THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIX BUENDIA Y JALIG AND FERDINAND BUENDIA Y JALIG, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City, Br. 103,* in
Criminal Case No. Q-89-8308 imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua
on the accused-appellants for violation of Sec. 15 (Sale, Administration,
Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation & Distribution of Regulated Drugs),
Art. III of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended.

The prosecution’s version of the case is as follows:

A civilian informant reported the selling of shabu, a regulated
drug (Metamphetamine hydrochloride) by one alias Ferdie and his runner alias
Sito somewhere at Mapagkawang­gawa St., Bgy. Teacher’s Village, Quezon
City. Acting on the information,
members of the Quezon City Police Station, Northern Police District/
Metropolitan Police Force (NPD/MPF) planned a buy-bust operation. On or about 4:45 p.m. of 13 November 1989,
Pat. ELpidio Bondad acting as poseur-buyer made contact with a male person
in front of a vacant lot.^[1] After
a brief talk where they came into an agreement for the purchase of shabu,
Bondad handed over the prepared P400.00 marked money to the man named Ferdie;
the latter went inside house no. 41 Mapagkawanggawa St., Teacher’s Village,
Quezon City. He came back with a male
companion (later identified as Sito) who handed over to Bondad a small
transparent bag with cystalline white powder. Bondad examined the contents of the bag and was able to verify that it
was shabu.^[2]
He gave a pre-arranged signal to his companions who approached the two (2)
suspects and effected their arrest.

Pat. Noemi Pangan frisked the two (2) suspects. Found in Sito’s pants (right front pocket)
was the marked money of P400.00 in P100 bills. The two (2) suspects were then brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit (ANU)
of the Quezon City Police Station in Kamuning, Quezon City. Ferdie was formally identified as herein
appellant Ferdinand Buendia, 34 years old, married, jobless and Sito as herein
appellant Felix Buendia, 31 years old, single, also jobless, both of #41
Mapagkawanggawa St., Teacher’s Village, Quezon City. The article delivered by the appellants to Pat. Bondad was
submitted for examination to forensic chemist Carlos Figueroa who certified
that the same was positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.^[3]
An information for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed. Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not
guilty; thereafter trial ensued.

Accused-appellants’ version of the case is as follows:

At around 4:30 p.m. on 13 November 1989, Ferdinand Buendia, Tomas
Mariano and a certain Francisco Chua were conversing in the sala on the first
floor of a two-storey house located at 41 Mapagkawanggawa St. when a person
knocked at the door. Tomas Mariano,
also known as Pablito Canto a boarder in said house, opened the door. However, upon seeing armed persons outside,
he tried to close said door but failed to do so as several strangers were
blocking the entrance. The strangers
who introduced themselves as barangay councilmen barged in, aimed their guns at
the people inside the house and asked for Ferdinand Buendia. Ferdinand stood up and identified
himself. He was immediately handcuffed
and ordered to accompany the men upstairs to see his brother Felix.^[4]
Upon reaching the second floor, the four (4) men knocked at the door of the
room where Felix Buendia was. As soon
as Felix opened the door, two (2) of the men kicked it wide open; they got
inside, asked Felix to squat and handcuffed him with Ferdinand.

Two (2) of the four (4) strangers, later identified as Patrolmen
Pangan and Bondad ransacked the room, opened doors and cabinets, got two (2)
Ray Ban sunglasses and an attache case owned by Felix which when forcibly
opened by Bondad yielded an oversized wallet containing P21,000.00, a Far East
Bank & Trust Co. (FEBTC) and a Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) passbooks
which the policeman confiscated and never returned. Accused appellants were then made to stand up; the handcuff was
covered with a towel and they were escorted downstairs, then out of the house
and on to the next block where they were asked to board a waiting owner-type
jeepney at Malingap St.. They were
brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit at EDSA.

At the police station in EDSA, Cubao Station I, ANU office, in
the room of a certain Sgt. Dizon accused-appellants were detained for four (4)
hours, intimidated, threatened with “salvaging” should they complain,
and were told by Pat. Pangan to raise P80,000.00 for their release, which
amount was reduced to P50,000, and finally to P30,000.00. Ferdinand bargained with Pangan, Lopez and
Bondad to include the P21,000 found in the attache case as part of the P50,000
and the policemen agreed. However, when
told that the accused Ferdinand had to call on the phone outside to produce the
balance, he was not given permission. After three (3) days of detention, they were brought to an inquest
fiscal.

