PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERT SO Y CHUA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus So

The Case

This is People versus So, a criminal appeal from a conviction for illegal sale of a regulated drug. The accused, Robert So, was charged with selling about two kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a police poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation in Manila. The case matters because the trial court itself found that the arresting officers later extorted money from the accused, and the Supreme Court had to decide whether that extortion destroys the credibility of the very officers who caught him. It is a leading case on how the presumption of regularity of police duty stands against the constitutional presumption of innocence, and on the "objective" test for buy-bust operations.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with violation of Section 15 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, and imposed a fine of 30,000 pesos. Even as it convicted him, the trial court found that he had been the victim of a shake down by the arresting officers, and it directed that copies of its decision be furnished to the police commanders for whatever action they might take. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, the trial court's refusal to give weight to the defense witnesses, and the trial court's failure to treat the extortion as affecting the veracity of the police testimonies.

Facts

On the twelfth of March 1993, a police informant told the chief of the Narcotics Branch of the Regional Police Intelligence Unit that he had met with two men known as Jackson Dy and Danny Dy. A buy-bust team was formed, with SPO2 Jeffrey Inciong as poseur-buyer and PO3 Danilo Solangon as his companion. On the thirteenth of March, at a Pizza Hut along Buendia Avenue, the informant introduced the two men to Inciong. Inciong asked the price of one kilo of shabu. He was told 700,000 pesos, and when he said he would take two kilos, the price was lowered to 600,000 pesos per kilo. The exchange was set for a later date.

On the fifteenth of March, the team prepared boodle money and proceeded to Salazar Street in Binondo, Manila, in front of the Fortune Hotel. Danny Dy arrived carrying a plastic bag. Inside a box of Tide soap, Inciong found plastic bags of white crystalline substance. Inciong handed over the boodle money, and when Danny Dy saw that it was not real, Solangon signaled the team. Danny Dy was arrested. He later revealed that Jackson Dy could be found at a residence in Quezon City. The team went there that night, did not find Jackson Dy, but recovered three more transparent plastic bags of white crystalline substance under a bed. The substance was submitted to the crime laboratory, which confirmed that it was methamphetamine hydrochloride. At the inquest, it was discovered that the real name of Danny Dy was Robert So.

The defense told a different story. The accused testified that a friend, Edgar Chua, asked him to bring a plastic bag to Room 380 of the Fortune Hotel. As he walked along the hallway, he was pulled into a room, his hands were tied, and he was mauled. He was taken to another place, blindfolded, and tortured. He said the police later urged him to raise money for his release, and that he withdrew and gave them 650,000 pesos and later 310,000 pesos. The trial court convicted him but found that the shake down had indeed taken place, though it held that this did not affect the credibility of the officers' testimonies.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of a regulated drug.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the police officers despite the extortion they committed against the accused.
• Whether or not the extortion affected the veracity of the testimonies of the arresting officers.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended, the provision under which the accused was charged, provides:

Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.

This is the offense charged, and the Court measured the evidence against its elements: the sale actually took place, and the corpus delicti, the drug itself, was presented in court.

The Constitution, Article Three, Section Fourteen, paragraph two, provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

This presumption is the anchor of the Court's ruling that the presumption of regularity of police duty cannot by itself support a conviction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal had no merit. In a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The Court scrutinized the account of the poseur-buyer and his companion from the initial meeting, the negotiation of price and quantity, the delivery of the drug, the follow-up operation, and the seizure of the additional three kilograms. It found their testimonies clear, straightforward, and full of details that belied fabrication, consistent even on cross-examination, and bolstered by the physical evidence of five kilograms of shabu.

On the second and third issues, the Court acknowledged the anomalous practices of some law enforcers, such as planting evidence, physical torture, and extortion, and called for vigilance and caution in drug cases. It held that the presumption of regularity does not by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot by itself support a judgment of conviction. Quoting its earlier ruling in People versus Doria, the Court stressed:

It is thus imperative that the presumption, juris tantum, of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents raised by the Solicitor General be applied with studied restraint. This presumption should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally-protected rights of the individual.

It also required that the details of the purported transaction be clearly and adequately shown, from the initial contact to the consummation of the sale, and that these be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts. Yet on the facts, the Court found that the extortion did not negate the offense, because the shake down was carried out only after the offense had already been consummated. The informant had known the accused to be dealing in illegal drugs, the accused willingly offered to sell two kilos, and the sale was completed before the police discovered his bank account and pressed him for money. The Court also rejected the argument that the chemistry report was inadmissible, since no timely objection was made, and held that there is no requirement that fluorescent powder be applied to buy-bust money, the material fact being the delivery of the drug itself.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, in illegal sale of drugs, what must be proved is that the sale actually took place and that the corpus delicti was presented in court. Second, the presumption of regularity of police duty is a disputable presumption, what the Court calls a presumption juris tantum, and it must be applied with studied restraint; it cannot by itself prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence, which prevails over it. Third, the objective test in buy-bust operations requires that the details of the transaction, from initial contact to delivery, be clearly and adequately shown and strictly scrutinized. Fourth, extortion committed by the arresting officers after the offense has been consummated does not necessarily negate the commission of the offense, so long as the prosecution evidence as a whole proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Fifth, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, can easily be concocted and must be well established.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court, while directing that copies of the decision be furnished to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Director General of the Philippine National Police for appropriate action on the alleged extortion.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the presumption of regularity of police duty cannot by itself support a conviction, because it yields to the presumption of innocence. Examiners use this case to test the objective test in buy-bust operations and the rule that police extortion after the sale is consummated does not, by itself, acquit the accused.