G.R. No. 146470. November 22, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MILA RAZUL Y BASHIED, ROMA RAZUL Y BASHIED AND BAIRONA BANGKE Y SARIP, ACCUSED, MILA RAZUL Y BASHIED AND ROMA RAZUL Y BASHIED, APPELLANTS.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Arrest and prosecution in cases of illegal sale of prohibited
drugs would be unduly impeded, unless evidence validly obtained during buy-bust
operations conducted by police officers is admitted. Many times, the only way to expose and prosecute crimes involving
prohibited drugs is through such operations. While this Court is ever vigilant in protecting and upholding the
constitutional rights of the accused, it is also keenly aware of the need to
rid society of this drug plague. Thus,
after all the elements of a legitimate buy-bust operation have been duly proven
by the prosecution, the Court will not hesitate to affirm a conviction. That is, unless the appellants can prove by
competent and credible evidence that the operation was a sham or that their
constitutional rights were violated or ignored.
The Case
Mila Razul and Roma Razul appeal the December 14, 2000 Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 103) in Criminal Case
No. Q-98-80043. The dispositive portion
of the Decision reads as follows:
“ACCORDINGLY, the court finds accused MILA RAZUL y Bashied and ROMA
(or RONA) RAZUL y Bashied GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-conspirators in
the illegal selling or delivery of 212.15 grams of shabu in violation of
Section 15, RA 6425, as amended, and they are hereby each sentenced to suffer
the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of Ten Million Pesos.”[2]
In the original Information[3] dated
December 8, 1998, appellants were charged, together with Bairona Bangke y Sarip, with violation of Section 15 of
Article III in relation to Section 2 (e), (f), (m) and (o) of Article I of RA
6425 as amended by RA 7659. However,
the charge against Bangke was later withdrawn and a new Information[4]
dated April 15, 1999, was filed against her for violation of Section 16 of RA
6425. The charge, to which she pleaded
guilty with the assistance of counsel de
parte,[5]
involved illegal possession of 5.29 grams of shabu.
Mila Razul and Roma Razul were indicted anew in an Information[6]
dated April 15, 1999, charging them as follows:
“That on or about the 6th day of December, 1998 in
Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with
and mutually helping one another not having been authorized by law to sell,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale 212.15 (Two Hundred
Twelve point Fifteen) Grams of white crystalline substance containing
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride which is a regulated drug.”[7]
During the arraignment of appellants on November 26, 1999, after
the Information had been read and explained to them in Tagalog, a dialect that
they fully understood,[8] they
pleaded not guilty.[9]
After pretrial and trial on the merits, they were found guilty of violating
Section 15 of RA 6425.
The
Facts
Version of the Prosecution
In its Brief,[10] the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) presents the prosecution’s version of the
facts as follows:
“On December 6, 1998, SPO2 Wilfredo Red, SPO2 Brigido Juan, SPO1
Levy Sevilla, SPO1 Edgardo Buluran, Inspector Levy Sevilla and an informant
named ‘Akong’ underwent a briefing headed by Inspector ‘Ratuita’ at the Central
Police District, Station I, Mapua Street, La Loma, Quezon City in connection
with drug bust operation against three suspected Muslims. SPO2 Wilfredo Red
prepared the buy bust money consisting of two bundles of bond paper wrapped
with pieces of one thousand peso bills, placed inside a ‘boodle bag’.
“About 11:30 in the morning of December 6, 1998, SPO2 Wilfredo Red
rode with the informant in a Black Toyota Celica with Plate No. DFA 444, while
the rest of the composite team rode in a Ford Fierra back-up vehicle, heading
to the corner of Quirino Highway and Baesa Road, Quezon City. SPO2 Red posed as
poseur buyer and waited for the accused in front of a gasoline station along
Quirino Highway.
“About 1:15 in the afternoon, SPO2 Red saw a taxicab coming from
the direction of Balintawak towards Novaliches, which stopped in front of the
gas station. Three (3) persons alighted from the cab. The informant ‘Akong’ briefly introduced SPO2 Red to appellant
Mila B. Razul. Thereupon, the informant
told appellant Mila B. Razul, ‘ito yong buyer natin ng stuff’. SPO2 Red asked
forP200,000.00 worth of
‘shabu’. At that instance, appellant Mila B. Razul took a blue plastic bag from
another plastic bag in possession of Roma B. Razul and handed to SPO2 Red four
(4) plastic packets containing ‘white crystalline substance’. Upon examination, SPO2 Red handed to Roma B.
Razul the ‘boodle bag’ containing the buy bust money who, in turn, placed the
same inside her red bag.
“During the occasion, Bairona S. Bangke, a companion of appellant
took out from the pocket of her pants a small sachet of the ‘white substance’
and handed it to SPO2 Red as a ‘give away’ item. The latter proceeded in raising his hand as a pre-arranged
signal, prompting the back-up team to proceed with the arrest and apprehension
of appellants and Bairona S. Bangke.
