN AT
DARANGAN, BINANGONAN, RIZAL.
III
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GIVE CREDENCE TO
THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND HIS WITNESS
ISIDRO PARALEJAS.
IV
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4,
ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 6425 AS AMENDED.
The facts of the case as found by the court a quo are as follows:
On June 16,1984 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, operatives of the
Narcotics Command, Camp Crame headed by P/Capt. Gabriel Paile
swooped down at Bagong Bayan, Kalawaan, Darangan, Binangonan,
Rizal, after receiving an information that the accused alias Dupong is
engaged in the sale and distribution of marijuana and other prohibited
drugs and tagged as the main source at the area. The team was
organized earlier by Lt. Col. Manuel T. Raval, Commanding officer,
13th NRU Narcotics Command and was dispatched to the target area
to entrap the accused Romeo Policarpio, accordingly, Pat. Mangila
will pose as a buyer and was handed the marked P20.00 bill (Exhibit
"I" to "I-3") with which to buy the stuff before they proceeded to the
area of operation. At about 2:00 p.m. same date, the operatives
Leaving their vehicle at a distance, they posted themselves at
strategic places. The poseur buyer Pat. Enrico Mangila, together with
the informant, looked for the accused and at about 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of same date Pat. Mangila and the informant were able to
locate the accused in front of his house. Thereafter, Pat. Mangila was
introduced by the informant to the accused as the person who needs
some marijuana leaves, and after they had talked with the accused for
a while, the accused gave Pat. Mangila two small plastic bags
containing dried marijuana leaves and rolling paper (Exhibit "B" to "B-
4"). In turn Pat. Mangila gave to the accused the marked P20.00 bill
(Exhibit "I" to "I-3"). As previously arranged, Pat. Mangila scratched
his head and his companions, Pfc. Basco and Mendiola grabbed and
arrested the accused. From the accused was confiscated the marked
P20.00 bill on his front pocket. After the arrest of the accused, the
latter led his captors to his house and the operatives seized another
six (6) small plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves together with
rolling papers contained in a bigger plastic bag marked Tie Tae Toe
(Exhibit "C" to "C-6") placed on a top of the refrigerator at the kitchen
of their house. Arrested with the accused is a certain person Rogelio
Policarpio, who turned out to be his cousin and who was earlier
convicted by this Court for Possession of Dried Marijuana Leaves in
 Criminal Case No. 273-B of this Court. The accused and the
confiscated prohibited drugs were brought to Camp Crame and the
Marijuana leaves were turned over to the PCCL for examination
(Exhibit "D"). The PCCL conducted examination over the evidence
thus (sic) over, and rendered its Chemistry Report with the finding that
the evidence thus examined gave a positive result for the test for
marijuana (Exhibit "A" to "A-3"). At the PC Headquarters, the accused
Romeo Policarpio signed a bond paper acknowledging that the six (6)
small plastic bags of marijuana leaves were confiscated from him
(Exhibit "G" to "G-2"). He likewise signed a document acknowledging
the fact that the marked P20.00 bill was confiscated from him (Exhibit
"F" to "F-1"). Similarly, accused signed a sworn statement where he
opted not to give statement until he is represented by a counsel
(Exhibit "J" to "J-2").
Under the first assigned error appellant claims that Exhibit G which is a receipt
signed by appellant acknowledging that six (6) small plastic bags of marijuana leaves
were confiscated from him and Exhibit F a receipt signed by appellant
acknowledging that the P20.00 bill involved in the purchase of the marijuana leaves
was confiscated from him are not admissible in evidence as they were taken in
violation of his constitutional right.
What the records show is that appellant was informed of his constitutional right to be
silent and that he may refuse to give a statement which maybe used against him,
that is why he refused to give such a written statement unless it is made in the
presence of his lawyer as shown by the paper he signed to this effect. 1 However, he
was made to acknowledge that the six (6) small plastic bags of dried marijuana
leaves were confiscated from him by signing a receipt 2 and to sign a receipt for the
P 20.00 bill as purchase price of the dried marijuana leaves he sold to Pat. Mangila. 3
Obviously the appellant was the victim of a clever ruse to make him sign these
alleged receipts which in effect are extra-judicial confessions of the commission of
the offense. Indeed it is unusual for appellant to be made to sign receipts for what
were taken from him. It is the police officers who confiscated the same who should
have signed such receipts. No doubt this is a violation of the constitutional right of
appellant to remain silent whereby he was made to admit the commission of the
offense without informing him of his right. 4 Such a confession obtained in violation of
the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.
The second, third, and fourth assigned errors are factual in nature wherein the
appellant raises the question of credibility of the witnesses and reiterates his defense
denying that he had been apprehended in the act of selling marijuana and receiving
P 20.00 as payment thereof He alleges that he was then at a mahjong session and
that he was pursued by the police when they came.
The too-well known rule in this jurisdiction is that the findings of facts of the trial court
are conclusive in this proceeding and will not be disturbed unless some facts or
circumstances may have been overlooked that may otherwise affect the result of the
case. The Court finds no reason to depart from this rule in the present case.
While the Court now holds that the receipts for the six (6) plastic bags of marijuana
and the P20.00 bill which appellant was made to sign 5 are not admissible in
evidence against him, nevertheless there is ample evidence in the record other than
these receipts to establish the commission of the offense by the appellant.
Prosecution witnesses Pat. Enrico Mangila and Pfc. Jose Basco were present and
categorically attested to the fact that the appellant sold two (2) tea bags of dried
marijuana leaves to Mangila and received as consideration thereof P 20.00. 6
While the appellant attempts to discredit the testimony of said police officers, he has
not shown any improper motive why they should testify in the manner that they did.
Thus their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credence. 7 As a matter of fact
courts give much credence to entrapping police officers, as in this case, as they are
presumed to be in the regular performance of official duties. 8
Drug addiction is one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept into our society.
More often than not it is the young who constitute the greater majority of the citizenry
who are the victims. It is of common knowledge that drug addicts become useless if
not dangerous members of society and in some instances turn up to be among the
living dead. This is the reason why the courts and law enforcement agencies should
continue in their relentless campaign not merely to minimize but to totally eradicate
the evil before it is too late. And everyone must be involved in this drive if we are to
succeed. The peddlers of drugs are actually agents of destruction. They deserve no
less than the maximum penalty.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto with costs against
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT IN COURT THE ALLEGED
POSEUR-BUYER IS FATAL TO ITS CASE.
G.R. No. 100354 May 26, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DIONISIO TADEPA y MERIQUILLO, defendant-appellant.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
In the apprehension of illegal drug dealers, law enforcers have resorted to
entrapment or buy-bust operations where ways are devised and means employed to
ensnare and capture the malefactors in flagrante delicto while engaged in their illicit
trade. Entrapment has since received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with
legal and constitutional circumspection. 1 It must be distinguished from inducement
or instigation where the criminal intent originates from the mind of the instigator and
the accused, in effect, is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to
prosecute him. In instigation the instigator practically induces the would-be offender
into the commission of the offense and becomes a co-principal.2
In determining whether what took place was an entrapment or an instigation, the
manner in which the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the alleged pusher
was made is material. All the elements of the sale transaction must be clearly and
adequately shown starting from the initial contact between the buyer and the pusher
until the sale is consummated with the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the
sale. 3
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty
only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. 4 Nevertheless the burden of proof still rests on the state. The
accused, if he so chooses, need not present evidence. He merely has to raise a
reasonable doubt and whittle away from the case of the prosecution. The
constitutional presumption of innocence demands no less.
In the case at bench, to prove that accused Dionisio Tadepa sold 25 sticks of
marijuana to a peace officer, the prosecution presented two witnesses: Buy-bust
Operation Team Leader Sgt. Luis Alfiler of NARCOM, Region 8, stationed in Ormoc
City, and Forensic Chemist Capt. Liza Madeja-Sabong who certified that the
specimens submitted to her for examination were indeed marijuana leaves.
Sgt. Alfiler testified that on 12 May 1989, acting on a tip from an informer, he
organized a three-man buy-bust team to entrap the accused. Pat. Noel Triste was
designated as the poseur-buyer. At around four-thirty in the afternoon, the buy-bust
team proceeded to the Ormoc Bus Terminal where they saw the accused sleeping
inside a passenger jeep. Accordingly, Pat. Triste approached the accused while
Team leader Sgt. Alfiler stayed behind some seven (7) to eight (8) meters away. Sgt.
Alfiler saw Pat. Triste give to the accused two (2) P20-bills and a P10-bill although
he did not hear the actual conversation between Pat. Triste and the accused. The
accused then left the place briefly, and upon his return, handed over to Pat. Triste
marijuana sticks wrapped in an empty Marlboro pack. After finding the goods to be
marijuana, Pat. Triste executed the pre-arranged signal. Forthwith, Sgt. Alfiler
together with the third member of the team closed in and arrested the accused from
whom they recovered one (1) marked P20-bill. The 25 sticks delivered by the
accused were then sent to the PC Crime Laboratory in Palo, Leyte, where Forensic
Chemist Capt. Sabong after conducting a series of tests confirmed them to be
marijuana.
The accused, for his part, narrated that on 12 May 1989, at around four-thirty in the
afternoon, he was awakened by four (4) gun-toting men who gave him a P50-bill and
ordered him to give the money to a certain "Jojo" who was then at the side of the city
stage. He did as he was told, and in return, "Jojo" handed him something wrapped in
a stapled newspaper. After giving the package to the group, he went back to sleep.
Later he was again awakened, this time by the sudden handcuffing of his wrists. He
was brought to a hotel where he was questioned by a certain "Alfiler" after which he
was taken to the INP Ormoc Station where he was detained for peddling marijuana.
On 10 October 1989 the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, Br. 12,5 found the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 4, Art. II, R.A. 6425, as
amended, and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, five
(5) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as minimum, to eighteen
(18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal maximum, as
maximum. On 21 June 1991 the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but
increased the penalty to reclusion perpetua considering that the accused was found
guilty of selling marijuana and thus cannot just be meted an indeterminate sentence.
Nevertheless the appellate court refrained from entering judgment and certified and
elevated instead the records to this Court for review pursuant to Sec. 13, Rule 124,
Rules on Criminal Procedure. But while the appellate court correctly observed the
erroneous imposition of an indeterminate penalty, the proper imposable penalty, as
provided in R.A. 6425, as amended, is life imprisonment and not reclusion
perpetua which, it has been stressed, is distinct in duration, nature and accessory
penalties.6 The trial court does not have the discretion to change the penalty
expressly mandated by law. Its duty is simply to interpret and apply the law.
In the case at bench, we are not convinced that the state has presented sufficient
evidence to engender that moral certitude exacted by the fundamental law to prove
the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, we reverse his conviction on reasonable doubt.
The prosecution built its case solely on the testimony of Team Leader Sgt. Alfiler
who admitted that he was some seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from where the
actual transaction took place. As a consequence, he said that he did not hear the
conversation which transpired between Pat. Triste and the accused. We find this
testimony of Sgt. Alfiler insufficient evidence considering that the accused in effect
claimed that he was not merely lured but in fact directed under threat to buy
marijuana from the real drug pusher amounting not merely to entrapment but to
instigation. In People v. Lapatha, 7 this Court held that where there is instigation the
defendant would have to be acquitted.
Thus the failure of the prosecution to present Pat. Triste, the alleged poseur-buyer, is
fatal. In People v. Polizon 8 we said —
We agree with the appellant's contention that the non-presentation of
Boy Lim, the alleged poseur-buyer, weakens the prosecution's
evidence. Sgt. Pascua was not privy to the conversation between Lim
and the accused. He was merely watching from a distance and he
only saw the actions of the two. As pointed out by the appellant, Sgt.
Pascua had no personal knowledge of the transaction that transpired
between Lim and the appellant. Since appellant insisted that he was
forced by Lim to buy the marijuana, it was essential that Lim should
have been presented to rebut accused's testimony.
The ruling in People v. Yabut 9 is further instructive —
Well established is the rule that when the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. In the
present case, accused-appellant's version of the circumstances
leading to his apprehension constitutes a total denial of the
prosecution's allegations. In this regard this Court has ruled that when
there is such a divergence of accounts —
. . . it becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to
rebut appellant's allegation by presenting . . . the
alleged poseur-buyer. This it failed to do giving rise to
the presumption that evidence willfully suppressed
would be adverse if produced (Rule 131, Sec. 5 [a]).
This failure constitutes a fatal flaw in the prosecution's
evidence since the so-called (poseur-buyer) who was
never presented as a witness . . . is the best witness
for the prosecution . . . .
Both the trial court and the appellate court gave much weight to the testimony of Sgt.
Alfiler. However the prosecution did not present as witness Pat. Triste, the alleged
poseur-buyer. Such omission casts serious doubt on appellant's guilt because
without the testimony of the poseur-buyer there is no convincing evidence to show
that the accused was a marijuana peddler and not merely a victim of instigation.
Thus in People v. Fider 10 we decreed that "[w]e have held in many cases that the
testimony of the poseur-buyer becomes material and well-nigh indispensable when
the accused denies having committed the prohibited act," and failure to present him
is fatal. 11
In fine, we find the uncorroborated testimony of the state's star witness Sgt. Alfiler,
even if coming from a police officer who enjoys the presumption of regularity,
insufficient to induce moral certainty. For, the presumption of regularity of
performance of duty of a peace officer cannot prevail over the constitutional
presumption of innocence of the accused. The public prosecutor should have been
so minded that corroborating evidence was necessary to complete the testimony of
Sgt. Alfiler; but no corroborative evidence was submitted.
We thus hark back to the constitutional doctrine that the state carries the burden of
proof in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and it is not
incumbent upon him to disprove his guilt. If the state fails in its burden the accused
must be discharged.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the conviction of the
accused by the trial court is REVERSED and accused DIONISIO TADEPA y
MERIQUILLO is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and for insufficiency of evidence.
His immediate release from custody is ordered unless he is held for another lawful
cause.
SO ORDERED.
THE NONPRESENTATION OF THE ALLEGED POSEUR-BUYER, WEAKENS THE
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE. THE POLICE WAS NOT PRIVY TO THE
CONVERSATION BETWEEN POSEUR BUYER AND THE ACCUSED. HE WAS
MERELY WATCHING FROM A DISTANCE AND HE ONLY SAW THE ACTIONS OF
THE TWO, THUS, THE POLICE HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE
TRANSACTION THAT TRANSPIRED BETWEEN THE POSEUR AND THE
ACCUSED. SINCE THE ACCUSED INSISTED THAT HE WAS FORCED BY THE
POSEUR BUYER TO BUY THE MARIJUANA, IT WAS ESSENTIAL THAT THE
POSEUR BUYER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO REBUT ACCUSED’S
TESTIMONY. IT BECOMES INCUMBENT UPON THE PROSECUTION TO REBUT
APPELLANT’S ALLEGATION BY PRESENTING THE ALLEGED POSEUR-BUYER.
THIS IT FAILED TO DO GIVING RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION THAT EVIDENCE
WILFULLY SUPPRESSED WOULD BE ADVERSE IF PRODUCED (RULE 131,
SEC. 5 [E]).
[G.R. No. 84917. September 18, 1992.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUEROBEN
POLIZON y ACLA, Accused-Appellant.
The Solicitor in General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; ENTRAPMENT; DISTINGUISHED FROM INSTIGATION. — The
dividing line between entrapment and instigation has, at times, been blurred, but it
has been clearly delineated by the Court in several cases. This again is the crucial
issue in this case. "In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap
and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. On the other hand, in
instigation the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into committing
the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal (People v. Natipravat, infra).
Entrapment is no bar to Prosecution and conviction while in instigation, the
defendant would have to be acquitted (People v. Lapatha, 167 SCRA 159)."cralaw
virtua1aw library
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; PRESENTATION OF POSEUR-
BUYER; ESSENTIAL IN THE PROSECUTION OF DANGEROUS DRUG CASES;
CASE AT BAR. — We agree with the appellant’ contention that the non-presentation
of Boy Lim, the alleged poseur-buyer, weakens the prosecution’s evidence. Sgt.
Pascua was not privy to the conversation between Lim and the accused. He was
merely watching from a distance and he only saw the actions of the two. As pointed
out by the appellant, Sgt. Pascua had no personal knowledge of the transaction that
transpired between Lim and the appellant. Since appellant insisted that he was
forced by Lim to buy the marijuana, it was essential that Lim should have been
presented to rebut accused’s testimony.
3. ID.; ID.; DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION; THAT EVIDENCE WILLFULLY
SUPPRESSED WOULD BE ADVERSE IF PRODUCED; APPLICATION IN CASE
AT BAR. — In a recent decision of the Court, we held that the person who could
provide the most accurate account of the transaction is the poseur-buyer. "Well-
established is the rule that when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable
of two (2) or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the
accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the
test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. In the present
case, Accused-appellant’s version of the circumstances leading to his apprehension
constitutes a total denial of the prosecution’s allegations. In this regard, this Court
has ruled that when there is such a divergence of accounts — ‘it becomes incumbent
upon the prosecution to rebut appellant’s allegations by presenting . . . the alleged
poseur-buyer. This it failed to do, giving rise to the presumption that evidence willfully
suppressed would be adverse if produced. (Rule 131, Sec. 5[e]). This failure
constitutes a total flaw in the prosecution’s evidence since the so-called informant
who was never presented as a witness and never identified, is the best witness for
the prosecution. . . .’
DECISION
PADILLA, J.:
The accused-appellant Queroben Polizon y Acla was charged before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, with violation of Section 4, Article
II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, committed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about August 20, 1986 at 9:30 o’clock in the evening, at Ramonal
Village, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have in his possession and control a prohibited drug consisting of
one (1) tea bag of dried marijuana leaves for P10.00, for the purpose of selling,
delivering and giving and actually selling, delivering and giving it to several
unidentified persons, for money or any other material consideration. Contrary to and
in violation of Section 4 Article II, of R.A. 6425 as amended." 1
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment, 2 the dispositive part of
which reads as follows:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Quiroben Acla Polizon, Jr., guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of selling and delivering to another marijuana (Exhibit E), a
prohibited drug, in violation of Sec. 4, Article II, Rep. Act. 6425, as amended, and
sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment (Reclusion perpetua) and to
pay a fine of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) pesos, and the costs. The accused
shall be credited with the full period of his preventive detention.
The marijuana (Exh. E) is confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government and
shall forthwith be turned over to the Dangerous Drug Board for proper disposal
without delay.
SO ORDERED.
City of Cagayan de Oro, April 23, 1987." 3
The evidence for the prosecution shows that at about 9:30 o’clock in the evening of
20 August 1936, M/Sgt. Dominador Pascua, a PC soldier assigned to the 10th
Narcotics Regional Unit (NARCOM), together with S/Sgt. Edgardo Dagoc, a PA
soldier, a civilian poseur-buyer, and a driver of the police sakbayan, went to the
Justo Ramonal Village in Cagayan de Oro City on a "buy-bust" operation. The
poseur-buyer, a certain Boy Lim, a former boxer, under the close watch of the team,
met and conversed with the accused on the street. Covertly watching them "from the
shadows" were M/Sgt. Pascua who was only four (4) meters away. and S/Sgt.
Dagoc who concealed himself behind a parked truck about five (5) meters away.
Moments later, the accused walked away from Boy Lim and approached a parked
motorized tricycle (locally known as motorela) where Manuel (Mawe) Laudiana was
seated. After a short while, the accused rejoined Boy Lim and handed the latter
something in a plastic wrapper. The NARCOM agents immediately "closed in" on the
accused, identified themselves as NARCOM agents and arrested the accused. They
brought the accused to the 10th NARCOM office at the City Hall in, Cagayan de Oro,
for interrogation.cralawnad
The stuff given by the accused to Boy Lim turned out to be dried marijuana flowering
tops inside a plastic wrapper, known in police parlance as "tea bag." The marijuana
inside the "tea bag" was wrapped by Pascua in a piece of onion skin paper on which
he wrote the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"QUIROBEN POLEZON y ACLA"
"CONDUCTED BUY-BUST OPN AT RAMONAL VILLAGE CAG DE ORO CITY ON
OR ABT’ 202140H AUG 86 TO A CERTAIN QUIROBEN POLEZON Y ACLA ONE
(1) TEA BAG OF MJ W/ ROLLING PAPER AT P10.00 PER TEA BAG."cralaw
virtua1aw library
The suspected marijuana was submitted by the NARCOM commanding officer to the
National Bureau of Investigation, Cagayan de Oro Regional Office, for laboratory
examination. The finding of the forensic chemist Bernabe P. Arenga (who testified for
the prosecution) was that the specimen contained in the tea bag weighing 0.8602
gram was positively marijuana.
The defense presented the accused as its lone witness who testified that at about
9:00 o’clock in the evening of 20 August 1986, while he was watching a dart game at
Tata Ador’s place Pennol Amareli called him from across the street at a store some
fifteen (15) meters away. As he was walking towards Pennol, Boy Lim came near
him and inquired about the house of anyone selling marijuana. The accused pointed
to the house of Virgilio Adoran, the upper floor of which was occupied by Manuel
"Mawe" Laudiana. After looking at the house some fifteen (15) meters away, Boy Lim
requested the accused to buy marijuana for him (Lim) intimating that Lim was afraid,
and cautious about the presence of several persons near the house — some of
whom were playing darts and others drinking liquor.
The accused refused the request but was provided by Boy Lim to do it. Knowing Boy
Lim to be a boxer, Accused agreed. He called Manuel Laudiana who was seated in a
parked motorized vehicle but the latter signaled the former to come. At first the
accused hesitated to go near Laudiana, but on the second call, he relented and
approached Laudiana who was fifteen (15) meters away. There, he handed two (2)
five-peso bills (given to him earlier by Boy Lim) to Laudiana who, in turn, handed to
him a tiny plastic bag or packet containing the marijuana. Then accused gave the
stuff to Boy Lim who put it inside the hip pocket of his short pants. In a moment, Boy
Lim embraced the accused and when the latter asked the former why he did so, Lim
told him "You are a pusher," and bodily lifted the accused and brought him to where
Sgt. Pascua stood watching near a coconut tree some distance away. Pascua
pointed a .38 cal. revolver to his face, had his hands handcuffed behind him by
Benito Lim and then brought to the NARCOM office where he was interrogated and
made to admit being a drug pusher but he did not sign any written
statement.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
In this appeal accused-appellant assigns three (3) errors to the court a quo, to
wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
"I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS ENTRAPMENT,
NOT INVESTIGATION, THAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE AT BAR.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE
UNCORROBORATED TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS M/SGT.
DOMINADOR PASCUA. .
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE FAILURE
OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT."cralaw virtua1aw library
These alleged errors may be reduced to the lone issue of whether or not there was
entrapment or instigation employed by the NARCOM agents on the Accused-
Appellant.
Appellant alleges that there was instigation, not entrapment. We agree.
The dividing line between entrapment and instigation has, at times, been blurred, but
it has been clearly delineated by the Court in several cases. This again is the crucial
issue in this case.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
"In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a
lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation the
instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into committing the offense,
and himself becomes a co-principal (People v. Natipravat, infra). Entrapment is no
bar to Prosecution and conviction while in instigation, the defendant would have to
be acquitted (People v. Lapatha, 167 SCRA 159)." 4
As pointed out in the brief for accused-appellant, the appellant was not looking for a
marijuana buyer at the time Boy Lim asked him to buy the stuff; neither was he is
possession of marijuana.
Appellant avers that when Boy Lim approached him, he was not in possession of
marijuana, but on his way to see Pennol Amarile who had called him from across the
street; and that he was instigated by Boy Lim to commit the crime charged.
Therefore, according to the appellant, the criminal intent originated in the mind of the
instigator (Boy Lim) and that the accused was lured into the commission of the
offense charged so that he could be prosecuted.
We agree with the appellant’ contention that the non-presentation of Boy Lim, the
alleged poseur-buyer, weakens the prosecution’s evidence. Sgt. Pascua was not
privy to the conversation between Lim and the accused. He was merely watching
from a distance and he only saw the actions of the two. As pointed out by the
appellant, Sgt. Pascua had no personal knowledge of the transaction that transpired
between Lim and the appellant. Since appellant insisted that he was forced by Lim to
buy the marijuana, it was essential that Lim should have been presented to rebut
accused’s testimony.
Moreover, we note that no evidence was presented by the prosecution to support its
proposition that the accused was searched or frisked and that the money allegedly
given to him or the marijuana was found in his possession. In fact, the prosecution
admits that the money given the accused by Boy Lim could not be found in his
pockets. Besides, if it were true that Sgt. Pascua and Sgt. Dagoc were closely
watching the whole event, they could have observed that the accused went over to
Manuel Laudiana who handed the marijuana to the accused. When the actual arrest
was effected, not one of the two (2) police officers bothered to go after Laudiana.
The prosecution admitted that the accused got the marijuana from Laudiana, yet,
they simply allowed Laudiana to yet away - and with the money allegedly given by
Boy Lim thru the accused.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
Thus, two (2) conflicting versions of that really transpired between Boy Lim and the
appellant are presented in this case.
In a recent decision of the Court, we held that the person who could provide the most
accurate account of the transaction is the poseur-buyer.
"Well-established is the rule that when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are
capable of two (2) or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.
In the present case, Accused-appellant’s version of the circumstances leading to his
apprehension constitutes a total denial of the prosecution’s allegations. In this
regard, this Court has ruled that when there is such a divergence of accounts —
‘it becomes incumbent upon the prosecution to rebut appellant’s allegations by
presenting . . . the alleged poseur-buyer. This it failed to do, giving rise to the
presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced. (Rule
131, Sec. 5[e]). This failure constitutes a total flaw in the prosecution’s evidence
since the so-called informant who was never presented as a witness and never
identified, is the best witness for the prosecution . . .’ (Emphasis supplied) 5
From the circumstances of the case, we hold that the guilt of the accused-appellant
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The well-settled rule that the conviction of
an accused person must not rest on the weakness of the defense but on the strength
of the evidence presented by the prosecution, has not been satisfied and met in the
present case.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis
Oriental, Branch 18, is hereby REVERSED and the accused-appellant is
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
THE NONPRESENTATION OF THE POSEUR-BUYER WAS FATAL TO THE
PROSECUTION’S CASE, SINCE THE ALLEGED SALE TRANSACTION
HAPPENED INSIDE THE ACCUSED’S HOUSE; HENCE, IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY
WITNESSED ONLY BY THE POSEUR-BUYER, WHO THEN WAS THE ONLY
PERSON WHO HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRANSACTION.
G.R. No. 76547 July 30, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ALBERT OLAES y AMOROSO, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Romeo C. Alinea for accused-appellant.
REGALADO, J.:
The decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXII in Olongapo City, in
Criminal Case No. 3602 involving a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) has been brought to us on appeal 2 by
accused-appellant who was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of P30,000.00 and the costs. The confiscation and immediate
destruction of six (6) lids of marijuana subject matter of the case was also ordered. 3
In an information dated March 27, 1978, appellant was charged with unlawfully
selling six (6) lids of marijuana.4 On March 16, 1979, appellant, assisted by his
counsel de oficio, was duly arraigned and, having pleaded not guilty, 5trial on the
merits ensued.
Based on the evidence for the prosecution, the court a quo narrated the case for the
People as follows:
That at 12:50 in the afternoon of June 15, 1977, said officers were at
their office at the CANU investigating Manuelito Bernardo, whom they
arrested earlier at No. 41 Harris St., East Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City
for possession of several lids of marijuana. Bernardo informed them
that the lids of marijuana confiscated from him came from
one alias "Abet" and his brother alias "Bonjing". They made Bernardo
agree to act as buyer and to go to the house which, according to
Bernardo, was the source of the confiscated marijuana. After giving
instructions to Bernardo about the pre-arranged signal, they all
proceeded near the house of "Abet" located at No. 116 Jones Street,
Olongapo City. Bernardo entered the compound bringing with him
marked money amounting to P300.00 (These were earlier xeroxed
after the signature of Pacifico Mugar was affixed).i•t•c-aüsl
After consummating the deal on the marijuana, Bernardo came out
and surrendered the same to the officers. Immediately, they entered
"Abet's" house and found him in the living room with some other
persons. "Abet" was confronted, searched, and in his person was
found the P300.00 marked money and lids of marijuana. "Abet" was
interrogated on the spot as to the whereabouts of other marijuana if
any. They proceeded next door at his brother Benjamin Olaes' kitchen
where they recovered sixty more lids of marijuana. Thereafter, "Abet",
which (sic) was later identified as accused Albert Olaes was brought
to the CANU office for investigation. Albert Olaes was finger-printed
by C2C Armando Cases and the booking sheet and arrest report were
prepared (Exhibit "G"). The sworn statement of Olaes was taken by
Pacifico Mugar (Exhibit "K"). Pfc. Abello together with Capitulo, Elgar,
 Macomb and Cases executed a Joint Affidavit in connection with this
case (Exhibit "H"). The sixty lids of marijuana which were confiscated
from the kitchen of Benjamin Olaes are covered and stated in the
Receipt for Property Seized (Exhibit "I"). 6
On the other hand, the decision makes the factual recital that —
The defense version per testimony of accused Alberto Olaes tends to
show that on June 15, 1977, at around two o'clock in the afternoon,
he was at their house located at 116 Jones Street Kalalake, Olongapo
City. While at Room 5 of said address, a certain Eling carrying a bag
came to their house asking for his brother Benjamin Olaes who was
not home at that time. Eling was carrying a bag of dog food. Upon
being told that Benjamin was out, Eling asked to be accompanied to
Room 2 also located at 116 Jones Street, Olongapo City, where he
left the bag in his brother's room, particularly in the "lababo".
Thereafter, he and Eling went out of the room and he went home to
his residence at Room 5, 116 Jones Street, Olongapo City. He
executed a sworn statement in connection with this case. He does not
know any person by the name of Lito. He affixed his signature on his
statement because he was mauled by the investigator and was
threatened to be killed.
On cross-examination, he stated that he does not know who among
the investigators beat him up and neither does he know who arrested
him. All his personal circumstances stated in his statement are true.
He also declared that Eling came from Saletran, Dasmarinas.
Cavite. 7
Opining that the testimony of appellant is incredible and relying heavily on the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as well as the extrajudicial confession
executed by appellant "corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti," the court below
rendered its judgment of conviction stated at the outset of this decision. Hence, this
appeal where appellant submits as alleged reversible errors (1) the conviction based
on an extrajudicial confession extracted in violation of due process and the bill of
rights of the fundamental law: (2) the conviction under Section 4, Article II of
Republic Act No. 6425 (selling) even if one of the elements of the offense is missing;
and (3) the resolution of doubt on the defense theory by reason of non-
corroboration. 8
We find for appellant and decree his acquittal.
Firstly, the extrajudicial confession 9 executed by appellant on June 15, 1977 is
inadmissible in evidence. An examination thereof shows that he was informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel during said
investigation. He was also asked if he was waiving his right to be assisted by
counsel and he answered in the affirmative. However, while the rights of a person
under custodial investigation may be waived, nonetheless the waiver must be made
not only voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently but in the presence and with the
assistance of counsel. 10
In the case at bar, the waiver was made without the assistance of counsel. 11 This
omission alone is sufficient to invalidate the confession. 12 While the trial court
observed that the narration of the accused in his extrajudicial confession is complete
in every detail and did not show any sign of suspicious circumstance to indicate that
there was pressure of restraints exerted upon his person, 13 having been made
without the mandatory assistance of counsel the same is inadmissible in evidence
regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given. 14
Secondly, this case exemplifies the instance where the non-presentation of the
supposed poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution's case. The records show that the
alleged sales transaction took place inside the house of appellant. In other words,
the transaction was supposedly witnessed only by the poseur-buyer, Manuelito
Bernardo. Only he has personal knowledge of such transaction which is the subject
matter of this prosecution. In People vs. Ramos, 15 where the alleged informant and
poseur-buyer was one and the same person, we stressed that without the testimony
of said poseur-buyer, there is no convincing evidence pointing to the accused as
having sold marijuana. In this case, the police officers did not see the actual sale of
marijuana. For the culprit to be convicted, the element of sale must be unequivocably
established. Yet, the alleged poseur-buyer in the "buy-bust" operation, the only one
who allegedly dealt directly with appellant in the purchase of marijuana, was not
presented at all at the trial. Under such circumstances, we have repeatedly held that
the failure of the prosecution to present the alleged buyer was a fatal blow to the
case against the accused. 16
The other prosecution witnesses admitted that it was only when the alleged poseur-
buyer left the house of appellant and gave the signal indicating the consummation of
the transaction that they started to approach the house of appellant and entered the
same. Thereafter, they allegedly searched the person of appellant and proceeded to
the adjoining room where they claimed to have recovered other prohibited
drugs. 17 We have carefully reviewed the records and find that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses do not inspire belief.
While suspiciously dovetailing on certain aspects in their testimonies, the members
of said law enforcement team, despite the fact that they claim to have been together
before, during and after the operation, enmeshed themselves in significant
inconsistencies and contradictions.
Thus, for instance, Cpl. Ernesto Abello claimed that the marked money which was
used to purchase the marijuana was zeroxed before it was given to the poseur-buyer
who later allegedly paid it to appellant. 18 On the other hand, Pfc. Jaime Capitulo who
allegedly recovered the marked money from appellant testified that it was after such
money was retrieved and the team had returned to their office that he turned over
the money to their superior, Capt. Aldaba, and it was then that zerox copies of the
money were made presumably for purposes of evidence, 19 only to subsequently
reverse himself by claiming that the same was zeroxed before they were given to the
poseur-buyer. 20It will be noted that it is this evidence, with the confusing testimony
thereon, by which the prosecution seeks to link appellant to the supposed sale.
Now, the poseur-buyer, according to the prosecution witnesses, was supposed to
give them a pre-arranged signal after he had made the purchase of the marijuana.
He is alleged to have done so but, as to the signal pre-arranged and given, the
versions of said witnesses are in hopeless disarray. According to Cpl. Abello,
Bernardo "would be coming out of the backdoor and he will be combing his
hair. 21 On the other hand, Sgt. Glenn Logan testified that the prearranged signal
was that Bernardo would put out his handkerchief and wipe his face. 22 These were
all contradicted in the testimony of Pfc. Jaime Capitulo who claimed that the
informant was able to give the pre-arranged signal because the investigating team
had with them an electric device with a receiver that received Bernardo's signal
which could be heard by everyone in the group. 23 How this would be possible and
why the witnesses are at loggerheads hereon, the prosecution does not say.
Again, Sgt. Logan declared that the search was conducted in the residence of
appellant resulting in the seizure of sixty (60) lids of marijuana. 24 On the contrary,
Pat. Abella clearly explained that said sixty (60) lids of marijuana were hidden and
recovered in the kitchen of the house of Benjamin Olaes, a brother of appellant,
which was a separate residence. 25 These conflicting testimonies, which further
discredit said witnesses, are apart from the consideration that appellant herein is
charged not with illegal possession but with the sale of marijuana.
We also do not lose sight of the fact that without the testimony of the supposed
poseur-buyer proving the alleged sale of marijuana inside appellant's house, the
unlawful intrusion into the sanctity of appellant's abode and the unreasonable search
and seizure proscribed by the Constitution are clearly established. It is undisputed
that the police operatives did not have either a search warrant or a warrant of
arrest. 26 The searches on the person of appellant and of his house were not also
incidental to a lawful arrest. The police officers admittedly did not have personal
knowledge at all of what actually transpired inside the appellant's house. They only
learned of the alleged consummation of the illicit transaction when they were
supposedly given a signal by their so-called poseur-buyer after the latter left
appellant's house. However, what they reportedly learned from said poseur-buyer
was indubitably hearsay as the latter was never called to appear and testify at the
trial. Since what was conducted was a warrantless search and the arrest of appellant
was unlawful, any evidence obtained from him is also inadmissible in evidence.
It is further undisputed that the six (6) lids of marijuana supposedly bought by the
poseur-buyer was taken by the police officers not from appellant but from said
poseur-buyer. 27 Appellant's disclaimer of ownership of the prohibited drug should
have cautioned and alerted the prosecution to the fact that the testimony of their
alleged poseur-buyer was not merely corroborative nor cumulative but direct and
material to the defense of appellant who claims innocence of the offense imputed to
him. 28 It is also significant that the identity of the informer and/or poseur-buyer was
already known during the trial.29 Despite all these, the prosecution opted not to
present him for reasons which remain unknown. Such unexplained failure to present
this vital witness gives rise to the presumption that, if he had been presented, his
testimony would probably not have supported the case of the prosecution. 30
The foregoing considerations cannot but rule out a verdict of guilty, there being an
exiguity of any other independent incriminating evidence, aside from appellant's
uncounselled and inadmissible extrajudicial confession. While the theory of the
defense is not totally convincing, the Court cannot tip the scales of justice against
him in the face of the cardinal and long entrenched rule that the prosecution must
rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the
defense.
One final observation. What cannot escape our attention is the penalty imposed by
the trial court, that is, life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00. The court a
quo obviously failed to consider that the alleged crime was committed on June 15,
1977. Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, prior to its amendment on February
17, 1980 by Presidential Decree No. 1675, the act of selling marijuana was
punishable by imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from P12,000.00 to P20,000.00. 31 Due to the
urgent necessity of reinforcing the drive against dangerous drugs by making "drug-
pushing" a capital offense, Presidential Decree No. 1675 was subsequently passed
providing for the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. Obviously, this amendment having taken effect after the
alleged commission of the crime in the case at bar, it could not have been given
retroactive effect.
WHEREFORE, the guilt of accused-appellant not having been proved with
the requisite quantum of evidence, the appealed decision is REVERSED and he is
hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, with costs de officio.
SO ORDERED.
WHILE THE COURT, IN SEVERAL INSTANCES, HAS AFFIRMED AN ACCUSED’S
CONVICTION NOTWITHSTANDING THE NONPRESENTATION OF THE
POSEUR-BUYER IN THE BUY-BUST OPERATION, SUCH FAILURE IS
EXCUSABLE ONLY WHEN THE POSEURBUYER’S TESTIMONY IS MERELY
CORROBORATIVE, THERE BEING SOME OTHER EYEWITNESS WHO IS
COMPETENT TO TESTIFY ON THE SALE TRANSACTION
[G.R. No. 135378. April 14, 2004]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ANGELITO AMBROSIO y
CAMPOS, ROMAN OZAETA y LAO and WARREN QUE alias WEDDY,
WILLY, SHAO WEI GUO, QUE SIAO UY, respondents.
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us is an appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision,[1] dated August 31, 1998, rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 103, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. 97-71733, convicting appellants
Angelito Ambrosio,[2] Roman Ozaeta[3] and Warren Que of the offense of selling
750.02 grams of shabu in violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659
(Dangerous Drugs Law) and sentencing Que, as principal, to reclusion perpetua and
imposing upon him a fine of P2,000,000.00; and Ambrosio and Ozaeta as
accomplices, to suffer imprisonment for a period of six years, one month and one
day of prision mayor as minimum to fourteen years, eight months and ten days
of reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 each.[4]
Appellants Ambrosio, Ozaeta and Que were charged in an Amended
Information[5] filed by the prosecution, as follows:
The undersigned State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice accuses ANGELITO
AMBROSIO y CAMPOS, ROMAN JOSE OZAETA y LAO and WARREN QUE alias
WEDDY, WILLY GUO, SHAO WEI GUO, QUE SIA UY of the crime of violation of
Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, committed as follows:
That on or about February 20, 1997, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, with deliberate intent and without
authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and
deliver to a poseur-buyer 1,001.61 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu), which is a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Manila for Quezon City, Philippines.
July 14, 1997.[6]
Appellants entered their respective pleas of not guilty. After trial on the merits,
the RTC rendered herein assailed judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding:
1. WARREN QUE, alias Weddy, Willy Guo, Shao Wei Guo or Que Siao Uy, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of selling 991.7 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride with a purity weight of 750.02 grams as a PRINCIPAL thereto in
violation of R.A. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Law) and he is hereby
sentenced to suffer an imprisonment term of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of
Two Million Pesos;
2. ANGELITO AMBROSIO y CAMPOS and ROMAN JOSE OZAETA y LAO are
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as ACCOMPLICES of accused WARREN
QUE in the same of 991.7 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride with a purity
weight of 750.02 grams in violation of R.A. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs
Law) and each of said accused is ordered to suffer an indeterminate jail term of six
(6) years, one (1) month and one (1) day of Prision Mayor as minimum to Fourteen
(14) years, eight (8) months and ten (10) days of Reclusion Temporal and to pay a
find of One Million Pesos each, respectively.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu involved in this casE are ordered
disposed of and/or destroyed in accordance with law upon finality of this judgment.
SO ORDERED.
In convicting appellants, the trial court found the version of the prosecution
evidence more credible and held that the defense failed to overcome the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed by the NBI
agents. Hence, the present petition.
Pending resolution of the appeal, that is on January 10, 2001, appellant
Ambrosio, acting on his own, filed with us a Motion to Withdraw Appeal. A similar
motion was filed by his lawyer on January 22, 2001. Thus, per Resolution dated
February 5, 2001, we granted Ambrosios motion to withdraw appeal and
consequently, his appeal was dismissed.
Appellant Que filed his Brief raising the following Assignment of Errors:
I. The trial court erred in concluding that there was a buy-bust operation on February
20, 1997 at the residence of accused Warren Que when there was none at all.
II. The trial court erred in holding that accused Warren Que was caught
in flagrante delicto selling the regulated drug on the occasion of the alleged buy-bust
operation.
III. The trial court erred in holding that the fluorescent powder found in the hand of
accused Warren Que was sourced from handling chemically treated money.
IV. The trial court erred in assigning to the acts of the NBI agents Martin Soriano and
Pio Palencia in the alleged buy-bust operation the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty and, corollarily, shifting the burden of overcoming it upon
the defense.
V. The trial court erred in refusing to require the prosecution to identify the alleged
confidential informant named Venus and, consequently, depriving accused-appellant
Warren Que, his fundamental right to confront and cross examine her.
VI. The trial court erred in discrediting as implausible, the defense of accused
Warren Que.
VII. The trial court erred in not finding him innocent of the crime charged, and instead
found him guilty thereof.[7]
Appellant Ozaeta filed his Brief raising the following issues:
III. ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING OZAETA ON
THE MAIN BASIS OF PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFFICIAL DUTY.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED
OZAETA AS AN ACCOMPLICE, AND COROLLARY THERETO, WHETHER OR
NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING OZAETA AS ACCOMPLICE
DESPITE THE WEAK AND VAGUE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING OZAETA
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POSEUR-BUYER VENUS WAS NOT
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION AS A WITNESS.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING OZAETA
DESPITE THE TESTIMONY OF THE FORENSIC CHEMIST, MS. JULIETA
FLORES, THAT OZAETA COULD NOT HAVE TOUCHED THE MARKED MONEY.
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE MARKED MONEY WAS NOT
PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE.[8]
The errors assigned by appellant Que and the issues raised by appellant Ozaeta
boil down to the following questions: (1) whether the participation of appellants
Ozaeta and Que in the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu was
proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) whether or not the trial court erred in
basing the conviction of appellants on mere presumption of regularity in the
performance of the official duties of the arresting officers. We will resolve them jointly
as they are inter-related to each other.
Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules on Evidence, provides:
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if
uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
...
(m) That official duty has been regularly perfomed;
...
It is a well-settled rule that credence should be given to the narration of an
incident by prosecution witnesses who are police officers and presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.[9] But, it is likewise a hornbook doctrine that an accused may not be
convicted on the basis of a mere presumption. As we ruled in People vs. Tan:[10]
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be used as
basis for affirming accused-appellants conviction because, [f]irst, the presumption is
precisely just that a mere presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this
case, xxx [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the
presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.[11]
In the face of these jurisprudential rulings, it is imperative that we examine the
evidence presented before the trial court so as to determine whether or not the trial
court had actually no basis in convicting appellants and merely relied on the
disputable presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.