In his testimony, Felix Buendia^[5]
claimed that the first time he saw the pocket of alleged “shabu” and
the marked money was in court. Accused-appellants’ sister Gina Palana testified that she visited her
brothers at the Quezon City jail where they told her that they did not know why
they were arrested. She was however
warned not to ask the policemen about the P21,000 cash because of the
“salvaging” threat, so she did not ask questions.

Ferdinand claimed that the case is a frame-up instigated by his
father-in-law Dr. Aranez, who had previously charged him with qualified theft
which was however dismissed, but refiled four (4) months later as robbery. The robbery case was later archived because
Ferdinand could not be located. Actually,
Ferdinand claimed that he left the house of his father-in-law and wanted to
work in Cabanatuan City after the filing of the theft case. When the present case was being tried, Dr.
Aranez was often present during the hearings at the trial court;^[6]
at the same time he also filed a motion to reactivate the robbery case. Once in the detention cell, said
father-in-law allegedly told Ferdinand: “Ayan, mabubulok na kayo sa bilangguan, mahihirapan kayo dahil sa no bail iyang kaso
ninyo.”^[7]

The Regional Trial Court believed the prosecution’s version and
in a decision dated 6 November
1990 held:

“Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered finding Felix
Buendia Y Jalig and Ferdinand Buendia Y Jalig guilty beyond reasonable doubt as
principals for violation of Sec. 15, R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) for
dope-pushing of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug and they are
sentenced to suffer a jail term of reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) and
each to pay a fine of P20,000,00. No
cost.”

A notice of appeal was filed on 3 December 1990 with the Regional
Trial Court which, in an order dated 4 December 1990, officially forwarded the
records of the case to the Supreme Court.

Assailing the Regional Trial Court’s decision both on questions
of law and fact, accused-appellants point to five (5) errors allegedly
committed by the trial court, as follows:

“I

The lower court erred in convicting accused-appellants based on a
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of police officers,
which, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, should not have
prevailed over the time-honored principle of presumption of innocence of the
accused in a criminal case until proven guilty.

II

The lower court erred in not believing the testimony of accused-appellant
Ferdinand Buendia that his father-in-law had something to do with the
unwarranted filing of the instant case against him.

III

The lower court erred in failing to consider the testimonies of
defense witnesses in their entirety, which were convincing, as they were given
spontaneously and were replete with details jibing on material points, thus,
making them more credible.

IV

The lower court erred in relying on seeming inconsistencies and
weak points on defense evidence, disregarding its credibility in essence and
substance, in order to justify its finding that accused-appellants are guilty
of the offense charged.

V

The lower court erred in not acquitting accused-appellants for
failure of prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

The RTC decision is quite sketchy and appears to be hastily
prepared but we have thoroughly examined the records of the proceedings before
the court a quo and we find that its disposition of the case is
correct.

Appellants question the application of the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers who
were the prosecution’s witnesses, but they have failed to adduce proof of
irregularity in the performance of such duties.

In an attempt to rebut the presumption of regularity in the
performance by the police of official duties in conducting the buy-bust
operation, the following are pointed out by the appellants:

1.  The police have no
standard operating procedures for staging buy-bust operations; the mission
order in this particular operation was not even in writing.

2.  The money used in the
operation was so clumsily and distinctly marked with big ball point markings as
if for all the world to immediately see even without the use of flourescent powder. There was also no pre-recording of the
serial numbers of the buy-bust money in any police record; entry in the police
blotter was made only after the operation.

3.  While the prosecution
claims that the buy-bust operation took place on a vacant lot near the house of
the accused-appellants at no. 41 Mapagkawanggawa St., Teacher’s Village,
witnesses testified, however, that there was no buy-bust operation and that
what took place was a warrantless search, subsequent arrest and confiscation of
cash and personal belongings. Furthermore,
an affidavit of a homeowner certifies that there is no vacant lot in the
vicinity of the buy-bust operation.^[8]

4.  The arresting officers,
according to the appellants, tried to extort P80,000 in exchange for
appellants’ release from detention.

We find, however, that the accused-appellants’ version does not
overturn the prosecution’s case, for the following reasons:

1.  Accused-appellants failed
to prove that a buy-bust
operation requires a written mission order. The burden of proof was on the appellants to support their affirmative
assertion. This, they failed to
do. In People v. Macuto, G.R.
No. 80112, 25 August 1989^[9] the
Court held:

“The court does not find as credible the allegation that the
police officers framed-up the appellant through the buy bust operation by plant­ing
evidence for the purpose of extorting money and filing charges in Court. This defense requires stronger proof to
overcome the finding of the trial court that the prosecution witnesses were the
ones who made truthful statements (People v. Rualo, 152 SCRA 635 [1987]). Since no such proofs of ill-motives on the
part of the policemen to extort money and to impute a serious offense appear in
the records, the presumption that there was regular performance of public duty
by public officers was not overthrown.

x x x

The following
explanation made in People v. Agapito, 154 SCRA 694, 700 (1987)
justifies our conclusion:

In cases involving persons accused of being
drug pushers or sellers, almost always the defense is that the accused was
framed by the apprehending police officers. We realize the disastrous consequence 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, 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,
exists.”

