THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SY BING YOK A.K.A. ARTURO MARCELO SY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Sy Bing Yok versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Sy Bing Yok, also known as Arturo Marcelo Sy, a criminal appeal from a conviction for unlawfully selling, delivering, and transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, a regulated drug, in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The accused was caught in a buy-bust operation receiving a carton of shabu from a supplier's contact, and he appeals his conviction on grounds of credibility, identity, and reasonable doubt. The case matters for the Bar because it gathers in one decision the settled rules on a judge who did not hear the whole case, on minor inconsistencies in witness testimony, on the weakness of denial and frame-up, and on the nature of mala prohibita offenses under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Procedural History

An amended information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96, charging Armando Pulongbarit and Sy Bing Yok with violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425. Both accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. On September 5, 1994, the trial court rendered judgment finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Sy Bing Yok was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos, and the shabu seized was forfeited in favor of the government. Only Sy Bing Yok appealed; Pulongbarit applied for probation. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and later a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which the trial court denied for lack of merit. The case then reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal, where the appellant assigned errors against the trial court's findings.

Facts

Acting on information from one Marlon Germedia pointing to Armando Pulongbarit as his supplier, a team of Narcotics Command operatives led by Chief Inspector Jerry Valeroso conducted a buy-bust operation at Pulongbarit's residence in Quezon City in the early morning of May 15, 1993. SPO3 Agustin Timbol acted as poseur-buyer, accompanied by Germedia, who was known to Pulongbarit. Inside the house, Pulongbarit agreed to sell 100 grams of shabu for 70,000 pesos. After Timbol showed him a wad of show money, Pulongbarit went upstairs and handed over a transparent plastic bag of shabu. Timbol then identified himself as a police officer and arrested him. Upon persuasion, Pulongbarit surrendered four more plastic bags, for a total of about six kilos of shabu.

While under interrogation at Camp Crame, Pulongbarit volunteered that his supplier was a certain Arturo Sy, also called Willie Sy, and offered to help entrap him. That same afternoon, the operatives returned with Pulongbarit to his residence. At about half past three, Pulongbarit contacted Willie Sy by cellular phone and ordered five kilos of shabu. SPO3 Timbol, standing close by, overheard the conversation, in which Pulongbarit said that the stock had run out and asked for five more kilos, and the person on the other line agreed to deliver.

At about half past five in the afternoon, a red Toyota car parked in front of the house. A man in a t-shirt, who turned out to be the appellant, alighted carrying a carton box and entered the house. The operatives immediately accosted him, seized the box, and found five kilos of crystalline substance inside. The substance was inventoried and forwarded to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Julita de Villa found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The appellant was charged, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and he now appeals.

Issues

• Whether or not a judge who did not personally hear the greater part of the case may validly render the decision.
• Whether or not the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are so material as to destroy their credibility and cast doubt on the appellant's identity.
• Whether or not the appellant's defense of denial, and his claim that he did not know the box contained shabu, can overcome the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, is the provision charged and applied. The decision quotes the charging portion of the amended information as follows:

That on or about the 15th day of May, 1993, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, acting in confabulation and confederating with one another, with unity of purpose and design, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, transport and distribute METAMPHETAMINE (sic) HYDROCHLORIDE otherwise known as "SHABU," a regulated drug, without lawful authority, to a posseur-buyer (sic), approximately weighing a total of eleven (11) kilograms of said substance packed and contained in several plastic transparent bags, and with a street valued of (sic) of P11 million more or less.

This provision defines the offense of unlawfully selling, delivering, and transporting a regulated drug, and it is the basis of the appellant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the fact that the judge who rendered the decision was not the same judge who heard the greater part of the case is of no moment. A judge may validly render a decision although he partly heard the testimonies of the witnesses, because he can rely on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in People versus De Paz:

While it is true that the trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just decision since the latter can also rely on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis of his decision.

On the second issue, the Court found the alleged contradictions more apparent than real. It is to be expected that the testimony of witnesses regarding the same incident may be inconsistent in some aspects, because different persons may have different impressions or recollections of the same incident. The inconsistencies were only on minor details, such as whether the appellant wore a sando or a tee-shirt, and did not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor detract from the established fact of the illegal sale of shabu. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence.

On the third issue, the Court held that denials are weak forms of defense, particularly where they are not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, and that the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, is viewed with disfavor because it can just as easily be concocted. The appellant's bare denials could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses of the appellant as the person in possession of, and who delivered, five kilos of shabu. The Court further held that the crime is mala prohibita, and lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum. Hence, the appellant's claim that he did not know the box contained shabu was not a valid defense, because mere possession or delivery of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation, positively identified by SPO3 Timbol and corroborated by Chief Inspector Valeroso, with no showing of ill motive against the appellant. In the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty. Guilt beyond reasonable doubt was therefore established.

Doctrine

A judge who did not personally hear the greater part of the case may validly render a decision, relying on the transcribed stenographic notes, because the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses is helpful but not indispensable to a valid and just decision. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses that concern only minor details do not affect their credibility, since witnesses need only corroborate each other on the important and relevant details of the principal occurrence. The defenses of denial and frame-up are weak and viewed with disfavor, and cannot prevail over positive identification by prosecution witnesses. Finally, under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, the offense is mala prohibita, so lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances, and mere possession or delivery of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City convicting Sy Bing Yok of unlawfully selling, delivering, and transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that in a prosecution for a mala prohibita offense under the Dangerous Drugs Act, lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances, so a bare denial cannot overcome positive identification. Examiners like to use this case on the validity of a decision rendered by a judge who did not hear the whole case, and on the weight of denial and frame-up against the positive testimony of law enforcers presumed to have regularly performed their duty.