PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALICIA DE LA CRUZ CONSTANTINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused Alicia de la Cruz Constantino appeals from the decision^[1]
of Branch 131 of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City in Criminal Case No.
40241, promulgated on 9 February 1993, finding her guilty of selling
methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,” a regulated drug, in
violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972), as amended, and sentencing her to “suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to
pay a fine of
TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS.”

It appears that on 3 June 1992 at 11:30 a.m., the accused was
apprehended at the vicinity of her house in Sta. Catalina Street, 1st Avenue,
Kalookan City, during a buy-bust operation conducted by Northern Police District operatives from the Dagat-dagatan
Police Station. The following day,
Assistant City Prosecutor Mary June P. Inciong filed the information in
accordance with Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The accusatory portion of the information
reads as follows:

“That on or about the 3rd day of June 1992 in Kalookan City,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO3 Manuel Panlaque,
who posed as buyer, METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a regulated drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription therefore [sic], knowing the same to be
such.”^[2]

The accused filed a motion for reinvestigation, dated 10 June
1992, which the trial court granted.^[3] Since
she did not submit any counter-affidavit or controverting evidence at the
reinvestigation, 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr.
recommended that the records of the case be remanded to the trial court for
trial on the merits. City Prosecutor
Gabriel dela Cruz approved the recommendation.

On 19 October 1992, the accused pleaded not guilty upon
arraignment.^[4]

At the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented Police
Officer Manuel Panlaque and PNP Forensic Chemist Sr. Inspector Tita Advincula
as its witnesses. The accused testified
in her own behalf.

The evidence for the prosecution, as summarized by the trial
court^[5]
and adopted in toto by the appellee,^[6]
is as follows:

“The evidence for the prosecution consists of the
following: The marked money used in the
buy-bust operation with Serial No. BV961007 as Exhs. ‘A,’ ‘A-1’ and ‘A-2’;
joint affidavit executed by PO3 Valentin F. Orosco and PO3 Manuel Panlaque as
Exhs. ‘B,’ ‘B-1,’ ‘B-­2’ and ‘B-3’; Certificate of Laboratory Result dated June
3, 1992 as Exhs. ‘C,’ ‘C-1,’ C-2’ and ‘C-3’; letter referral/request signed by
Sr. Insp. Venancio C. Bantog, PNP as Exhs. ‘D’ and ‘D-1’; Chemistry Report No.
D-243-92 as Exhs. ‘E,’ ‘E-1,’ ’E-2’ and ‘E-3’; the stuff subject matter of this
case commonly known as shabu as Exhs. ‘F’; the aluminum foil as ‘F-1’; a piece
of white paper as Exh. ‘F-2’; the plastic tea bag as ‘F-3’ and half-cut
envelope as ‘F-4.’

The version of the prosecution is as follows:

That Police Officers Manuel Panlaque and Valentin Orosco are bona
fide members of the Police Force, assigned at the Northern Police District,
Intelligence Unit, Dagat-dagatan, Kalookan City, with tour of duty from 8:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. On June 3, 1992, at
around 11:30 a.m. and while on duty, PO3 Panlaque received a telephone call
from an informer, who was likewise his friend, informing him that there was a
lady drug pusher named Alicia at the vicinity of 1st Street, 1st Avenue,
Kalookan City. That the ‘drug pusher’
was described by the informer to be petite looking. PO3 Panlaque relayed the information to PO3 Orosco and the two of
them relayed the message to their officer-in-charge Capt. Venancio Bantog. Reacting to that information, Capt. Bantog
immediately dispatched PO3 Panlaque and PO3 Orosco to conduct a buy-bust
operation at the aforecited place in Kalookan City. Capt. Bantog gave PO3 Panlaque one-hundred-peso bill (P100.00)
with Serial No. BV961007 (Exh. ‘A’) to be used in their operation.

Arriving at the site of the operation, PO3 Panlaque and PO3 Orosco
were met by the informer. Thereafter,
PO3 Panlaque, acting as the poseur buyer, together with the informer proceeded
to the house of Alicia. The two knocked
at the door and a lady, who fits the descriptions earlier furnished to PO3
Panlaque by the former, opened the door. When the lady went out, the informer told
her that PO3 Panlaque was interested to buy shabu. Afterwhich, Alicia went inside her house and as soon as she came
back, she handed to PO3 Panlaque the stuff now subject matter of this case
(Exh. ‘F’) and, in return, PO3 Panlaque gave the one-hundred-peso marked Bill
(Exh. ‘A’) to Alicia.

After the sale of the prohibited stuff took place, PO3 Panlaque
raised his left hand and in accordance with the pre-arranged operational plan,
PO3 Orosco appeared and the two of them effected the arrest of Alicia dela
Cruz, the herein accused.

The stuff handed by accused Alicia [to] PO3 Panlaque when examined,
yielded positive result for the test of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thus a case for selling prohibited
[regulated] drug was lodged against the herein accused, hence, this case.

On cross-examination, PO3 Panlaque testified that the accused made
use of her right hand in handling [sic] to him the shabu as well as in
receiving from him the marked money. That the informer is a male and is a resident of 2nd Street, Kalookan
City. That as soon as it was intimated
to Alicia by the informer that PO3 Panlaque was interested to buy shabu, the
accused merely asked him ‘how much?’ and in reply, he said ‘piso’ (the
equivalent of P100.00 in street parlance) and then accused told them ‘for
awhile.’

Another prosecution witness, Captain Tita Advincula, Forensic
Chemist of the PNPCL, took the witness stand and testified that she was the one
who conducted the laboratory examinations on the specimen subject matter of
this case (Exh. ‘[F’). That as per her
findings, which is reflected in the Certificate of Laboratory Result (Exh. ‘C’)
and Chemistry Report No. D-243-92 dated June 3, 1992 (Exh. ‘D’), the stuff is
positive for the tests of shabu.”

On the other hand, the accused presented a different version of
the facts. She denied that a buy-bust
operation was ever conducted and claimed that no informer accompanied the
policemen when they arrived at her house. According to her, she was hanging clothes out to dry when she was
approached by PO3 Panlaque and PO3 Orozco who were looking for a certain
Nato. They demanded from her
information regarding Nato’s whereabouts. She denied knowing Nato or his whereabouts. For not giving the information the two were asking for, she was
frisked, dragged, and brought to the Dagat-dagatan Police Station. Her efforts to stop them from bringing her
to the police station as no one would attend to her children proved
futile. At the precinct, Orozco and
Panlaque showed her a P100-peso bill and an aluminum foil containing shabu
which they said would be used as evidence against her. The two threatened to detain her
indefinitely if she did not reveal Nato’s whereabouts. From the police station she was then brought
before a woman whom the policemen addressed as “Ninang.”^[7]

The trial court gave full credit to the prosecution’s
evidence. It ruled that the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the arresting
officers was not overcome by the accused, and that she was unable to
substantiate by clear and convincing evidence her allegation that she was
framed.

In her brief, the accused maintains that the trial court erred
“in finding [her] guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 15,
Art. III, R.A. 6425, as amended, or drug-pushing” and argues that the
testimony of the prosecution’s lone eyewitness, Panlaque, lacks
credibility. She contends that Panlaque
never knew her physical appearance nor was he familiar with her address and
that he could not have conducted the buy-bust operation that same morning when
he was tipped off by his informer without first undertaking a surveillance. She finds unbelievable the fact that there
was no mission order for the buy-bust operation and that the police officers
began the operation merely upon the suggestion of their alleged informer and
without the written order of their superior officer. She suggests that the informer should have been presented as a
prosecution witness considering that not only did he act as an intermediary of
Constantino and Panlaque but also posed as the buyer.

To further discredit Panlaque’s testimony, the accused points out
inconsistencies in his testimony regarding details in the alleged sales
transaction, like whether or not she was still holding the money when she
delivered the shabu to Panlaque. She
also brands as incredible Panlaque’s statement that a “piso” worth of shabu in street
parlance means one hundred pesos. Insisting that she was a victim of a frame-up, she claims that there was
no other shabu allegedly recovered from her except that which was purportedly
sold to Panlaque. If she were indeed a
pusher, nothing could have stopped the police from conducting a search of her
house where the drugs were allegedly kept.

