PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO PASCUAL BAUTISTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused’s denial and claim of a frame-up cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Like alibi, frame-up is a defense that can easily be concocted, which is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act and there will be disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemen’s alleged rotten reputation, will accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exist, so that, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, in the absence of proof of any odious intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute a serious crime, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.

The Case

Acting on the report of a concerned parent of a minor who is suspected of being a drug-addict, a buy-bust team was formed by the PNP using the minor as the poseur buyer. Upon reaching the target area, the poseur buyer negotiated with the accused for the purchase of a sachet of shabu. As soon as there was an exchange of shabu and money, the poseur buyer, as rehearsed, signaled the PNP, who immediately made the arrest. The sachet was sent to the PNP laboratory which confirmed that it contained the substance called shabu. An information for drug pushing was filed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defenses of denial and frame-up. The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused. The accused interposed this appeal.

The Facts

This is an appeal^[1] under Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the June 6, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 36, in Criminal Case No. 11498-03-C, filed by accused-appellant Francisco Pascual Bautista (BAUTISTA) that found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On October 5, 2003, mother of “Fred”, a minor who was disclosed by the mother as an addict, went to the police station of Los Baños, Laguna, and informed Police Inspector Nestor Balba Dela Curz (P/I DELA CRUZ) about the rampant drug selling activities of the accused-appellant BAUTISTA in Barangay Bayog, Los Baños, Laguna.

On the strength of this information, P/I DELA CRUZ ordered PO1 Hose Platon and PO1 TOBIAS (PO1 TOBIAS) to handle the matter. Consequently, a buy-bust operation was set up.

The buy-bust team was composed of PO1 TOBIAS as leader, to be assisted by Barangay Tanods Alfredo Mundin (MUNDIN) and Nonilon Celestra (CELESTRA) as his companions. The mother of the minor volunteered her son to act as a posuer buyer. PO1 TOBIAS prepared the buy-bust money handed to him by P/I DELA CRUZ by marking the two (2) one hundred (Php 100) peso bills^[2] with serial numbers DU 806809 and GR 19151. Thereafter, PO1 TOBIAS instructed the posuer-buyer to buy shabu from the appellant using the buy-bust money. The team, together with the poseur buyer, went to the place appointed by the latter.

Upon arrival at the target area, the members of the raiding team positioned themselves strategically around six (6) to seven (7) meters away from the house of the accused-appellant BAUTISTA, where they could see the progress of the transaction.

Meanwhile, the designated poseur-buyer proceeded to the house of the accused-appellant BAUTISTA, and situated himself at a spot that was illuminated by an electric post lighting. Thereat, the poseur buyer called the accused-appellant BAUTISTA by name. The accused-appellant BAUTISTA went out of his house and conversed for a while with the poseur buyer. The poseur buyer then gave the Php 200.00 buy-bust money and the accused-appellant BAUTISTA handed to the designated poseur buyer a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After the exchange of the shabu for the money, the designated poseur buyer raised his hand, which was the pre-arranged signal that the exchange had been made. Immediately, the members of the raiding team rushed to arrest accused-appellant BAUTISTA who quickly ran inside his house when he saw people running towards him and the buy-bust team pursued him into the house where accused-appellant BAUTISTA was arrested.

During the arrest, the accused-appellant BAUTISTA was apprised of his constitutional rights. The marked money was retrieved from the accused-appellant BAUTISTA while the poseur buyer handed to PO1 TOBIAS the plastic sachet of suspected shabu he had bought from the accused-appellant BAUTISTA. Likewise, the marked-money and the confiscated sachet of suspected shabu were brought to the police station and turned over to the duty investigator in the person of PO3 Gallaco. PO3 Gallaco marked the confiscated substance with “FPB” in the presence of PO1 TOBIAS. Thereafter, the marked specimen together with the request for laboratory examination were brought to the police crime laboratory of Calamba City and subjected to examination. Police Inspector Jupri C. Delantar, a Forensic Chemist who conducted the laboratory examination, reduced his findings into writing under Chemistry Report No. D-2407-03^[3]. The report showed that the substance was positive for methampethamine hydrocloride or “shabu”.

Consequently, on October 8, 2003, an Information^[4] for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was filed against the accused-appellant BAUTISTA, that reads as follows:

That at round 8:45 o’clock in the evening of October 5, 2003 at Brgy. Bayog, Municipality of Los Baños, Province of Laguna and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused and without any authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer one (1) plastic sachet containing methampethamine hydrocloride otherwise known as “shabu”, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.03 grams, in violation to the aforementioned provision of law.

Contrary to law.

On June 7, 2004, the accused-appellant BAUTISTA was arraigned^[5], and he pleaded “not guilty” to the crime charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

Assailed Decision of the RTC

On June 6, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 36, rendered a Decision^[6] in Criminal Case No. 11498-03-C, finding the accused-appellant BAUTISTA guilty of having violated section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, Court finds Accused Francisco L. Bautista GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling “shabu” under violation of section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

The Branch Clerk of Court shall, in accordance with law, forward the seized “shabu” in this case to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction.

SO ORDERED.

The accused-appellant BAUTISTA filed his Notice of Appeal^[7] on June 10, 2005.

Assignment of Errors
In assailing the Decision of the RTC, the accused-appellant BAUTISTA assigned the following errors:

1. THE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE MANNER BY WHICH THE POLICE OFFICER OF LOS BANOS, LAGUNA CONDUCTED THE BUY BUST OPERATION AND IN GIVING WIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER JOSE PO1 TOBIAS CONTRARY TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION;
2. THE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND TO BE APPRISED OF THE SAME AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST AND BY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE.

The Ruling of this Court

Only the penalty ought to be modified.

If carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation has been considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers and thus, 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^[8].

The essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of shabu are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction^[9]. The prosecution was able to establish the above-stated elements beyond moral certainty.

As found by the trial court:

The testimony of SPO1 Jose PO1 TOBIAS established that on October 5, 2003 at Brgy. Bayog. Los Baños Laguna. “Fred”, a young addict, bought “shabu” (Exhibit B) from the accused with the use of a marked money (Exhibits A & A-1) and he brought the and gave the seized specimen to the duty investigator, PO3 Gillaco, who, in his presence, placed the marking “FPB” on the seized plastic sachet (Exhibit B) of shabh; and he brought the request for laboratory examination (Éxhibit C) and the plastic sachet of white crystalline substance (Exhibit B) with marking of “FPB” to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemistry examination. In fact, at his presentation as witness on April 4, 2005, SPO1 Jose PO1 TOBIAS identified the seized specimen (Exhibit B) as the contraband sold by the accused to “Fred”, which he brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory on October 6 for chemical examination.

Furthermore, as stipulated and admitted, the seized specimen (Exhibit B) with marking “FPB” was examined by Police Officers Jupri C. Delantar of PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba City, who found it positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as “shabu”, with approximate weight of 0.03 gram, per Chemistry Report No. D-2407-03 (Exhibit D) dated 6 October 2003.

In this case, accused-appellant BAUTISTA maintained that at the time of the buy-bust operation, he was inside his house together with his wife eating dinner when three (3) or four (4) men suddenly barged into their house looking for “shabu”. When they found none, they nevertheless arrested him and brought him to the PNP station where he was told that he was being prosecuted for “pushing shabu” and the evidence obtained against him was just planted.

Accused’s denial and claim of a frame-up cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Like alibi, frame-up is a defense that can easily be concocted, which is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act and there will be disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemen’s alleged rotten reputation, will accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exist, so that, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, in the absence of proof of any odious intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute a serious crime, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.^[10]

It is settled that in passing upon the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not interfere with the judgment of trial courts. That is, unless there appears on the records some facts or circumstances of weight and influence, which the trial court has overlooked or the significance of which it has misapprehended or misinterpreted. This attitude of appellate courts arises from the fact that the lower courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial^[11].

Moreover, it is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary^[12]. And 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 accused-appellant BAUTISTA, We will not allow their testimony to be overcome by the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up^[13].

Nonetheless, We find that the trial court should have imposed the penalty of life imprisonment instead of what the trial court imposed as reclusion perpetua, because the law itself expressly proscribes that violations of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 is punishable by life imprisonment and not by reclusion perpetua. Life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua are not interchangeable. Life imprisonment is invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws while reclusion perpetua is prescribed under the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, life imprisonment does not carry with it the accessory penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code and does not appear to have any definite extent or duration unlike reclusion perpetua^[14]. Hence, a necessary modification in the penalty imposed must be correspondingly made.

The Fallo

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the June 6, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, of Calamba City, rendered in Criminal Case No. 11498-03-C, is hereby MODIFIED in that the penalty imposed should be life imprisonment instead of reclusion perpetua.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, ( Chairman) and De Guia-Salvador, JJ., concur.

^[2] Records, Page 3

^[3] Records, Page 4

^[4] Records, Page 12

^[5] Records, Page 29

^[6] Rollo. Page 32

^[7] Records, Page 79

^[8] People vs. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 135378, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 312

^[9] People vs. Razul, G.R. No. 146470, November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 553

^[10] People vs. Bongalon, G.R. No. 125025, January 23, 2002, 374 CRA 289

^[11] People vs. Razul, G.R. No. 146470, November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 553

^[12] People vs. Bongalon, G.R. No. 125025, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 289

^[13] People vs. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 135378, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 312

^[14] People vs. Alvarado, G. R. No. 104399, March 20, 1995, 242 SCRA 464