“On December 7, 1998, a chemistry examination was made on the
confiscated substance which was found with ‘positive results to the test for
Methylamphetamine hydrocloride’ in the aggregrate weight of 207.15 grams.”[11]
(Citations omitted)
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, appellants deny the allegations of the police
officers. Their statement of facts, as
contained in their 10-page “Appeal Brief,”[12] is
reproduced as follows:
“In their defense, appellants denied the allegations of the police
officers. They alleged that they accompanied Bairona Ban[g]ke in going to Baesa
road to find the latter’s customer, a certain Ernie and his wife Cecile. While
traveling on board a taxi, Bairona spotted Ernie at the gasoline station.
Bairona stopped the taxi and alighted. She talked to Ernie and moment[s] later,
Bairona asked appellant to transfer to the car of Ernie, as they would proceed
to the house of Ernie. While on their
way to the house of Ernie, an army type jeep blocked their way. The passengers of the jeep immediately
alighted and poked their guns at the appellants. The two armed men boarded the
car and one of them took the driver seat, while Ernie sat between the two armed
men. When the car started running, the
two armed men talked to Ernie as if they knew with [sic] each other. Thereafter, they allowed Ernie to
alight. These two armed men were
identified later as SPO1 Red and SPO1 Buluran. SPO1 Red poked his gun at the trio and told them that they are pushers and
it’s nice to rape Muslims. When SPO1 Red continuously poking and swaying his gun,
Rona held the arm of SPO1 Red and the gun suddenly fired that hit the foot of
Mila. Thereafter, SPO1 Buluran who was
then driving, stopped the car and stabbed Rona several times but hit her 4
times only in her stomach. Fortunately,
a police mobile car arrived and stopped beside the car on which the appellants
were on board as the appellants were screaming for help. When the occupants of the mobile car were
about to respond, SPO1 Red and SPO1 Buluran shouted that they [were] also
policemen. As the occupants of the
mobile car approached and saw Mila and Rona both injured and bleeding, they
immediately boarded the two into their mobile car and brought them to East
Avenue Medical Center for treatment. After [m]edical treatment, appellants were brought to the police station
where they were surprised to know that they are being charged of violation of
Sec. 15 of RA 6425.”[13]
Trial Court’s Ruling
The RTC ruled that the prosecution evidence proved the guilt of
appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It
gave superior weight to the testimonies of the arresting police officers and
the poseur-buyer, because these were consistent, sincere and could not have
simply been rehearsed or scripted.[14] Furthermore, the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official functions was unrebutted by the defense.[15]
On the other hand, appellants presented no evidence showing any motive or
reason for the police officers to testify falsely against them.[16]
Hence, this appeal.[17]
The Issues
Appellants raise the following alleged errors for this Court’s
consideration:
“1. The
court a quo erred in holding that there was a buy bust operation conducted
against accused/appellants.
“2. The
court a quo erred in holding that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of selling 212.15 grams of shabu.”[18]
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.
First
Issue:
Credibility of Buy-bust Testimonies
Appellants attack the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. They
argue that the conflicting testimonies of the police show that the operation
was merely a sham.
Specifically, they call attention to the officers’ statements
regarding the place where the three female suspects (two of whom are herein
appellants) alighted from a taxi.[19]
Furthermore, even the back-up policemen allegedly gave contradictory statements
on whether or not their vehicle broke down en
route to the place where the transaction was to occur.[20]
These contradictions supposedly destroy the credibility of the witnesses.
We disagree. Jurisprudence
clearly sets the essential elements to be established in the prosecution of
illegal sale of shabu as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor.[21]
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[22]
The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller
of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.[23]
In the case before us, the prosecution was able to establish these elements
beyond moral certainty.
SPO2 Wilfredo Red of Central Police District Station I positively
identified Mila and Roma Razul as the persons who had sold shabu, and who had
dealt with him and the other police officers during their lawful buy-bust
operation. SPO2 Red, who had acted as
poseur-buyer, unequivocally testified thus:
“FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Where was that when the
supposed buy bust operation is to take place, if you know?
WITNESS:
A We conducted at the
corner of Quirino highway Baesa Road, Q.C.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q You said you were
dispatched there, what mode of transportation did you take in going there?
WITNESS:
A I together with the
informant boarded the [Ce]lica car with Plate No. DEA 444 while my companion
boarded the ford [fierra].
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q There were 2 vehicles?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q What time more or less
did you arrive at the place?
WITNESS:
A More or less 11:30
o’clock in the morning of December 6, 1998.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Upon arriving at the
scene where the buy bust operation is supposed to take place, what hap[p]ened
next?