In its brief, the appellee prays for the affirmance of the lower
court’s decision as the guilt of the accused “has been established to a
moral and legal certainty.”^[8]

The issue in this case is factual and primarily concerns the
credibility of the witnesses. Settled
is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate
courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering
that the latter is in a better position to decide the question having heard the
witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial, unless the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts
or circumstances of substance and value, which if considered might affect the
result of the case.^[9]

After a painstaking review of the records and the evidence
adduced, we are convinced that the factual findings of the trial court are
firmly supported by the evidence and that no cogent reason exists for
disturbing such findings.

We find that an actual buy-bust operation was conducted wherein
the accused was caught redhanded selling “shabu.” It is conceded that
no prior surveillance was conducted before the buy-bust operation. However, the accused was identified and
described by the informer. Panlaque
immediately sought permission to conduct a buy-bust operation in the said
vicinity.^[10]
He was forthwith provided with the marked money to be used in the operation;^[11]
the marked money, a P100-peso bill bearing serial no. BV961007, was initialed
at the back by Panlaque.^[12]
Panlaque then met the informer who accompanied him to the house of the accused,^[13]
and in front of the latter’s house, the sale was negotiated with the informer
acting as the broker between Panlaque and the accused.^[14]
After the sale was consummated with the delivery of the shabu by the accused to
Panlaque and the latter’s payment with the marked money, and after the
pre-arranged signal was given by Panlaque, PO3 Orozco emerged and together with
Panlaque arrested the accused.^[15] The
shabu was subjected to laboratory tests and was confirmed to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug.^[16]

The inconsistencies in Panlaque’s testimony as pointed out by the
accused are minor and do not affect Panlaque’s credibility; they are but
natural and even enhance his credibility as they indicate that his responses
were honest and unrehearsed.^[17] The
presentation of the informer was not necessary. His testimony would merely be corroborative and may thus be
dispensed with.

The accused’s claim that she was framed deserves scant
consideration. Such a defense requires stronger
proof in the face of the presumption that public officers acted in the regular
performance of their official duties.^[18]
Also, the defense of frame-up must be proved by clear and convincing evidence
because it is of the same category as alibi.^[19] More
importantly, there is no showing that the policemen were actuated by any
improper motive when they undertook the buy-bust operation and arrested the
accused for selling shabu. She did not
assert that she had any misunderstanding with the members of the buy-bust
team. Where there is no evidence and
nothing to indicate that the principal witnesses for the prosecution were
impelled by any improper motive, the presumption is that they were not and
their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credit.^[20]
In this case, we are convinced that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

However, the penalty imposed upon the accused must be modified in
view of the new amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7659^[21]
to Section 15, Article III, and Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No 6425, as
amended. R.A. No. 7659 was approved on
13 December 1993 and took effect on 31 December 1993. As thus further amended, the penalty prescribed in Section 15 was
changed from “life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty
thousand pesos” to “reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.” However, pursuant to
Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, which amends Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, the new
penalty shall be applied if the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved falls
within the first paragraph of the amended Section 20, and if the quantity is
lower than those specified in said first paragraph, the penalty shall be from “prision correccional to
reclusion perpetua.” The pertinent portion of the
amended Section 20 reads as follows:

“SEC. 20. Application
of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instrument of the
Crime. — The penalties
for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14,
14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous
drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:

x x x

3. 200 grams or more of
shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;

x x x

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the
quantity.”

The penalty then in Section 15 is now based
on the quantity of the regulated drugs involved, except where the victim is a minor or where the
regulated drug involved in any offense under Section 15 is the proximate cause
of the death of the victim, in which case the maximum penalty prescribed in Section
15 shall be imposed regardless of the quantity of the regulated drugs involved.^[22]

In People vs.
Martin Simon y Sunga,^[23] decided on
29 July 1994, this Court ruled as follows:

(1)    Provisions of R.A. No. 7659 which are
favorable to the accused shall be given retroactive effect pursuant to Article
22 of the Revised Penal Code.