The facts established by the prosecution evidence are as follows:
A civilian informant reported to Agent Martin Soriano of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) of the illegal activities of appellant Ozaeta and accused
Ambrosio. Surveillance activities were conducted on Ozaeta and Ambrosio
beginning February 15, 1997. The civilian informant was able to contact a certain
Grace, who is a trusted buyer of Ozaeta and Ambrosio, and introduced her to a
confidential agent they call Venus. A first meeting at the Aristocrat restaurant was
arranged between Grace and Ambrosio, but the transaction did not push through
due to some disagreement regarding the money and place of delivery. Another
meeting at a hotel in Pasig did not bring about the expected
transaction. Subsequently, Ozaeta and Ambrosio agreed to meet with Venus on
February 20, 1997, at around 1:30 in the morning, in front of Club Filipino,
Greenhills, San Juan.[12] Palencia and Soriano then prepared the buy-bust money,
including some bills that had been previously marked and dusted with fluorescent
powder.[13]
In the early morning of February 20, 1997, NBI Agent Soriano and confidential
informant Venus proceeded to the meeting place in front of Club Filipino in
Greenhills. Venus spotted the Nissan car of Ambrosio near Ciudad Fernandina,
which is about twenty meters away from the front of Club Filipino. Soriano and
Venus then approached Ambrosios car and inside they found Ambrosio and
Ozaeta.Soriano said that at first, he believed the exchange would take place right
there in front of Club Filipino. However, after Soriano was introduced to Ambrosio
and Ozaeta, the latter asked Soriano and Venus to board the car being driven by
Ambrosio.[14] Agent Soriano and Venus sat at the back seat and upon boarding,
Ambrosio and Ozaeta told them they wanted to see the money. Venus then opened
the brown bag containing the buy-bust money and they scanned the money bundle
by bundle but did not count it.[15] The buy-bust money consisted of ten pieces of
marked and dusted P100.00 bills placed on top of the bundles of genuine money
amounting to around P400,000.00 and the boodle money was placed at the very
bottom of the bag to make it appear that the money amounted to P650,000.00, the
price they agreed upon for the sale of one kilo of shabu.[16] Ambrosio then started
driving towards Quezon City. All this time, Special Investigator Palencia and one
Allan Santiago, also from the NBI, were in a separate car around ten to fifteen
meters away tailing Ambrosios car. At around 2:45 to 3:00 in the morning, Ambrosio
eventually stopped at an apartment in Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City. He parked
his car in front of the door of the first apartment of the compound known as Villa
Concepcion, located on a corner lot.[17] Palencia parked their car around the corner,
about five meters away from Soriano, where he could still see everything that was
happening.[18]
Upon arrival at the apartment, Ambrosio and Venus alighted from the car while
Ozaeta and Soriano remained inside the car, parked around five meters away from
the door of the apartment. Since the place was well-lighted, Soriano clearly saw
everything that was happening.[19] Ambrosio and Venus rang the doorbell at the main
door of said apartment and a Chinese looking man, who was later identified as
appellant Que, opened the door. After a short conversation with Ambrosio and
Venus, Que went back inside the house and immediately came out again with a
plastic bag containing the white crystalline powder which he handed to Venus. The
latter checked the contents of the plastic bag then handed over to Que the bag
containing the buy-bust money. Que unzipped the bag and inspected the cash
inside. At that point, Venus pressed a radio transmitter as the sign for the back-up to
arrest Que. Soriano, as well as Palencia and Santiago, immediately alighted from
their respective cars and approached the apartment. Que ran inside the apartment
with the bag of buy-bust money but he was accosted by the NBI agents near the
stairs leading to the second floor of the apartment.[20] Ambrosio and Venus ran back
into Ambrosios car and that was where NBI agent Santiago arrested Ozaeta and
Ambrosio. After the arrest, Special Investigator Palencia also found in the
possession of Ambrosio three small plastic bags or sachets of the same white
crystalline substance, while Ozaeta had a cream round container and a glass tube
also containing the same substance.[21]
 Thereafter, the NBI agents brought Que, Ambrosio and Ozaeta to the NBI
Headquarters in Taft Avenue, Manila, arriving at said headquarters at around 5:30 in
the morning.[22] Palencia proceeded with the marking of the plastic bag containing
the white crystalline powder recovered from Que and the containers with a similar
substance recovered from Ambosio and Ozaeta for purposes of
identification. Palencia also requested the forensic chemist to examine the contents
of the plastic bag and sachets recovered from the accused. Appellants were
fingerprinted and made to fill-up the Booking and Arrest Report and Investigation
Sheet, then subjected to the ultra-violet light test to determine the presence of the
fluorescent powder on their hands.[23]
NBI Forensic Chemist Salud Rosales, who conducted the requisite tests on the
white crystalline powder recovered from appellants, testified that all specimens
submitted to her were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly
known as shabu.[24] The presiding judge ordered that tests be conducted on the
substance contained in the big plastic bag recovered from appellant Que to
determine its purity and the same forensic chemist reported that out of the 991.7
grams of said substance, the weight of pure methamphetamine hydrochloride was
750.02 grams.[25]
NBI Chemist Julieta Flores who dusted the marked money and examined the
hands of the appellants reported that both hands of appellants were contaminated
with the fluorescent powder dusted on the ten P100.00 bills placed on top of the buy-
bust money.[26] On cross-examination, she admitted that she heard the appellants
say that they were merely forced to hold the marked money, but she does not recall
them say anything about Agent Soriano shaking hands with them.[27] She also stated
that based on the pattern or placement of the specks and smudges of fluorescent
powder on the hands of appellants, it is most possible that appellant Que and
accused Ambrosio have touched the buy-bust money, while there is a possibility that
appellant Ozaeta did not touch said money.[28]
Countervailing the prosecution evidence, the defense witnesses testified that no
such buy-bust operation was conducted. They insist that the NBI agents illegally
abducted them and then planted the evidence. Appellants Que and Ozaeta as well
as accused Ambrosio denied knowing each other prior to their alleged abduction and
claim that they only learned the names of their co-accused when they were already
at the NBI Headquarters.
Appellant Ozaeta testified as follows: At around 5:00 in the afternoon of
February 19, 1997, he was having merienda at Club Filipino in Greenhills, San
Juan. After eating, he went out to buy cigarettes from one of the street vendors and
while walking along the street, he was abducted by NBI Agent Soriano.[29] During
cross-examination, however, he stated that it was actually two men who accosted
him and pushed him inside a waiting Land Cruiser.[30] Inside the vehicle, there was
already another man who was handcuffed. Four other men, who identified
themselves as NBI agents, were also in the Land Cruiser. Both he and the other
person, who he later came to know at the NBI Headquarters as Sonny Ambrosio,
were blindfolded. The vehicle roamed around for some time and then they were
brought to what he believes is a safehouse somewhere in Project 6, Quezon
City.[31] In the safehouse, he and Ambrosio were beaten up by the NBI agents and
were asked questions about shabu. Around 8:30 to 9:30 that night of February 19,
1997, the NBI men took him (Ozaeta) with them to a place in West Triangle where
the NBI men talked to a certain Tony Ledesma. The latter called up Joel Tan who
arrived at around 12:30 or 1:30 in the early morning of February 20, 1997. Joel Tan
was brought back to the safehouse in Project 6 and placed in the same room with
him. Joel Tan who was also beaten up by the NBI men was brought out of the
house. After one hour, the NBI men came back bringing with them another person,
later identified as appellant Que. The NBI men started beating up Que. As for
Ledesma and Tan, he never saw them again.[32] At around 4:00 in the morning of
February 20, 1997, he, Ambrosio and Que were brought to the NBI Headquarters on
Taft Avenue, Manila. They were made to fill up some papers or forms and
fingerprinted. Their hands were put under the ultra-violet light to test for the presence
of fluorescent powder. He remembered that on their way to the room where their
hands were placed under the light, agent Soriano shook hands with the three of
them.[33]
Ozaeta claims that it was through Sorianos handshake that his (Ozaetas) hands
were contaminated with the fluorescent powder.
Ozaeta further testified that despite repeated requests with the NBI agents to
allow him to call his family, he was never given the opportunity to communicate with
them.[34] On cross-examination, he testified that he or his family did not file a case
against the NBI agents who allegedly abducted him.[35]
Accused Ambrosios recollection of the incident is as follows: In the afternoon of
February 19, 1997, he received a telephone call from a certain Venus who
mentioned the name of his friend Pepe Dadivas. Thus, he agreed to have a date with
Venus at Club Filipino in Greenhills. At around 5:00 or 6:00 in the afternoon, after
dropping off his wife at their store in Shoppesville, located also in Greenhills, he
drove his Nissan Sentra car towards Club Filipino. While looking for a parking space
in front of Club Filipino, a Land Cruiser blocked his car and several armed men
wearing black shirts with NBI markings alighted from said Land Cruiser. They
pointed their guns at him, handcuffed him and loaded him into the Land
Cruiser.[36] Around five minutes later, another handcuffed man was loaded into the
same vehicle. They were then both blindfolded. Later, when they were already at the
NBI Headquarters, he came to know the other man loaded into the vehicle as
appellant Ozaeta. He claims that both he and Ozaeta were beaten up by the NBI
men while they were inside the Land Cruiser. They were then taken to what he
believes is an NBI safehouse where he was kept in a room, handcuffed and
blindfolded the whole time. At around twelve oclock midnight or 1:00 in the early
morning of February 20, 1997, he heard voices which he believed to be those of the
NBI men bringing another person into the safehouse. He heard that person begging
for mercy, and shortly thereafter, the NBI men went away again. About an hour later,
the NBI men came back with another man, whom he later came to know as appellant
Que.[37]
At around 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning of February 20, 1997, they were all
brought to the NBI Headquarters in Taft Avenue, Manila. From this point on, his
narration of events is the same as that of appellant Ozaeta, specially with the detail
regarding Agent Sorianos handshake.[38]
To corroborate the story of appellant Ozaeta and accused Ambrosio, the
defense presented Rodolfo Banaga, a street vendor. He narrated that at around 6:30
to 7:00 in the evening of February 19, 1997, he was vending in front of the Club
Filipino, when he noticed three male persons wearing black t-shirts with the letters
NBI printed at the back, arrest a man who just came out of the Club Filipino.The
arrested man was handcuffed then pushed into a waiting vehicle. When the door of
the vehicle was opened, he saw that there was already another person inside the
same. During the hearing in court, he pointed to appellant Ozaeta as the person who
was arrested and pointed to accused Ambrosio as the person who was already
inside the vehicle. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that when this
incident was happening, he was quickly moving away, such that, when the rear door
of the vehicle was opened, he was already positioned at the back of said vehicle.[39]
Another defense witness, Eugenio de la Torre, the security guard assigned at
the parking lot of the Club Filipino on the evening of February 19, 1997, only stated
that the car of Roman Ozaeta was parked at the Club Filipino from the evening of
February 19 until February 22, 1997, when he released the car to a Sgt. Willy Cocjin,
sent by General Ozaeta.[40]
Appellant Que, for his defense, testified as follows: At around 3:00 or 4:00 in the
early morning of February 20, 1997, he was sleeping with his family (wife and two
children) in their bedroom located on the second floor of his townhouse in Project 6,
Quezon City. He was awakened by his wife, telling him that her father was knocking