WITNESS:
A I together with the
informant positioned ourselves near the gasoline station located at Baesa Road
corner Quirino highway, Q.C. While my
companion positioned themselves in a viewing distance.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Upon arriving there, what
happened next?
WITNESS:
A We waited for the
arrival of our subject.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q How long have you waited?
WITNESS:
A More than 1 hour.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q After 1 hour, what
transpired next?
WITNESS:
A After more than 1 hour
on or about 1:15 in the afternoon of December 6, 1998 taxicab was arrived on
board 3 female suspects.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Excluded the driver?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q While observing that a 3
female inside the taxi arrived, what did you and your informant do?
WITNESS:
A They alighted from the
taxi and approached us and I was introduced by our informant to the 3 accused
that I am the buyer of the stuff.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Will you tell the
Honorable Court the exact words on how you were introduced by your informant to
the 3 suspects?
WITNESS:
A The informant told the
accused ‘ito yoong buyer natin ng stuff’.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Referring to you?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q When the informant
introduced you to the 3 female suspects as the buyer of the stuff, what was the
reaction of these 3?
WITNESS:
A I also asked them if they
brought with them the stuff.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q What was the answer?
WITNESS:
A They told me that they
bring with them the stuff and they told me the amount wasP200,000.00.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Specifically of these 3
whom in particular did you talk to with regards to the stuff?
WITNESS:
A Mila Razul and Rona
Razul.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Prior to the operation do
you already know their names?
WITNESS:
A No, sir.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q You said you talked to
these 2 female as the very person whom you talked regarding the shabu, after
the brief introduction and conversation, what transpired next?
WITNESS:
A Mila Razul took the blue
plastic bag from the red plastic bag of Rona Razul and handed to me the blue
plastic bag containing 4 pieces of plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q When that [was] handed to
you, what did you find out?
WITNESS:
A When I look at the bag I
saw 4 pieces of plastic sachet containing white c[r]ystalline substance.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Why do you know that they
were white crystalline substance[?]
WITNESS:
A I saw it when I opened
the plastic bag.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Upon examining, what did
you do next?
WITNESS:
A I handed to Rona Razul
the buy bust money with boodle money.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Did she receive it?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Upon receiving the stuff
and handed to her the buy bust money, what transpired next?
WITNESS:
A She look[ed] at the
money and after examining it placed it on her red plastic bag.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q How about your other
companion what are they doing when this transaction were going on?
WITNESS:
A After I handed to Rona
Razul the buy bust money Bairona Bangke handed to me one sachet containing
white crystalline substance.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Are you referring to
Bairona Bangke who pleaded guilty earlier?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q After that what happened
next?
WITNESS:
A After that I secured the
pre-arranged signal by raising my right hand and folding my back that the
transaction has been completed.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q What pre-arranged was
that?
WITNESS:
A Raised my right hand.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Upon giving the
pre-arranged signal, what transpired next?
WITNESS:
A My companion immediately
approached us and introduced ourselves as police officers and apprehended the 3
suspects.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q You are talking 2 female
suspects which you said you have transacted about the deal of the shabu, if
that 2 suspects is inside the courtroom, will you be able to identify them?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q Please do.
WITNESS:
A She is Rona Rasul. And she is Mila Razul.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to [a] persons inside the
courtroom who identified themselves as Rona Razul and Mila Razul.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q This Rona Razul what is
her specific [role]?
WITNESS:
A She was the one who
received the buy bust money.
FISCAL CEDILLO:
Q How about Mila Razul?
WITNESS:
A She was the one who
handed to me the suspected shabu.”[24]
The clear, positive and straightforward testimony of SPO2 Red,
replete with details and consistent even on cross-examination, sufficiently
supports the RTC’s conclusion that a lawful buy bust operation was conducted.
The trial court observed:
“x x x [T]he court testimonies of the arresting police officers
including that of the poseur-buyer are impressed with consistency, sincerity
and truthfulness. Even in the
cross-examination of the said prosecution witnesses by the defense counsel,
there is no showing that the entrapment operation against the accused was
fictitious or non-existent or that an illegal act accompanied the said
operation. The police officers were one
in declaring with certainty that the accused delivered shabu to the
poseur-buyer and received the buy-bust marked money also from him. Their respective knowled[g]e of the relevant
details of the operation were also evident from their testimonies and could not
be thought of as simply rehearsed or scripted;”[25]
Moreover, the testimony of SPO2 Red was corroborated by other
members of the buy-bust team. Their
testimonies are positive, credible and entirely in accord with human
experience. It would be difficult for a
rational mind not to give credence to them. In fact, they affirm the respective roles of the team members during the
operation, as shown by their account of the extent of what they had
observed. SPO1 Edgardo M. Buluran, who
was one of them, testified thus:
“FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, did you indeed
arrive on the place where the buy-bust operation is supposed to take
place? Did you arrive on that place
where the buy-bust operation is supposed to take place?
WITNESS:
A Yes sir.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q What time did you arrive
there?
WITNESS:
A At about 1:00 p.m.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q By the way, for the
record, where exactly was that, that the buy bust operation is supposed to take
place?
COURT:
He already mentioned that.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, from there, what
happened next?
WITNESS:
A A moment later, a taxi
arrived with three (3) female persons and approached Red and the informant near
the gas station.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, so a taxi arrived
with three (3) female passengers?
WITNESS:
A Yes sir.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Red and the informant
approached?
WITNESS:
A The female passengers
approached.
COURT:
Red approached them.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q While this was tak[ing]
place, how far were you from them?
WITNESS:
A It is about eight (8) meters.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q What else did you observe
from that distance?
WITNESS:
A They were talking to
each other.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Who were talking to each
other?
WITNESS:
A The informant and Red to
the suspect as a buyer.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, after that, what
else transpired?
WITNESS:
A Mila Razul handed to Red
a plastic bag and then Red opened it and he gave the buy bust-money to Rona.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, you are talking of
three (3) female passenger[s] in the taxi and you said Mila handed to Red
something? Now, if that Mila you are
talking to is inside the court room, will you be able to identify the accused?
WITNESS:
A The person in long
sleeved white.
COURT:
The person pointed to by the witness said
that her name is Mila Razul.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q You said Mila Razul
handed to Red something?
WITNESS:
A I know it was in a
plastic bag but I do not know the contents.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now after handed that
something to Wilfredo Red, what did Red do if he has done any?
WITNESS:
A He looked at the
content.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Upon looking at the
contents, what happened next?
WITNESS:
A He gave money to Rona.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, if that Rona is
inside the court room which you said Red handed the money, will you be able to
identify her?
WITNESS:
A Yes, sir, that lady.
COURT:
The lady pointed to by the witness
identified herself as Rona Razul.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q After SPO1 Red handed the
alleged money to Rona, what transpired next?
WITNESS:
A I saw Red raise[d] his
right hand, a signal that the buy-bust operation has been consummated.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, when SPO1 Red raised
his hand as a signal of the consummation of the deal, what did you do, if you
have done any?
WITNESS:
A We close[d] in on the
suspects and put them under custody.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q That something which you
said was handed to Red, if you will see that again, will you please describe
what was that something?
WITNESS:
A A plastic bag.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q What was the color of
that bag?
WITNESS:
A It is not completely
blue but it looks like blue.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, you said you close
in and take them in your custody?
WITNESS:
A Yes sir.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q After that, what happened
next?
WITNESS:
A We conduct search to
suspects and I found the boodle money inside the plastic bag in possession of
Rona Razul, the boodle buy-bust money.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q How many boodle money or
buy-bust money were there?
WITNESS:
A One (1) boodle money
with two (2) side with theP1,000.00 each.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q If that boodle money be
shown to you will you be able to identify it?
WITNESS:
A Yes sir.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q I have here a boodle
money previously marked as Exhibit ‘B’, what is the relation of that boodle
money to the boodle money that you are referring?
WITNESS:
A This is the buy-bust
money, then my initial is here.”[26]
Further, another back-up member of the team, PO2 Virgilio
Bernardo, testified as follows:
“FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Now, where is that place
where the buy-bust operation was supposed to take place?
WITNESS:
A Corner Baesa Road and
Quirino Highway.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q What time, more or less,
did you arrive there?
WITNESS:
A We arrived there at
about 11:00 in the morning, a few minutes after we were dispatched.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q From there, what
happened?
WITNESS:
A As we arrive, I saw
three (3) women on board a taxi.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q And after that, what
happened next?
WITNESS:
A The three (3) women walk
towards SPO1 Wilfredo Red and our informant companion.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q How far were you from
this Wilfredo Red and these three (3) suspects?
WITNESS:
A Within viewing distance,
about ten (10) meters away.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q What else did you
observe?
WITNESS:
A I saw a pre-arrange
signal.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Prior to the pre-arrange
signal, what did you observe with respect to the suspect?
WITNESS:
A I saw them handing over
something to each other.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Who is handing
something? To whom?
WITNESS:
A I do not know exactly
what they were handing to each other but I saw them handing over something from
each other.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q Who else? Now, when
Wilfredo Red, what signal his hand?
WITNESS:
A We close in and we help
Red arrest the women.
FIS. CEDILLO:
Q You in particular, who
among the suspects did you effect arrest?
WITNESS:
A Rona Razul.”[27]
Time and time again, the Court has ruled that the witnesses’
testimonies need only to corroborate one another on material details
surrounding the actual commission of the crime.[28] The
alleged inconsistencies and/or flaws pointed out by appellants are insufficient
to overturn the judgment of conviction against them, since those testimonies
are consistent on material points.
The crux of this case is the illegal sale of shabu by
appellants. Questions as to the exact
location where they alighted from a taxi or where the back-up vehicle broke
down are not in any way related to the buy-bust operation itself. Inconsistencies with regard to those matters
do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. To secure a reversal of the appealed judgment, such
inconsistencies should pertain to that crucial moment when appellants were
caught selling shabu, not to peripheral matters.[29]
To be sure, the discrepant statements alluded to by appellants
are too minor to adversely affect the credibility of the witnesses. Those discrepancies do not detract from the
established fact of illegal sale of shabu by appellants. As we have previously held, inconsistencies
in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in
actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their
credibility.[30]
Equally important is the settled principle that, in passing upon
the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not interfere
with the judgment of trial courts. That
is, unless there appear on the records some facts or circumstances of weight
and influence, which the trial court has overlooked or the significance of
which it has misapprehended or misinterpreted.[31] This
attitude of appellate courts arises from the fact that the lower courts are in
a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves
and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[32]
In the case before us, we find no cogent reason to disturb the
trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. This Court, not being a trier of facts, will
rely in good part on the RTC’s assessment of the evidence, particularly of the
declarations of the witnesses presented to the court a quo.[33]
Furthermore, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties has not been controverted by appellants; hence, this Court is
bound to uphold it.[34] They
utterly failed to prove that in testifying against them, these witnesses were
motivated by reasons other than the duty to curb the sale of prohibited
drugs. There is no proof of any ill
motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to impute falsely
such a serious crime to herein appellants. Thus, the Court will not allow the former’s testimony to be overcome by
self-serving defenses.[35]
Illuminating this point is the trial court’s disquisition, which we reproduce hereunder:
“x x x Her story about two men who abducted three Muslim women, who
are complete strangers to those men and vice-versa, in broad daylight and in a
busy street corner and that another man pushed her back inside the car when she
attempted to alight therefrom is a classic novel derived straight from a comic
magazine. It is hardly believable or
realistic and the said witness appears to be coached in her narration. Besides, Rona failed to give in her direct
examination in court the identity of these two men. She also failed to mention whether these two men were
subsequently investigated, detained and prosecuted for forcible abduction or
attempted rape, police brutality or whatsoever upon a complaint filed by her,
her sister Mila or even by Bairona Bangke. In fact, Bairona already pleaded guilty in this case for illegal drug
possession as aforementioned. The bulk
of the shabu involved, however, is the subject of the drug pushing charge
against Rona and Mila Razul;
“Lastly, the defense has not presented any evidence to show any
motive or reason why three police officers would falsely testify against the
accused who are all young women and belonging to the Islam faith. The allegations by the said officers are very
serious considering the large quantity (more than 200 grams) of shabu involved
in this case and if the same have been proven to be false, they could face
summary dismissal from the police service, suffer social humiliation and even a
criminal indictment. However, no piece
of credible defense evidence has been presented that could convince this court
to believe that the said police officers acted in pursuit of an intent less
noble than that of answering to a call of official police duty. The fact that, despite being wounded by
gunfire resulting from a scuffle with the accuse[d], neither Police Officer Red
nor his companion, did anything harmful to the suspects shows that said police
officers, rather than performing a criminal act of kidnapping the said suspects
as said lady suspects alleged, were purely following the official call of
duty. Besides, the defense has not
proffered any evidence as to why anyone would bother to kidnap the accused.”[36]
Neither do we find any basis in the argument of appellants that
the testimonies of the police officers were illogical. The former argue that the buy-bust operation
was conducted in a public place, and so a “commotion should have taken place
right there and then.”[37]
Further, the trial court debunked the testimony of the defense witness, who had
“merely told the court that she noticed nothing unusual that happened on
December 6, 1998 at her place of business and that she also did not hear from
the people there about an unusual happening that took place at the time.”[38]
We do not see how such a generic and all-embracing statement can
overcome the positive and credible statements of the police officers, who
actually conducted the buy-bust operation. Elementary is the rule that an affirmative testimony is far stronger than
a negative one, especially so when it comes from the mouth of a credible
witness.[39]
More important, if the positive identification made by police officers weigh
far greater than the denial of appellants,[40] the
mere statement of a bystander that she noticed nothing unusual cannot be given
much weight.
Similarly unpersuasive is appellants’ argument that no pusher
would choose a busy place as a venue for the illicit trade of shabu. This Court has consistently ruled that it is
not uncommon for drug dealers or pushers to sell their commodities to total
strangers at any time and at any place.[41] In
any event, the law does not prescribe as an element of the crime that the
vendor and the vendee be familiar with each other, or that the transaction be
consummated at a particular time and place.[42] The
law simply penalizes the actual sale of shabu. The illegal drug trade has in
fact become more brazen because the lure of easy profit can easily outweigh the
risk of arrest and prosecution.[43]
Appellants also argue that if the prosecution is to be believed,
then the amount of shabu seized during the buy-bust operation is incongruous
with that which had been agreed upon. If the transaction was supposed to involve only 200 grams of shabu for
the amount of P200,000 then the seizure of more than 200 grams would
have meant that appellants were shortchanging themselves.
