PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO LOPEZ Y HALILI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Edgardo Lopez y Halili was charged before Branch 148 of the
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region stationed in
Makati, with violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, in an
information which reads:

“That on or about the 5th day of October 1989, in the
Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfuly and feloniously deliver and sell Methamphetamine
Hydrocloride (SHABU) wrapped in an aluminum foil, which is a regulated drug, in consideration of P100.00.

Contrary to law.” (p. 6, Rollo)

After due trial, the Honorable Oscar B. Pimentel adjudged Edgardo
Lopez y Halili, guilty of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, and finding accused EDGARDO
LOPEZ Y HALILI of 2017 Volta Street, Barangay San Isidro, Makati, Metro Manila, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the offense of violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as
amended, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and
a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00).

“With costs against the accused.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 31, Rollo)

Accused-appellant Lopez is
now before this Court seeking a reversal of the aforementioned decision. In his Brief, he alleges that the trial
court gravely erred –

“1. … in believing the prosecution’s version
that there was a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers on October
5, 1989;

“2. … in not giving full faith and credence to
the evidence adduced by the defense; and

“3. … in not acquitting
accused?appellant on the ground that his guilt was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt. (p. 1, Brief
for the accused-appellant; p. 50, Rollo)

As gathered from the
evidence presented by the prosecution, at about 11:30 o’clock on the
morning of October 5, 1989, Pat. Rogelio Tuazon, PFC Nestor de Dios, P/W
Elizabeth Mendoza and Pat. Ramir Reciproco, all of the Dangerous Drugs Section
of the Makati Police, were at Volta St., Barangay San Isidro, Makati, Metro
Manila to conduct a “buy-bust” operation against appellant, upon
instructions of their officer-in-charge, Captain Leonardo Labares, who had earlier
received information that appellant was a drug pusher in the area. Pat. Tuazon, who was disguised as
“jeprox” (hippie), waited in front of the compound at No. 2017 of
said street, where appellant’s house is located, to pretend to buy
“shabu” using a marked P100.00
bill supplied by Captain Labares, while his companions
discreetly deployed themselves within the vicinity as back-up support, ready to
respond upon a pre-arranged signal. While standing near the gate, appellant approached Pat. Tuazon if he
would like to “score” (a street or drug lingo, meaning to buy) and he
told appellant that he will, for only one deck. This one deck is supposed to be a small portion of a gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride which is a regulated drug locally known as
“shabu”. Appellant gave Pat.
Tuazon a small packet containing shabu
(Exh. ‘B’) and, in turn, the latter handed to appellant the marked P100.00
bill. (Exh. ‘H’). Pat. Tuazon gave the pre-arranged signal to
his companions by lighting his cigarette. When the back-up agents were closing in, appellant suddenly ran
towards his house where he was chased and caught by the peace officers. Inside the house, the agents found on the
floor paraphernalia for the use of prohibited drugs. Appellant was placed under arrest and after the marked money bill
was recovered from his pants’ pocket, he was brought to the police station for
further investigation. The suspected
prohibited drug was turned over to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. Forensic Chemist Edwin Purificando issued a
certification (Exh. ‘E’) and a final report (Exh. ‘F’) stating that the drugs
thus examined gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or
“shabu”.

For his part, appellant
claimed that he was a victim of frame-up and the accusation against him
was fabricated. He testified that on
the evening of October 5, 1989,
he was at home with his family and relatives. They allegedly slept early, but at around 11 p.m., he was awakened by
his wife telling him that somebody was inside their house. Seeing the policemen inside the house, he
inquired from them if they have a search warrant, but the policemen merely told
him that he was a drug pusher, after which he was brought near the kitchen. He was frisked and told to strip. Finding nothing in him except a badge and
love letters in his wallet, they invited him for questioning. Appellant denied he was a pusher. He, however, admitted his wife is a drug
user.

Appellant further claimed that Captain Labares has an axe to
grind against him because he tipped off
to the authorities a certain Gregorio Noval, a known pusher, who, upon being
picked up by the Pasay City Police, turned out to be a “bata” or henchman of Capt. Labares.

In other words, appellant denied having sold the prohibited drug
in question or having received the marked P100.00 bill. He insisted there was no “buy?bust”
operation conducted and that he was not apprehended by the policemen during this “buy-bust” operation.

The trial court rejected appellant’s version and found that there
was actually a buy-bust operation conducted by Pat. Rogel Tuazon, Policewoman
Elizabeth Mendoza, Pfc. Nestor
de Dios and Pat. Ramir Reciproco at the vicinity of the residence of the
accused at 2017 Volta St., Makati,
Metro Manila and that during this “buy-bust” operation which was
successful, the accused was apprehended. (pp. 26-28, Rollo).

We affirm the findings of the trial court.

The testimony of Pat. Tuazon, the poseur-buyer, was clear and
convincing and demonstrated that appellant needed no instigation or prodding to
commit a crime he would not
otherwise have committed. Noteworthy is the fact that appellant,
as gathered from the records, had a ready supply of “shabu” for a fast
sale and disposition to anyone willing
to pay the price.

The defense that the accused was “framed” by the
apprehending officer cannot be given any credence. In cases involving persons accused of being drug pushers or
sellers, almost always the defense is that the accused was framed up by the
apprehending police officers. We realize
the 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 rotten reputation of some policemen,
accept on every instance this form of defense which can be so easily concocted
and fabricated. It is precisely for
this reason that the legal presumption, that official duty has been regularly
performed, exists. (People v.
Agapito, 154 SCRA 694; People v. Marcos, 185 SCRA
154).

We accept the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
the police officers who testified for the prosecution. Thus, We give credence to their narration of
the incident because they are law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly
performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. But the more important consideration is the
fact that the accused was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses. This should prevail over his self-serving
and uncorroborated denial of having committed the crime for which he was
charged. The failure of the prosecution to present all the members of the
“buy-bust” team will not affect the prosecution’s case,
their testimony would have been merely corroborative and cumulative. The testimony of a single witness, if
credible and positive and if it satisfies the court as to the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to convict. Here, the testimony of Pat. Rogelio Tuazon satisfies these standards and induces moral certainty of the
guilt of appellant.

Appellant claims that Pat. Labares had an axe to grind against
him because he, appellant, tipped off the authorities to a certain Gregorio Noval,
a known drug pusher. It turned out,
however, that Noval was the henchman of Captain Labares. This reason is too superficial and
self-serving to be accorded any consideration for except for the say so of
appellant, nothing was presented to prove the charge.

The argument that appellant would not have sold “shabu”
to a total stranger is at best conjectural and in any case not convincing. Drug pushers have become increasingly casual
about their activities and less cautious about isolated transactions like the
one at bar. (People v. Bernardino, 193 SCRA 448).

Appellant also underscores the fact that the civilian informer
was not made to take the witness stand and he maintains that the
non-presentation rendered a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. This is not correct. The testimony of the informer is not indispensable
in view of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who were members of the
“buy-bust” team, particularly the poseur-buyer.

At any rate, the matter of presenting witnesses for the People is
the prerogative of the prosecution. (People
v. Andiza, 164 SCRA 643; People v. Solomon,
166 SCRA 767). Apparently, the
prosecution found it unnecessary to present the informer because, in its
appreciation, there was already sufficient evidence to establish its case.

Thus, on the whole, the testimonial and physical evidence for the
prosecution is overwhelmingly against the pretended innocence of the accused.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Davide, Jr., and
Romero, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., (Chairman), on
leave.