at their bedroom door. At around that time, he also heard someone throw a stone at
the window. He got up and went downstairs so he could open the door and when he
was already downstairs, he saw his father-in-law peeping out the window who did
not see anybody outside the apartment.[41] When he (Que) opened the door, he also
did not find anyone there, so he went back inside the house and got a glass of
water. However, upon turning around, he was surprised to see several people
entering his house. Said persons were wearing black clothes with NBI
markings. Later at the NBI Headquarters, he came to know the names of some of
those people as Agent Soriano, Palencia, and Santiago. When the NBI people
gained entry into his house, Soriano started asking him about a certain William and a
Mr. Tan. He answered that there were no such persons in his house.[42] Agent
Soriano, together with Santiago and a lady agent, went upstairs. Palencia remained
downstairs guarding him, his father-in-law, his wife and two children. When the three
agents came down, they had with them a brown wine bag belonging to him (Que),
which he claims is the very same bag that was later shown in court by Agent Soriano
as the one that contained the buy-bust money. He asked the NBI men if they had a
warrant but they did not answer him. They just proceeded to handcuff him then
loaded him into a waiting Nissan car outside his house. While inside the car which
roamed around their subdivision for a while, Palencia forced him to count one by one
the ten pieces of P100.00 bills.[43]
Later, the car stopped and brought him into a house not too far away from his
own house. There, they locked him inside the comfort room. The only maltreatment
he received was when Palencia hit him in the chest once. At around 6:00 in the
morning of February 20, 1997, he, Ozaeta and Ambrosio were brought to the NBI
Headquarters in Taft Avenue, Manila. Again, from this point, his story as to what
transpired at the NBI Headquarters is the same as those of Ozaeta and Ambrosio.[44]
Ques common-law wife, Ligaya Melgar, also testified in Ques defense. She
testified as follows: At around 4:00 in the morning of February 20, 1997, her father
woke her up because there was someone knocking at the door. Her father did not
open the door because he did not know the person at the door. She woke up Que
who then went downstairs, while she went back to bed. About three minutes later,
she heard a commotion downstairs so she got up and went downstairs. On her way
down the stairs, she already saw two men and one woman, holding firearms, on their
way up the stairs.These people wore clothes with NBI markings. She saw them enter
their bedroom, and she proceeded downstairs to look for Que. There, she saw Que
being guarded by two persons. She asked these persons if they have a search
warrant or a warrant of arrest but they said they did not need one. They then asked
her the name of her husband and if she knows a certain William Tan or Joel Tan,
and she told them that there were no such persons in the house.[45]
After talking to the men guarding Que, she went back upstairs and saw the three
NBI agents searching all their rooms then taking their belongings and putting them
inside the wine bag. Ligaya claims the agents took jewelries, a video camera, and
money both in Philippine and foreign currencies amounting to several hundred
thousand pesos.[46]
Leopoldo Melgar, appellant Ques father-in-law residing in Mabalacat,
Pampanga, testified that he arrived at the house of his daughter and Que at around
11:00 in the morning of February 19, 1997.He slept at said house that evening, but in
the early morning of the next day, around 4:00, a knocking at the door awakened
him. He then woke up his daughter, Ligaya, who in turn woke up her husband,
appellant Que. Que went downstairs and after hearing more knocks, opened the
door. When the door opened, two men entered the house, followed by another man
a few minutes later. Said persons were wearing NBI vests. They then asked Que if
he is William. When Que denied that he is William, one of the men poked a gun at
Que and insisted that the latter is indeed William. One of the men and a woman went
up to the second floor of the house. Later, the NBI people brought Que out of the
house.[47]
In attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies,
appellants assail the non-presentation in court of the buy-bust money and the
confidential agent Venus, who actually negotiated with the three accused. They
argue that the non-presentation of poseur-buyer Venus shows that no such person
exists, thereby reinforcing their claim that no buy-bust operation ever happened in
this case. They further claim that only Venus could testify on what was really agreed
upon between her and appellant Que. It is further argued by appellants that the lower
court relied too much on the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty
in giving credence to the buy-bust account presented by the prosecution witnesses.
Appellant Que invokes the ruling of the Court in People vs. Bagano[48] where the
non-presentation of the informant and/or the poseur-buyer who actively participated
in the negotiation for the sale of prohibited drugs was held to be fatal to the
prosecutions case, leading to the acquittal of the accused therein. However,
the Bagano case cannot find application to the present case because the special
circumstance attending the buy-bust operation in said case does not exist in the
present case.
In the Bagano case, the poseur-buyer was an American who did not understand
a word of the Kankanai dialect being spoken by the accused therein. Thus, the
informant had to act as an interpreter between the American poseur-buyer and the
accused. Only the American poseur-buyer testified as to how they entrapped the
accused therein and he was able to testify only as to what the informant/interpreter
relayed to him as the supposed answers given by the accused in the course of the
buy-bust operation. The accused therein, however, disclaimed ownership of the bag
containing the marijuana, explaining that said bag actually belonged to the informant
and he was merely ordered by said informant to carry the bag. Thus, the Court held
that the presentation of the informant who acted as interpreter is vital to the case for
the prosecution since the testimony of the American poseur-buyer regarding the
actual conversation between the interpreter and the accused in the Kankanai dialect
would be merely hearsay.
In People vs. Uy,[49] the prosecution was not able to present the actual poseur-
buyer on the witness stand. Just like in this case, only the other members of the buy-
bust team, who were twenty meters away, closely watching the exchange between
the poseur-buyer and the accused, testified as to how the buy-bust operation was
conducted. The prosecution explained in the Uy case that they could not present the
actual poseur-buyer because he was then in the hospital, paralyzed due to gunshot
wounds. We held in said case that:
We have previously declared that what can be fatal is the non-presentation of the
poseur-buyer if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction. In the case at
bar, the other members of the team that conducted the buy-bust operation testified in
court. They declared that they witnessed the consummation of the illegal sale
perpetrated by the accused-appellant. Hence, their positive identification of the
accused-appellant rendered the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer non-fatal to
the case of the prosecution. . . .
...
A buy-bust operation has been considered as an effective mode of apprehending
drug pushers. If carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a
buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction. The delivery of the contraband to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully
consummates the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the
accused.[50]
In the present case, the non-presentation of Venus was also satisfactorily
explained, i.e., that she was working on another buy-bust operation. Although her
identity is known to herein appellants, to require her to testify in open court would
divulge her real identity and expose her to danger considering that there was another
buy-bust operation that was still on-going.
In People vs. Boco,[51] we held:
Intelligence agents, due to the nature of their work, are often not called to testify in
court so as not to reveal their identities publicly. Once known, they could no longer
be used again and, worse, may be the object of revenge by the criminals they
implicate. The prevailing doctrine is that their testimonies are not essential for
conviction, nor are they indispensable to a successful prosecution. With the
testimonies of the arresting officers, they would be, after all, merely corroborative
and cumulative.
Verily, we see no reason to rule that the inability to present Venus would be fatal to
the prosecutions case. The testimony of NBI Agent Soriano, corroborated by SI
Palencia, that he (Soriano) was merely five meters away from appellant Que and
Venus and could clearly see when Que handed over to Venus the plastic bag
containing the white crystalline substance and in exchange, Que received from
Venus the bag containing the buy-bust money, is enough to sustain the findings of
the trial court that, indeed, the illegal sale of shabu between Venus and Que was
consummated.
Furthermore, as originally planned, Soriano was designated as the poseur-
buyer, but the buy-bust operation did not proceed exactly as the team had planned
or anticipated. Agent Soriano thought that the transaction would be consummated at
Greenhills, for which reason, they planned to entrap only appellant Ozaeta and
Ambrosio. It was only when Ambrosio brought them to the house of appellant Que
that they learned of the latters activities.[52] It could be said, therefore, that the buy-
bust operation proceeded in two phases. The first phase was what the buy-bust
team had planned, i.e., that the operation would be completed at Greenhills where
the sale was supposed to be consummated; and the second phase had to be carried
out when, unexpectedly, Ambrosio did not bring with him the shabu and instead
brought Soriano and Venus to Ques residence. Understandably, with such sudden
and unexpected turn of events, the buy-bust team had to make the necessary
adjustments and changes to their original plans which could explain why it was
eventually Venus who accompanied Ambrosio to Ques door.
With regard to appellant Que, after a close scrutiny of the entire records of the
case, we find no fact or circumstance of special importance that would justify
overturning the ruling of the court a quoregarding the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses and their testimonies. The prosecution successfully proved the existence
of all the elements necessary for conviction for the offense of illegal sale of regulated
or prohibited drugs, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[53]
In People vs. Mala, et al.,[54] we held that what is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt
of the marked money consummated the buy-bust transaction between the
entrapping officers and the accused.
Anent the buy-bust money, the prosecution merely presented photocopies of the
marked money used in the buy-bust operation. The trial court is correct in not
considering the non-presentation of the entire amount thereof as a mortal blow to the
prosecutions case. We have held in People vs. Eugenio[55] presentation of buy-bust
money is not indispensable to the prosecution of a drug case.[56]
Appellants asseveration that the lower court merely relied on the presumption of
regularity of performance of official duty in arriving at its decision and in giving more
credence to the buy-bust account presented by the prosecution, is not plausible. It is
on the basis of the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the trial court
based the conviction of appellants Que.
We find no compelling reason to reject the ratiocination of the trial court in not
giving more credence or probative weight to the testimonies of the witnesses, in
defense of appellant Que, to wit:
...
3. Accused Warren, his wife Ligaya and her father testified that the NBI agents
arrived in their townhouse at between 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning of February 20,
1997. One of the things the NBI agents repeatedly asked them was where is Joel
Tan. Yet, according to accused Ozaeta, NBI agents already had Joel Tan with them
in the house of Tony Ledesma just after midnight of February 19, 1997. The agents
brought Joel Tan to the Project 6 safehouse, beat him there, and took Joel Tan away
at around 2:30 that same early morning. Why should agents Palencia, Soriano and
Allan then be still looking for Joel Tan from Warren at 4:00 oclock in the morning
when they had Joel Tan all along already? Only contrived stories could suffer from
such deficiencies.