We can only speculate why the actual delivery amounted to more
than 200 grams, if appellants had promised 200 grams only. However, this discrepancy has become
irrelevant, because the transaction had already occurred with the sale of the
shabu which turned out to be 207.15[44]
grams. What is clear is that the Joint Affidavit[45] of
the police officers stated that the white crystalline substance contained in
four (4) plastic bags was worth P200,000. This was the same statement given by SPO2 Red during his oral
testimony.[46]
There was no insistence that the agreement pertained strictly to 200 grams of
shabu. It was the amount in pesos that
was repeatedly indicated.
Finally, appellants argue that it was illogical for SPO2 Red to
receive the shabu from Mila Razul, but to pay Roma Razul. This apparent
improbability may be explained by the fact that, as the poseur-buyer, he was
dealing with appellants collectively. It did not matter who gave the shabu and who received the payment
therefor. In fact, such a scenario only proves that appellants were acting in
conspiracy in the sale of shabu. They
were both fully aware of the transaction and knowingly participated therein.
It is an established rule that direct proof is not essential to
establish conspiracy. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime — acts that indubitably point to
or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.[47]
Indeed, the act of one conspirator is the act of all the others.[48]
Second
Issue:
Proof of Guilt Beyond
Reasonable Doubt
Having established that a legitimate buy-bust operation occurred
in the case at bar, there can now be no question as to the guilt of
appellants. Such operation has been
considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers.[49]
If carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, it
deserves judicial sanction.[50] The
delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of
the marked money successfully consummate a buy-bust transaction between
entrapping officers and the accused.[51] That
the operation happened in this manner in the present case was indubitably
proven by the prosecution.
Bare denials cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses’
positive identification of appellants as the persons who were in possession of
the shabu, who delivered it to the poseur-buyer and who received payment for
it.[52]
The records clearly show that they were entrapped through a buy-bust
operation. Their denial cannot prevail
over the positive testimony of the police officers who had no reason or ill
motive to testify falsely against them. As earlier adverted to, the officers’ testimonies were consistent,
unequivocal and replete with details of the transaction with appellants and,
therefore, merit our full faith and credence.
Besides, it is simply preposterous to accept the reasoning of
appellants that “the filing of the instant case x x x is an afterthought of the
violent incident inside a Celica car between them and SPO1 Red and SPO1
Buluran. By reason of said violent
incident where he was likewise injured, SPO1 Red has an ax to grind against
Mila and Rona Razul. This is precisely
why Bairona Banke was not included in the instant heinous crime case. It is because Bairona Banke did not
[participate in] the commotion inside the car.”[53]
Such argument, however, validates even more the police officers’
version of the incident that, indeed, a buy-bust operation that led to the arrest
of appellants was conducted on that particular day. At any rate, their guilt will not depend on whether Banke was
similarly charged with the same offense. What is important is that the evidence against them sufficiently
established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellants also proffer the argument that the prosecution should
have sought a qualitative test of the entire substance seized to ascertain the
net weight of its methelamphetamine hydrochloride content, as the presumption
is that there is no 100 percent shabu in the country.[54]
They raise the probability that the substance sold could contain additives or
adulterants. Thus, the actual weight of
the pure shabu could be less than the entire substance actually seized.
That only samples from the captured substance were examined by
the chemist does not weaken the prosecution case. A sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to
be representative of the entire contents of the packages, unless appellants
prove otherwise.[55]
Therefore, a positive result for the presence of drugs indicates that there
were 207.15 grams of drugs in the packages from which the sample was taken. A
generic, unsubstantiated claim that there is no 100 percent shabu in the
Philippines will not suffice to overcome the presumption that the sample tested
is representative of the whole substance seized.
Finally, appellants maintain that the non-presentation of the
forensic chemist who examined the shabu confiscated from appellants is fatal to
the case of the prosecution. They
allege that because the chemist was not presented in court, then the shabu
seized and the physical science laboratory report were never identified.
Again we disagree. Aside
from proving the fact of the sale, the prosecution also successfully established,
through the testimonies of SPO2 Red and SPO1 Buluran, the identity of the
packages taken from appellants. In
addition, SPO2 Red traced the chain of custody of the packages after he had
properly initialed them. Thereafter, a request for a laboratory exam[56]
was prepared and signed by PO2 Christopher M. Ronquillo and P/Insp Abelardo P.
Aquino.