(2)    Where the quantity of the dangerous drug
involved is less than the quantities stated in the first paragraph of Section
20 of R.A. No. 6425, the penalty to be imposed shall range from prision correccional to reclusion temporal, and
not reclusion perpetua. The
reason is that there is an overlapping error, probably through oversight in the
drafting, in the provisions on the penalty of reclusion perpetua as shown
by its dual imposition, i.e., as
the minimum of the penalty where the quantity of the dangerous drugs
involved is more than those specified in the first paragraph of the amended
Section 20 and also as the maximum of the penalty where the quantity of the
dangerous drugs involved is less than those so specified in the first
paragraph.

3)     Considering that the aforesaid penalty of prision correccional to reclusion temporal shall
depend upon the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved, each of the component
penalties thereof — prision
correccional, prision mayor, and
reclusion temporal — shall be considered as a
principal imposable penalty depending on the quantity, such that the quantity
of the drugs enumerated in the second paragraph should then be divided into
three, with the resulting quotient, and double or treble the same, as the bases
for determining the appropriate component penalty.

4)     The modifying circumstances in the Revised
Penal Code may be appreciated to determine the proper period of the
corresponding imposable penalty or even to effect its reduction by one or more
degrees; provided, however, that in no case should such graduation of penalties
reduce the imposable penalty lower than prision
correccional.

5)     In appropriate instances, the Indeterminate
Sentence Law shall be applied and considering that R.A. No. 7659 has
unqualifiedly adopted the penalties under the Revised Penal Code with their
technical signification and effects, then the crimes under the Dangerous Drugs
Act shall now be considered as crimes punished by the Revised Penal Code;
hence, pursuant to Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
indeterminate penalty which may be imposed shall be one whose maximum shall be
within the range of the imposable penalty and whose minimum shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree to the imposable penalty.

With the foregoing as our touchstones, and it appearing from the
Certification of Laboratory Result^[24]
signed by Sr. Inspector Tita B. Advincula, the Forensic Chemist, that the
quantity of the shabu sold by the accused in this case is only 0.01 gram, the imposable penalty under the second
paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as further amended by Section 17 of
R.A. No. 7659, should be prision
correccional.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused may then be
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as
maximum.

WHEREFORE, the challenged
decision of Branch 131 of the Regional Trial Court of
Kalookan City in Criminal Case No. 40241 is
hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification
of the penalty. Accused-Appellant ALICIA DE LA CRUZ
CONSTANTINO is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from
Six (6) months of
arresto mayor as minimum to Six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum.

Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), on
official leave.

^[1]
Original Records (OR), 129-132; Rollo, 9-12. Per Judge Antonio J. Fineza.

^[2]
OR, 1.

^[3]
Id., 3-4.

^[4]
Id., 7.

^[5]
OR, 129-131; Rollo, 9-11.

^[6]
Rollo, 71-73.

^[7]
OR, 131; Rollo, 11.

^[8]
Rollo, 79.

^[9]
People vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393 [1992]; People vs. Garcia, 209
SCRA 164 [1992]; People vs. Florida, 214 SCRA 227 [1992].

^[10]
TSN, 17 November 1992, 4-5.

^[11]
Id., 5-6.

^[12]
OR, 20; Exhibit “A.”

^[13]
TSN, 17 November 1992, op. cit., 6-7.

^[14]
Id., 7-8.

^[15]
Id., 9.

^[16]
OR, 24; Exhibit “E.”

^[17]
People vs. Barba, 203 SCRA 436
[1991]; People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707 [1991]; People vs. Martinado, 214 SCRA 712 [1992].

^[18]
People vs. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762
[1989]; People vs. Como, 202 SCRA
200 [1991]; People vs. Francisco, 213 SCRA 746 [1992].

^[19]
People vs. Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1 [1992].

^[20]
People vs. Simon, 209 SCra 148 [1992].

^[21]
“An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Laws, and
for Other Purposes.”

^[22]
Section 15, second paragraph, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. See also Section 4, second paragraph;
Section 5, second and third paragraphs;
and Section 15-a, second and third paragraphs.

^[23]
G.R. No. 93028.

^[24]
Exhibit “C,” OR, 22.