THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SAIDAMIN MACABALANG Y MALAMAMA, APPELLANT.

Saidamin Macabalang versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Saidamin Macabalang, a man charged with and convicted of selling shabu, a regulated drug, in a buy-bust operation conducted by agents of the Narcotics Command at a shopping mall parking lot in Quezon City. The case is an appeal from a conviction for illegal sale of drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act. It matters to every reviewee because it gathers in one place the rules on what a buy-bust operation is, what elements the prosecution must prove in a sale of shabu, and how the courts treat the defenses of denial, alibi, kidnapping, and extortion against the testimony of police officers who enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties.

Procedural History

Macabalang was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City with violation of Section 15 of Republic Act Number 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act, for selling shabu. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and trial followed. The trial court rendered its decision in August 2001, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling shabu, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay a fine of 500,000 pesos. Macabalang appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's findings in a decision promulgated in February 2005. He then brought the case to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Supreme Court decided it in November 2006.

Facts

On the morning of 21 July 1999, Inspector Leonardo Suan, Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Narcotics Command, received a report from a confidential informant that a certain Amin was looking for a buyer of shabu. He instructed the informant to close a deal for two kilos. Two hours later a fourteen-man buy-bust team was formed, with PO1 Christopher Guste as poseur-buyer. Inspector Suan gave PO1 Guste two genuine 1,000-peso bills marked with the letters CG, and boodle money amounting to 1,000,000 pesos. At six in the evening the team proceeded to the fourth level parking lot of SM City along North Avenue, Quezon City, the meeting place designated by the appellant, and observed the area for two hours.

A Mitsubishi Lancer arrived, and Macabalang alighted. PO1 Guste and the informant approached him and made the introductions. Macabalang then went to a green Toyota Corolla parked beside his car, opened the rear compartment, took out a yellow box, and gave it to PO1 Guste. When Macabalang asked for the money, PO1 Guste invited him into his own car about ten meters away. There PO1 Guste opened the box, found two plastic bags of white crystalline substance, immediately handed the money to Macabalang, and stepped out. He then removed his cap as the pre-arranged signal. The team converged, introduced themselves as policemen, and arrested Macabalang. The seized substance was examined the next day by a forensic chemist and confirmed to be shabu weighing 1,972.6 grams.

The defense told a different story. Macabalang claimed he was at the parking lot to meet a certain Lee Ong, who had borrowed his car and promised to bring women for a date. He said armed men suddenly surrounded him, poked guns at him, blindfolded him, and took him to Camp Crame, where a Captain Mendoza offered him freedom in exchange for 2,000,000 pesos and two signed deeds of absolute sale over his vehicles. His companion Duetes and a mall security guard testified to seeing armed men take him away. The trial court found Duetes's testimony fabricated, found the alibi incredible, and rejected the claim of kidnapping and extortion.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the illegal sale of shabu.
• Whether or not the buy-bust operation was valid despite the failure to use genuine bills for the full amount and the failure to use ultraviolet fluorescent powder.
• Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the appellant was lawful.
• Whether or not the appellant's defense of denial, alibi, kidnapping, and extortion can overcome the positive testimony of the police officers.

Applicable Provisions

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

Any person who shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions, shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.

This is the penal provision the Information invoked, and the Court measured the appellant's conviction and penalty against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that for the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, two elements must be established: first, the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, as evidence. The Court found both elements present through the unequivocal testimony of PO1 Guste, the poseur-buyer, substantially corroborated by PO1 Fabia and Inspector Suan, and confirmed by the forensic examination of the seized substance.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the validity of the buy-bust operation. It defined a buy-bust operation as 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, and held that 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. The failure to use genuine bills for the entire amount and the failure to dust the money with fluorescent powder are not fatal, because these are not mandatory requirements.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the warrantless arrest because the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, in the very act of selling shabu.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the appellant's defenses. His denial and alibi could not prevail against the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses, consisting primarily of police officers who bear the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. The Court also held that extortion, often imputed to police officers, requires strong proof when offered as a defense, precisely because of that presumption. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court's assessment of the witnesses and its rejection of the kidnapping story.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. In the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor; the drug itself must be presented in court as the corpus delicti. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, not instigation, and it is consummated by the delivery of the drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller. The use of genuine bills for the full price and the use of fluorescent powder are not mandatory, and their absence does not invalidate the operation. A warrantless arrest is lawful when the accused is caught in flagrante delicto. Denial and alibi cannot overcome the positive testimony of police officers, who enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, and the defense of extortion against them requires strong proof.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining the appellant's conviction for selling shabu and his sentence of reclusion perpetua with a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the two elements of illegal sale and the rule that a buy-bust operation is consummated by delivery of the drug and receipt of the marked money. Examiners use this case to test the validity of buy-bust operations, the sufficiency of the corpus delicti, and why denial, alibi, and extortion cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.