This examination yielded Physical Science Report No. D-1044-98,[57]
which was signed by examining Forensic Analyst Alexis A. Guinanao and approved
by Forensic Chemist Marilyn D. Dequito, chief of the Physical Science Branch of
the PNP Crime Laboratory. These
documents, together with the four (4) sachets of shabu which is the subject of
the sale, were all admitted by both the prosecution and the defense in their stipulation
of facts.[58]
In view of their stipulation, both parties likewise agreed that the testimony
of the forensic chemist would be dispensed with.[59]
A stipulation of facts in criminal cases is sanctioned by law.[60]
It is done in further pursuit of the objective of expediting trial by
dispensing with the presentation of evidence on matters that the accused is
willing to admit.[61]
Further, stipulations are recognized as declarations constituting judicial
admissions; hence, binding upon the parties.
By virtue of such stipulation of facts, the prosecution dispensed
with the introduction of additional evidence, and the defense waived the right
to contest or dispute the veracity of the statements contained in the exhibits.[62]
In fact, the stipulation of facts contained in the trial court’s Pre-trial
Order[63]
was signed by appellants and their counsel, thus satisfying the requirements of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which we quote:
“Sec. 2. Pre-trial agreement – All agreements or admissions made or
entered during the pre-trial conference shall be reduced in writing and signed
by the accused and counsel, otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused.
The agreements covering the matters referred to in section 1 of this Rule shall
be approved by the court.”[64]
In addition to the foregoing, appellants never raised in issue
before the trial court the non-presentation of Forensic Analyst Guinanao.
Without having objected to the evidence, they cannot now raise the question for
the first time on appeal.[65] It
must also be stressed that as a PNP forensic analyst, Guinanao is a public
officer, and his report carries the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official functions.[66]
Besides, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty,
as in the case of his reports, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated.[67]
As to penalty, any person who — unless authorized by law —
sells shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, shall be
punished with reclusion perpetua to
death; and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos[68]
if two hundred (200) or more grams thereof are sold.[69]
Since there were neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending the
sale by appellants of 207.15 grams of shabu, the RTC correctly imposed on them
the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.[70]
However, the P10,000,000 fine imposed on them should be reduced to the
reasonable amount of P500,000 each.[71]
WHEREFORE, the assailed RTC Decision is AFFIRMED, with the MODIFICATIONS that the actual weight of the prohibited drug is
207.15 grams, not 212.15, and the fine is reduced to P500,000 for each
appellant. Costs against appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Corona, J., on official leave.
[1]
Penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar Jr.; rollo, pp. 55-60.
[2]
RTC Assailed Decision, p. 6; rollo,
p. 60; records, p. 259.
[3]
Signed by Asst. City Prosecutor Raymond Jonathan B. Lledo; rollo, pp. 7-8; records, pp. 1-2.
[4]
Signed by Asst. City Prosecutor Eranio G. Cedillo; rollo, pp. 11-12; records, pp. 72-73.
[5]
Atty. Gerardo Maglinao. See Certificate of Arraignment dated
July 29, 1999; records, p. 76.
[6]
Signed by Asst. City Prosecutor Eranio G. Cedillo.
[7]
Rollo, p. 11; records, p. 72.
[8]
See the lower court’s Order dated
November 26, 1999; records, p. 112.
[9]
Assisted by their counsel de parte, Atty.
Abelardo Torres.
[10]
Signed by Assistant Solicitor Generals Carlos N. Ortega and Fernanda Lampas
Peralta and Solicitor Brigido Artemon M. Luna II.
[11]
Appellee’s Brief, pp. 6-9; rollo, pp.
86-89.
[12]
Signed by Atty. Fidel A. Macauyag of the Macauyag-Bacaraman and Associates Law
Offices; rollo, pp. 43-54.
[13]
Appellants’ Brief, pp. 4-5; rollo,
pp. 47-48.
[14]
RTC Decision, p. 5; rollo, p. 59;
records, p. 258.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
RTC Decision, p. 6; rollo, p. 60;
records, p. 259.
[17]
This case was deemed submitted for resolution on November 22, 2001, upon
receipt by this Court of appellee’s Brief. Earlier, appellants’ Brief was
received on July 4, 2001. The filing of a reply brief was deemed waived, as
none had been submitted within the reglementary period.
[18]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 1; rollo, p.
44. Original in upper case.
[19]
Id., p. 6; id., p. 49.
[20]
Id., p. 7; id., p. 50.
[21]
People v.
Gonzales, GR No. 143805, April
11, 2002; People
v. Bongalon, GR No. 125025,
January 23, 2002; People v. Lacap, GR No. 139114, October 23, 2001; People v. Tan, 348 SCRA
116, December 14, 2000; People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA
420, August 22, 2000.
[22]
People
v. Cuba, 336 SCRA 389, July 24, 2000; People v. Chen Tiz Chang,
325 SCRA 776, February 17, 2000; People v. Boco, 309 SCRA 42, June
23, 1999.
