NORGIE CRUZ Y CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Norgie Cruz versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is Norgie Cruz versus the People of the Philippines, a petition for review brought by an accused who was convicted of the illegal sale of shabu and acquitted of illegal possession. The case matters because it gathers into one decision the working rules of the buy-bust operation: what must be proven in a sale of dangerous drugs, whether the poseur-buyer must always take the witness stand, whether the marked money must always be presented, and whether the illegality of a later search taints an earlier, lawful entrapment. For the reviewee, it is a compact review of entrapment, the elements of illegal sale, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of police duty.

Procedural History

Norgie Cruz was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 72, with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. After trial, the trial court convicted him on both charges. He appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for illegal sale but modified the penalty, and acquitted him of illegal possession, holding that the search of his house was illegal and the shabu taken from it was excluded as evidence. Cruz then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court, and the Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On 16 November 1999, a confidential informant went to the Drug Enforcement Group of the Malabon Police Station and offered to set up a sale of shabu with a drug pusher in Barangay Potrero, Malabon City. A surveillance team was formed to validate the information. The next day, the informant reported that the sale had been arranged at a Dunkin' Donuts establishment along MacArthur Highway near the Bonifacio Monument in Kalookan City. A buy-bust team was organized, with SPO1 Alberto Nepomuceno designated as poseur-buyer, and he was issued 8,400 pesos in marked money.

The informant accompanied the poseur-buyer to the meeting place while the rest of the team took strategic positions. PO1 Rodolfo Cruz saw the petitioner talk to the informant and the poseur-buyer, and the three boarded the poseur-buyer's vehicle and proceeded to Reparo Street in Malabon City. There, PO1 Cruz saw the petitioner meet a teenager carrying a child, pull out two sachets from the child's diaper, and hand the sachets to the poseur-buyer, who in turn handed the marked money to the petitioner. The team then approached and arrested the petitioner, and the two sachets turned out to be shabu. SPO1 Mario Saddoy recovered the marked money from the petitioner.

After being informed of his constitutional rights, the petitioner led the police officers to his residence, where he retrieved a large package containing shabu from a hole dug into the stairway of his house. He was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession, posted bail, and pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Issues

• Whether or not the failure of the poseur-buyer to testify is fatal to the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu.
• Whether or not the failure to present the buy-bust money defeats the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu.
• Whether or not the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy affects the legality of the buy-bust operation and of the warrantless arrest.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals' finding that the search of the petitioner's house was illegal rebuts the presumption of regularity in the entrapment.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies Section 15, Article III of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, on the illegal sale of regulated drugs, which 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 provision under which the petitioner was convicted of illegal sale, the offense the Court sustained.

The decision also refers to Section 16, Article III of the same law, on illegal possession of regulated drugs, which provides:

Section 16. Possession or Use 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 shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

This is the provision under which the petitioner was charged with illegal possession, the charge on which the Court of Appeals acquitted him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the failure of the poseur-buyer to testify is not fatal. For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, two elements must be established: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, meaning the body of the crime, as evidence. The poseur-buyer had been assigned to Iloilo City, but SPO1 Saddoy and PO1 Cruz witnessed the transaction, and PO1 Cruz saw the exchange of the shabu and the marked money.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure to present the buy-bust money is likewise not fatal. The marked money is not indispensable but merely corroborative in nature, and neither law nor jurisprudence requires its presentation. What is material is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti.

On the third issue, the Court held that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, especially where the buy-bust team is accompanied by the informant. The absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the operation, and the selection of effective means is left to the discretion of the police. When a person is apprehended in flagrante delicto, meaning in the very act of committing the offense, the police is not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that there is no connection between the entrapment, which was regular and valid, and the subsequent search of the house, which was irregular. Illegal sale is an offense separate and distinct from illegal possession. The Court also held that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers involve credibility, a question of fact not proper in a petition for review, and that the findings of the trial court on credibility are not to be disturbed absent overlooked facts of weight and influence.

Doctrine

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. For illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the transaction. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer and of the marked money is not fatal, because the marked money is merely corroborative and what is material is proof of the sale coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti. Prior surveillance is not required for a valid entrapment, and a warrantless arrest is lawful when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto. Finally, the illegality of a subsequent search does not taint a prior lawful entrapment, because illegal sale and illegal possession are separate and distinct offenses.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision convicting Norgie Cruz of illegal sale of shabu, with costs against him.

Remember This

Memorize this line: what is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Examiners use this case to test the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer and the marked money, the validity of a buy-bust operation without prior surveillance, and the separation of illegal sale from illegal possession.