...
6. Mrs. Ligaya M. Ques testimony and that of her father are understandably
favorable to Warren. The testimonies of those two witnesses and Warrens however,
contain major incongruities, namely:
(a) Warren said he went downstairs to open the door because someone was
throwing stones on their window. Ligaya and her father testified someone knocked
on the door.
(b) Ligaya testified that on February 19, 1997 she left the house at 12:00 noon to go
to Angeles City while Warren stayed at home. On cross, Ligaya said Warren left
between 10:00 and 11:00 in the morning and returned at 4:00 in the afternoon on
February 19, 1997.
Ligayas father testified that he arrived at the townhouse on February 19, 1997 and
he found Warren there and Warren stayed the whole day and night in the townhouse
leaving only when he asked Warren to buy paint at 7:00 in the evening.
On the other hand, Warren testified that he arrived at his house on February 19,
1997 at 11:00 in the evening.
...
9. The three accused claimed that the reason their hands were found positive for
nitrates is because Agent Soriano shook hands with them before their hands were
clinically examined.
The court disagrees because:
a) Warren testified that even inside the car that took him agent Palencia forced him
to count the marked bills and even rubbed his hands with Palencias hands. If that
were so, then there is no need anymore for agent Soriano to shake hands with
him. Agent Soriano was, after all, in the same car and therefore knew of such event
if it really took place.
b) Warrens counsel on cross-examination of Ms. Julieta Flores, the NBI chemist who
examined the hands of the accused, tried his best to point out that no nitrates were
found on the fingertips of Warren which would negate the prosecutions theory that
Warren rifled through the bags contents during the buy-bust. If, as admitted, no
nitrates were found on Warrens fingertips as to negate the prosecutions theory, then
the very expostulation itself of Warrens counsel on this point would negate the claim
of Warren twice made in his affidavit and in court as a witness that he was made to
count the dusted bills one by one.
As will be shown below there was a good reason for the absence of nitrates on
Warrens fingertips as well as those of accused Ambrosio and Ozaeta.
c) The defense itself, that is, all three accused called for the production of the
Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Exhibits 1, 2 and 9 for Ambosio and Exhibits 3
and 20 for Ozaeta). The Booking Sheet for Warren was not offered in evidence but
he also admitted that he was made to fill it up and was fingerprinted thereon.
An examination of said Booking Sheets and Arrest Reports shows that the accused
were fingerprinted on both hands involving all fingers, an SOP in law enforcement
procedure. That was done at the SID room before the accused were brought to the
laboratory room.
According to chemist Julieta Flores, nitrates, unlike paraffin powder, are easy to
remove; they can be removed from the hands by simply cleaning ones hands with
water. Consequently, it is easy to understand why the fingertips of all accused had
no nitrates: All fingers on both hands were dipped in ink in a stamp pad and then
pressed on the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Pinagpiano in lock parlance) and
hence, the easily removable nitrates were left there.
d) The marked money bills were dusted on February 7, 1997 yet and used in another
operation in Pasay City; hence, were not anymore as thickly dusted when used
again on February 19, 1997 against the herein accused which account for why spots,
specks and smudges were the ones that appeared when the hands of the accused
were exposed to the lab light at NBI.
e) Indeed, the handshaking defense raised here appears quite specious because if
indeed Agent Soriano shook hands with the accused, then the presence of nitrates in
their fingers would be inevitable for it must be assumed that if Agent Soriano indeed
had a sinister purpose against the accused, he would have made sure that the
fingers and palms of all three or, at least one or two of them will be impregnated with
nitrates. Moreover, one shakes anothers hand with only one hand and also only one
hand of the person whose hand is to be shook. But, in this case, both hands of each
of the accused were found positive for nitrates. There is no evidence, and it seems
really unusual, that Agent Soriano will shake the right hand and then the left hand of
each accused. Agent Soriano, to all appearances, seems to be a machoman.
The court thus concludes that the positive identification herein made by the
prosecution witnesses and the presumption of regular performance of duty have not
been successfully overcome by the accused.[57]
In People vs. Pacis, we held that:
. . . courts generally give full faith and credit to officers of the law, for they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Accordingly, in
entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution
witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in
a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[58]
The defense failed to demonstrate any ill-motive on the part of the prosecution
witnesses in effecting the buy-bust operation and testifying against
appellants. Testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution show that Que was
not initially the target of their operation, since their informant only mentioned the
activities of appellant Ozaeta and Ambrosio. As we have earlier discussed, agent
Soriano thought that the transaction would be consummated at Greenhills, for which
reason, they planned to entrap only appellant Ozaeta and Ambrosio. It was only
when Ambrosio brought them to the house of appellant Que that they learned of the
latters activities.[59] Hence, there is no cause for us to believe that the prosecution
witnesses testified falsely against appellant Que.
 We reiterate our ruling in People vs. Cueno[60] that in the absence of proof of any
odious intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute a serious crime,
such as that made against herein appellant, we will not allow their testimony to be
overcome by the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up.[61]
In People vs. Mala, et al., we enunciated that this Court will not interfere with the
trial courts assessment of the credibility of witnesses except when there appears on
record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which the trial court has
overlooked, misapprehended, or misinterpreted. The reason for this rule is that the
trial court is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial.[62]
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are positive and convincing,
sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court that appellant Ques guilt had been
established beyond reasonable doubt.Thus, as we have earlier stated, insofar as
appellant Que is concerned, his claim that in convicting him, the trial court merely
relied on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, is without
merit.
However, the prosecution evidence does not clearly establish the participation of
appellant Ozaeta in the sale of shabu. Despite the fact that the Court gives full faith
and credit to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, such evidence, even without
taking into account the frame-up defense raised by Ozaeta, is insufficient to prove
that said appellant had a hand in the illegal sale of shabu by appellant Que.
Prosecution witnesses SI Palencia and agent Soriano were not present during
the preliminary meetings among Venus, Grace, Ambrosio and Ozaeta. Hence, they
did not have personal knowledge, as in fact, they did not testify if it was Ambrosio or
Ozaeta or both of them who were actively negotiating for the sale of shabu. From the
testimonies of SI Palencia and agent Soriano, who were the only eye-witnesses
presented in court, Ozaeta was merely in the car with Ambrosio when they met at
Greenhills and he stayed in the same car during the entire time that the sale
transaction was going on at Ques front door on the fateful morning of February 20,
1997. There was no evidence presented that appellant Ozaeta participated in the
sale of shabu between Que and Venus. Both SI Palencia and agent Soriano testified
that it was Ambrosio who drove the car in going to Ques residence. Their testimonies
do not indicate that Ozaeta was aware of where they were going or what was
supposed to transpire once they arrive at their destination. Even if Soriano testified
that they asked to see the money[63] when they were in Ambrosios car, there is no
direct testimony which shows that Ozaeta himself asked to see the money or that he
knew that the money was for the illegal sale of shabu.
Doubts regarding Ozaetas participation in the illegal sale of shabu are further
fortified by the following facts and circumstances: (1) accused Ambrosio and
appellant Ozaeta did not have the shabu with them when they were met by agent
Soriano; (2) the trial court failed to mention that NBI Forensic Chemist Salud Rosales
testified that it is possible that Ozaeta did not touch the buy-bust money;[64]and (3) as
narrated by SI Palencia and Soriano, it was only Ambrosio who alighted from the car
and accompanied Venus to Ques front door where the illegal sale of shabu was
consummated between Venus, the poseur buyer, on the one hand and appellant
Que and Ambrosio, on the other. There is no testimony as to the participation or role
of Ozaeta in said sale except that he was in the car with agent Soriano.
As held in People vs. Geron,[65] the mere presence of the accused at the locus
criminis cannot be solely interpreted to mean that he committed the crime
charged. In this case, the prosecution evidence which merely showed that Ozaeta
was in the company of Ambrosio when they met with agent Soriano at Greenhills
and in the car when Ambrosio brought agent Soriano to the front of the house of
appellant Que, is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant
Ozaeta was indeed involved in any way in the illegal sale of shabu. Therefore,
appellant Ozaeta must be absolved from criminal liability.
As to the penalty imposed by the trial court on appellant Que, the Court finds the
same to be in accord with the provisions of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. No.
7659. The penalty prescribed for the consummated sale of 200 grams of shabu
without authority of law is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Under Article 63 (No. 2) of the Revised Penal
Code, the lesser penalty is applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the offense. In the case at bar, the prosecution
did not allege or prove the attendance of any modifying circumstance to justify the
imposition of the extreme penalty. Hence, the trial court did not err in imposing upon
appellant Que the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[66]
The fine of P1,000,000.00 imposed on appellant Que is just and reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch
103) dated August 31, 1998 in Crim. Case No. 97-71733 as to appellant Warren
Que, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 750.02 grams of shabu
and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment term of reclusion perpetua and fining him
in the amount of P1,000,000.00 is AFFIRMED.
However, as to appellant Roman Ozaeta y Lao, the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 103) dated August 31, 1998 in Crim. Case
No. 97-71733 is REVERSED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Appellant Ozaeta is ACQUITTED. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is ordered to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Ozaeta unless he is being
detained for some other lawful cause, and to inform this Court, within five (5) days
from notice hereof, the action taken thereon.
SO ORDERED.

SIMILARLY, THE ABSENCE OF MARKED MONEY DOES NOT CREATE A

HIATUS IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION PROVIDED THAT THE
PROSECUTION HAS ADEQUATELY PROVED THE SALE(