[23]
People v. Gonzales, supra.; People v. Uy, 338 SCRA
232, August 16, 2000; People v. De Vera,
275 SCRA 87, July 7, 1997.
[24]
TSN, February 18, 2000, pp. 11-24.
[25]
RTC Decision, p. 5; rollo, p. 59;
records, p. 258.
[26]
TSN, July 11, 2000, pp. 25-36.
[27]
Id., pp. 99-103.
[28]
People v. Gonzales, supra; People v. Uy, supra.
[29]
People v. Chen Tiz Chang, supra.
[30]
People
v. Givera, 349 SCRA 513, January 18, 2001; People v. Uy, supra; People
v. Montefalcon, 305 SCRA 169, March 25, 1999; People v. Magno, 296 SCRA 443, September 25, 1998.
[31]
People v. Lacap, supra; People v. Chen Tiz
Chang, supra; People
v. Barita, 325 SCRA 22, February 8, 2000; People v. Alao, 322
SCRA 380, January 19, 2000; People v. Cheng Ho Chua, 305 SCRA
28, March 18, 1999.
[32]
People v.
Obosa, GR No. 129688, April 2,
2002; People
v. Appegu, GR No. 130657, April
1, 2002; People
v. Jakosalem, GR No. 130506,
February 28, 2002; People v. Julian-Fernandez, GR No. 143850-53, December 18, 2001.
[33]
People v. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621,
November 16, 1998.
[34]
People v.
Rodriguez, GR No. 144399, March
20, 2002; People v. Bongalon, supra; People v. Medenilla,
355 SCRA 172, March 26, 2001; People v. Montano, 337 SCRA 608,
August 11, 2000; People v. Zaspa, 340 SCRA 752,
September 21, 2000.
[35]
People
v. Chua, GR No. 133789, August
23, 2001; People v. Uy, supra; People v. Cueno, supra; People
v. Medina, 292 SCRA 436, July 10, 1998.
[36]
RTC Decision, pp. 5-6; rollo, pp.
59-60; records, pp. 258-259.
[37]
Appellants’ Brief, p. 7; rollo, p.
50.
[38]
RTC Decision, p. 4; rollo, p. 58;
records, p. 257.
[39]
People
v. Bantillo, 344 SCRA 123, October 23, 2000; People v. Mendez, 335
SCRA 147, July 5, 2000; People v. Gaspar, 318 SCRA 649,
November 19, 1999; People v. Sarabia,
266 SCRA 471, January 21, 1997.
[40]
People v. Bongalon, supra; People v. Hindoy, GR No. 132662, May 10, 2001; People v. Uy, supra.
[41]
People v. Cheng Ho Chua, supra.
[42]
Ibid.
[43]
People v. Zheng Bai Hui, supra.
[44]
As shown by the evidence on record, 207.15 grams of shabu was properly the
subject of the illegal sale by appellants.
[45]
Exh. “F,” records, pp. 221-222.
[46]
TSN, February 18, 2000, pp. 16-17.
[47]
People v. Chen Tiz Chang, supra; People v. Boco, supra.
[48]
People v. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 183,
October 23, 1997; People v. Alberca,
257 SCRA 613, June 26, 1996; People v.
Leangsiri, 252 SCRA 213, January 24, 1996.
[49]
People v. Uy, supra; People v. Salazar,
266 SCRA 607, January 27, 1997.
[50]
Ibid.; ibid.; People v. Herrera,
247 SCRA 433, August 21, 1995.
[51]
Ibid.; ibid.
[52]
People v. Chua, supra.
[53]
Appellants’ Brief, pp. 5-6; rollo,
pp. 48-49.
[54]
Id., p. 9; id.; p. 52.
[55]
People v. Medenilla, supra; People v. Zheng Bai Hui, supra;
People v. Chen Tiz Chang, supra; People v. Tang Wai Lan, 276 SCRA 24, July 23, 1997.
[56]
Exh. “A,” records, p. 219.
[57]
Exh. “B,” records, p. 220.
[58]
See Pre-trial Order dated January 14,
2000; records, p. 115.
[59]
Ibid.
[60]
People v. Hernandez, 260 SCRA 25,
July 30, 1996.
[61]
Ibid.
[62]
Diego
v. Sandiganbayan, 339 SCRA 592, September 4, 2000; Alano v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 269, December 15, 1997; People v. Hernandez, supra; People v. Bocar, 27 SCRA 512, March 28, 1969.
[63]
Pre-trial Order dated January 14, 2000; records, p. 115.
[64]
§2, Rule 118, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[65]
People v. Uy, supra.
[66]
Ibid.
[67]
§44, Rule 130, Revised Rules on Evidence.
[68]
§15, Art. III, RA 6425, as amended.
[69]
§20, Art. IV, RA 6425, as amended.
[70]
Art. 63, Revised Penal Code.
[71]
People v. Bongalon, supra.