PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GERARDO GONZALES Y MARISTAÑES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Gonzales

The Case

This is People versus Gonzales, a criminal case for the illegal sale of a regulated drug. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Gerardo Gonzales y Maristañes, a former police officer, for selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, in a buy-bust operation. The case matters to the reviewee because it gathers in one decision the classic defenses raised in drug entrapment cases — instigation, irregular buy-bust procedure, and inconsistent police testimony — and because it illustrates how the Court corrects a penalty that the trial court misapplied under the Revised Penal Code.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before Branch 36 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court convicted him, sentenced him to death with all its accessory penalties, and imposed a fine of two million pesos. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review, the accused assigning four errors: the crediting of the prosecution witnesses, the claim of instigation rather than entrapment, the uncertainty of the weight of the drug, and the reliance on a prior ruling in imposing death.

Facts

On the afternoon of January 14, 1999, a confidential informant reported to the police at Camp Vicente Lim that he had met the accused, a big-time drug pusher in Calamba and nearby Laguna towns. The team leader organized a seven-man buy-bust team, with PO3 Rey Lucido as poseur-buyer. The informant went to the accused's house in Criscor Subdivision, Calamba, and told him a buyer wanted 300 grams of shabu. The accused agreed to sell that night in his house.

When the team arrived, PO3 Lucido and the informant approached the accused at his door. The accused asked to see the money; the officer refused and demanded to see the shabu first. The accused went inside and returned with an object wrapped in newspaper, which proved to be a heat-sealed plastic bag of white crystalline substance. PO3 Lucido handed over a white plastic bag containing three one thousand peso bills on top of boodle money. He then scratched his head as the signal to arrest. The accused fled inside the house, but the back-up team followed and persuaded him to come out of the bedroom, where the boodle money was recovered.

The seized substance was turned over to the investigator, marked, and brought to the crime laboratory. Forensic chemist Lorna Tria measured a net weight of 279.180 grams and conducted three examinations, all yielding positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused's urine sample also tested positive for shabu. The accused, for his part, claimed that men entered his house, searched for shabu and a gun, found nothing, brought him to camp, and mauled him. His wife testified that a man extorted ten thousand pesos from her in exchange for his release, which never came.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the arresting officers despite alleged inconsistencies.
• Whether or not the accused was instigated to commit the crime rather than entrapped in a valid buy-bust operation.
• Whether or not the quantity of shabu confiscated was duly established at 279.180 grams.
• Whether or not the penalty of death was correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, Article III of Republic Act 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 its language fixes both the imprisonment and the fine that the Court must calibrate.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, which the Court applies in fixing the penalty, provides:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

Because the prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua to death consists of two indivisible penalties and no modifying circumstance attended the crime, this rule directs the imposition of the lesser penalty.

Ruling

On the first two issues, the Court held that the prosecution established the elements of illegal sale: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The accused could not set up instigation, because the sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of the criminal's course of conduct. The buy-bust was set up to test the informant's tip, and the accused was caught red-handed. The police were authorized, indeed obliged, to arrest him without a warrant because the crime was committed in their presence.

The Court also rejected the claim of irregular procedure. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary where the operatives are accompanied by their informant, and there is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. As to credibility, the inconsistencies cited were inconsequential and minor; testimonies need only corroborate each other on material details. The accused himself admitted the officers had no ill motive to frame him.

On the third issue, the Court held that the three thousand pesos in genuine bills were accompanied by boodle money, so it was inaccurate to say the price was a measly three thousand pesos. Failure to mark the boodle money is not fatal, for neither law nor jurisprudence requires presentation of the buy-bust money; what is required is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, the illicit drug itself.

On the penalty, the Court found that 279.180 grams of shabu had been proved, placing the offense within the range of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of five hundred thousand to ten million pesos. Since the penalty consists of two indivisible penalties and no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attended the crime, Article 63 required the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. The two million peso fine was affirmed as within the range fixed by law.

Doctrine

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a regulated drug, the essential elements are the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction.

When an accused is charged with the sale of illicit drugs, he cannot set up as a defense that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way, that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer, or that police authorities feigning complicity were present and apparently assisted in its commission. The sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminal's course of conduct.

There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations, and a prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary where the operatives are accompanied by their informant. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of the buy-bust money, much less that the boodle money be marked; what must be proved is that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.

Finally, where the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code commands the imposition of the lesser penalty.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction and the two million peso fine, but modified the judgment by reducing the death sentence to reclusion perpetua.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the sale of contraband is a kind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminal's course of conduct. Examiners use this case to test entrapment versus instigation in buy-bust operations, the non-necessity of marking boodle money, and the application of Article 63 when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties.