PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. IRENE SIMBULAN Y DOLOR AND ELVIRA SUGUI Y SUNGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Simbulan

The Case

This is a criminal prosecution for the illegal sale of a regulated drug. The People of the Philippines charged Irene Simbulan and Elvira Sugui as conspirators in the sale and delivery of a small quantity of methyl amphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The case matters to the reviewee for three reasons: it is a classic buy-bust prosecution built on the credibility of the poseur-buyer; it explains how conspiracy is proved by the coordinated acts of the sellers; and it draws a sharp, examinable line between life imprisonment, the penalty of a special law, and reclusion perpetua, the penalty of the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

The prosecution began with an information dated September 17, 1988, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 136. Both accused, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty at arraignment. After trial on the merits, the trial court, through Judge Manuel Cosico, rendered judgment finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing each to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of 30,000 pesos. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's failure to acquit them on reasonable doubt and its finding of conspiracy against Elvira Sugui.

Facts

On the morning of September 14, 1988, a male informant went to the Narcotics Regional Unit and reported that two women known as Nene and Elvie were selling shabu on Masangkay Street in Makati. Lieutenant Reuben Sindac found the information viable, submitted a pre-operation report, and, upon approval, formed a team and conducted a buy-bust operation. He gave Sergeant Rosalinda Directo five one-hundred-peso bills as buy-money and designated her as the poseur-buyer.

At the target area, the informant introduced Sergeant Directo to Nene as a buyer. Nene asked how much shabu she wanted; Directo replied half a gram, and Nene fixed the price at 500 pesos. Nene then emerged with another woman, introduced her as Elvie, and told Directo to give the money to Elvie. Directo handed over the 500 pesos, and almost simultaneously Nene gave her a transparent plastic bag containing what appeared to be shabu. Directo raised her right hand, the pre-arranged signal, and the back-up agents moved in and introduced themselves as narcotics agents. Directo then retrieved the five marked bills from the right front pocket of Elvie's shorts.

The two women were brought to Camp Crame, where the specimen was marked and sent to the forensic chemist, Captain Lina Sarmiento, who found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense told a different story: that a certain Angel had asked Simbulan to get him shabu and paid her 500 pesos, which she in turn gave to Sugui as payment for a wrist watch, and that the arresting officers took the money from Sugui's wallet and later demanded 10,000 pesos from each of them for their release.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not acquitting both accused on reasonable doubt, considering the alleged gaps in the prosecution's evidence.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding Elvira Sugui guilty as a co-conspirator of Irene Simbulan.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, provides the penalty for the sale of regulated drugs:

Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, provides for the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00.

This is the provision the Court applies in correcting the penalty imposed by the trial court, which had referred to reclusion perpetua instead of the life imprisonment fixed by the special law.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction. The assigned errors turn on credibility, and the rule is that the trial judge, who can weigh testimony in the light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct, and attitude at trial, is best placed to discriminate between the true and the false. Appellate courts will not disturb the credence accorded by the trial court unless it clearly overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded facts of significance, and the Court found nothing to warrant deviation. The apprehending officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, and no improper motive was shown.

The Court rejected the specific arguments of the defense. The non-presentation of the civilian informer was not fatal, because the poseur-buyer who dealt directly with the appellants testified, and the informer's testimony would at best be corroborative or cumulative; the defense could have compelled his presence by subpoena but did not. The failure to apply fluorescent powder to the marked money was of no significance, since what is material is proof that the drug transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court. The argument that no pusher would sell on his own doorstep to a stranger was struck down: drug pushing on a small scale may be committed at any time and any place, and pushers sell to strangers who have the price of the drug. The discrepancy in the weight of the shabu was too minor to affect credibility, since the poseur-buyer could not determine the actual weight and merely presumed it was half a gram. The claim of extortion was an imputation easily contrived and wholly unsubstantiated.

On the second issue, the Court found conspiracy. Simbulan handed the drug to the poseur-buyer while Sugui accepted the payment, and these acts show concerted action and unity of purpose toward a common criminal objective. Conspiracy may be inferred from the coordinated movements of the co-conspirators, and may be established by circumstantial evidence. Ownership and possession are not indispensable elements of the crime; the mere act of selling, or even acting as broker, consummates it. Sugui's claim that the money was payment for a wrist watch was unworthy of belief, since Simbulan herself admitted Sugui was in the house during the operation, and the defense version that the poseur-buyer left and later returned to arrest them was illogical, because in a buy-bust operation dealers are apprehended in flagrante delicto, in the very act.

The Court then corrected the penalty. The trial court had imposed life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua, but the two are not the same:

Reclusion perpetua, as understood in the Revised Penal Code, has its own legal connotation, effects and accessory penalties which are not applicable to life imprisonment provided for by the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 which is a special law.

Accordingly, the reference to reclusion perpetua was deleted.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that significant facts were overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded. Second, the non-presentation of an informer is not suppression of evidence when the poseur-buyer who dealt directly with the accused has testified, since the informer's testimony would be merely corroborative. Third, the absence of fluorescent powder or even of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence; what is material is proof of the transaction and the presentation of the corpus delicti. Fourth, conspiracy may be inferred from the coordinated movements of the co-conspirators, as when one hands over the drug while the other receives the payment. Fifth, ownership and possession are not indispensable elements of the crime of selling a regulated drug; the mere act of selling or acting as broker consummates it. Sixth, life imprisonment under the Dangerous Drugs Act is not reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code, and the two carry different legal connotations, effects, and accessory penalties.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction of both accused, deleting only the reference to reclusion perpetua so that the penalty stands as life imprisonment under the special law.

Remember This

Memorize the line that life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua are not the same, because the first belongs to a special law and the second to the Revised Penal Code. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy inferred from coordinated acts in a buy-bust operation, and to test the distinction between these two penalties.