Accused-appellants assert the primacy of the disputable
presumption (Sec. 3, Rule 131, Rules of Court) that a person is innocent of a
crime or wrong until proven otherwise over the other disputable presumption
that official duty has been regularly performed.

“x x x. In
order to sustain conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the element of sale
must be unequivocally established. Also, what the law proscribes is not only the act of selling but also,
albeit not limited to, the act of delivering. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana requires
merely the consummation of the selling transaction. What is important is that the poseur-buyer
received the marijuana from the accused. Sgt. Dionisio Magwale, who acted as poseur-buyer during the ‘test-buy’
operation, categorically asserted that he paid P25.00 to appellant in exchange
for five (5) sticks of marijuana cigarettes.”^[10]
(underscoring supplied)

In the present case, Pat. Bondad testified that the sale of the
shabu was consummated not only because there was a delivery of the article to
him (Bondad) by the accused-appellants, but that there was receipt by them (the
appel­lants) of the price for the sold article.

2.  Revenge, hatred, anger
and resentment of his father-in-law is accused-appellant Ferdinand Buendia’s
main defense. It must be noted that Ferdinand’s father-in-law initiated
the robbery case (not this case) against Ferdinand (Criminal Case No. 89-2732,
RTC, Quezon City, Br. 105) as early as November 1988, which case was later
archived because the accused (Ferdinand) was in hiding^[11]
and he had a standing warrant for his arrest.^[12] The
trial court did not give weight or credence to this defense. We find no cogent reason in the records to
disturb or set aside the trial court’s stand on this matter.

3.  The affidavits attached
to the appellants’ brief (Annexes “I” and “J”) disputing
the existence of a vacant lot near the scene of the buy-bust operation,
are: (a) hearsay, affiants not having
been presented as witnesses before the court a quo to affirm the
allegations contained therein; and (b) belatedly submitted, and therefore
raising a nagging question as to their credibility; no explanation is
even given why the affidavits were not submitted before the trial court.

4.  Regarding the loss of the
P21,000 cash and the FEBTC and RCBC bankbooks, assuming that the cash was
indeed stolen by the policemen, why did not the appellants report at least the
loss of the bankbooks to FEBTC or RCBC to show that there were indeed existing
bank accounts, and thus substantiate their allegation of robbery by the
policemen?

5.  Lastly, and quite
damaging to the appellants, is their witness, Tomas Mariano, also known as
Pablito Canto. We find his identity
dubious. He claims that he is known as
Pablito Canto because the first name is a nickname while the surname is that of
his wife, which he carries. This goes
against the rules of civil law and common practice in this jurisdiction. Generally, a woman carries the surname of
her husband; the husband does not carry the surname of his wife. And then why would a person have two (2) names
totally different, both without any semblance or similarity in sound or
graphics? His credibility as a
witness is questionable, to say the least.

Finding no error in the Regional Trial Court’s disposition of the
case, the same will be upheld.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the
sole modification that the imposable penalty is life imprisonment as provided
in R.A. 6425, not reclusion perpetua. Costs against the accused-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Paras, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

* Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr. –
presiding

^[1]
Joint Affidavit of Noemi Pangan, Chrycelindo Lopez and Domingo Placido – p. 97
RTC records and affidavit of Pat. Elpidio Bondad – ibid p. 90

^[2]
TSN, 30 March 1990, p. 11

^[3]
Appellees’ Brief, p. 3.

^[4]
See narration of facts, appellants’ brief, p. 15, and Tsn August 31, 1990, p. 9

^[5]
Tsn., Aug. 24, 1990, p. 64

^[6]
Brief, p. 19

^[7]
Tsn, August 31, 1990, p. 52

^[8]
Annexes I and J, Appellants’ Brief

^[9]
176 SCRA 762

^[10]
People v. Dekingco, G.R. No. 87685, 13 Sept. 1990, 189 SCRA 512

^[11]
Annex D-3, Appellant’s Brief

^[12]
P. 96, Records of the RTC