PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JASON NUÑEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Nuñez

The Case

People versus Nuñez is a criminal appeal from a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused, Jasen Torres Nuñez, was charged with selling a small sachet of shabu to a police poseur buyer during a buy-bust operation in Cebu City. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one place the rules on the credibility of police witnesses, the treatment of minor inconsistencies in testimony, the elements of illegal sale, and the all-important distinction between entrapment and instigation — the line that decides whether an accused walks or is convicted.

Procedural History

Nuñez was charged by Information with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57 of Cebu City, rendered judgment on the eighth of November 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, with the packet of shabu forfeited in favor of the government. Nuñez appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning a lone error: that the trial court gravely erred in finding him guilty despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

On the morning of the twenty-ninth of May 2009, a confidential informant went to Police Station 2 in Fuente, Cebu City and reported that Nuñez had been selling illegal drugs in Sitio Pailub, Sambag II, Cebu City, and that the informant had bought shabu from him several times before. A police team led by PO2 Joel Cunan was organized, and after coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, a buy-bust operation was planned. PO2 Yvien Trangia was designated poseur buyer, working with the police asset, while PO2 Cunan and PO1 Eborlas served as back-up. The asset, who knew the accused, was given the two 100-peso bills as buy-bust money.

At around one o'clock in the afternoon, the team proceeded to the target place. Trangia and the asset walked ahead; the back-up officers followed and positioned themselves where they could see but not be seen. Upon seeing Nuñez, the asset told him they wanted to buy shabu and handed him the money. Nuñez walked three to four meters to another man, later identified as Ramil Satiembre, handed him the money, and received a pack of suspected shabu in exchange. Nuñez then delivered the pack to Trangia, who gave the pre-arranged signal by touching his head with his right hand. The back-up officers rushed in and arrested Nuñez, but Satiembre escaped.

Nuñez was informed of his constitutional rights and brought to the police station. PO2 Cunan marked the plastic pack with the initials JN, photographed it, conducted an inventory, recorded the arrest in the blotter, and submitted the item for laboratory examination. The forensic chemical officer, P/Supt. Mutchit Salinas, found the specimen positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. In his defense, Nuñez denied the charge, claiming he was eating at a nearby eatery when three men who turned out to be police officers arrested him while looking for a certain Ramil Satiembre, and that no buy-bust operation took place. The trial court convicted him, disregarding his bare denial against the positive testimony of the officers.

Issues

• Whether or not the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police witnesses are so material as to impair their credibility and cast doubt on whether the buy-bust operation took place.
• Whether or not the buy-bust operation was a valid entrapment rather than an instigation that would absolve the accused.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved all the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, under which the accused was charged and convicted, provides:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos to Ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

This is the provision the Court applies: the crime is consummated by the mere act of selling or delivering a dangerous drug, regardless of quantity, which is why the sale of a single 0.02-gram sachet sufficed for conviction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal lacks merit. The inconsistencies pointed to — whether the shabu was handed first to the police asset or directly to PO2 Trangia, and whether it was PO2 Cunan or PO1 Eborlas who called the PDEA office — pertained only to minor and trivial matters that do not diminish credibility. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that witnesses are telling the truth and have not been rehearsed, and witnesses are not expected to remember every detail with perfect recall. What matters is that the witnesses corroborated each other on the material facts constituting the sale.

On the second issue, the Court drew the definite distinction between instigation and entrapment. In instigation, the idea of committing the crime originates from the law enforcers, who lure an accused who had no intention of committing it; the accused must then be acquitted. In entrapment, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused, and the officers merely employ ruses and schemes to capture him; entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. The Court quoted the governing formulation:

Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.

The Court further held that a police officer's solicitation of drugs during a buy-bust operation, or decoy solicitation, is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the operation, because the sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a criminal's course of conduct. Here, the police acted on an intelligence report that Nuñez had been habitually dealing in drugs, and there was no showing that the informant induced him to sell.

On the third issue, the Court held that all the elements of illegal sale were amply proven: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummated the transaction. The Court also stressed that credence should be given to the narration of police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence of ill motive.

Doctrine

First, factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless it ignored or misconstrued cogent facts that would alter the outcome. Second, minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not impair their credibility so long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and corroborated on material points. Third, the elements of illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 are the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor; the crime is consummated the moment the exchange of money and drugs takes place. Fourth, entrapment is a valid means of arresting drug offenders and does not bar conviction, while instigation absolves the accused; decoy solicitation is not instigation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Jasen Torres Nuñez for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line: instigation is a trap for the unwary innocent, while entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal. Examiners use this case to test the entrapment-versus-instigation distinction and the rule that minor inconsistencies in police testimony do not destroy the prosecution of an illegal sale.