PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Encila

The Case

This is People versus Encila, a criminal appeal from a conviction for drug offenses under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused, Wilfredo Encila y Sunga, was charged with two crimes: the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, and the illegal possession of the same dangerous drug. He was convicted by the trial court, and that conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. He came to the Supreme Court insisting that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean, teachable illustration of how the Court tests a buy-bust operation: what elements must be proven for illegal sale, what elements must be proven for illegal possession, and how the presumption of innocence is overturned by competent evidence.

Procedural History

Two separate Informations were filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64, one for illegal sale and one for illegal possession. Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel de oficio, he pleaded not guilty to both charges. After pre-trial and a full trial on the merits, the trial court, in a joint decision dated 21 February 2006, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both counts. For illegal sale, it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos. For illegal possession, it imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day as minimum to fourteen years and one day as maximum, and a fine of 300,000 pesos.

Aggrieved, the accused filed a Notice of Appeal and then his appellant's brief. The Office of the Solicitor General filed the brief for the People. In a decision dated 11 October 2007, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court's decision in full. The accused then filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals, elevating the case to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal. The case reached the Supreme Court through that appeal, and the accused remained committed at the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City in the meantime.

Facts

Sometime in September 2003, an informant reported to the Makati City Anti Drug Abuse Council that the accused, known as Freddie, was rampant in selling illegal drugs. On that basis, the operatives, headed by Police Officer 3 Jay Lagasca, planned a buy-bust operation, coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. Operative Ruben Potencion was designated as poseur-buyer and was given one marked five hundred peso bill.

On 18 September 2003, at about half past three in the afternoon, the buy-bust team proceeded to E. Ramos Street, Barangay Pio del Pilar, Makati City. After a fifteen-minute wait, the accused was spotted standing near a sari-sari store. The informant introduced Potencion to the accused as a buyer. The accused asked how much shabu was needed, and Potencion replied that he needed five hundred pesos worth. The accused received the marked money and drew out one plastic sachet of shabu from his left pocket. Potencion examined it, and upon being satisfied, gave the pre-arranged signal by throwing his lighted cigarette.

Lagasca, with back-up operative Richard Prior, rushed in and frisked the accused. Upon orders to empty his pockets, the accused was found in possession of the marked five hundred peso bill and six more plastic sachets of suspected shabu. He was arrested and informed of his constitutional rights. The sachets were marked with his initials, WSE for the sale and WSE-1 to WSE-6 for the others, and sent to the crime laboratory. All seven tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense, for its part, denied the buy-bust operation and claimed the accused was arrested at the house of a certain Danny, where he had brought a television set for repair, and that nothing was recovered from him.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
• Whether or not the accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II of the same law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the provision on illegal sale, is the basis of the first charge:

That on or about the 18th day of September 2003, in the City of Makati Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and transport zero point twenty two (0.22) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug in consideration of five hundred (P500.00) pesos.

This is the very language of the Information alleging the sale, and it frames the elements the prosecution had to prove.

Section 11, Article II of the same law, the provision on illegal possession, is the basis of the second charge:

That on or about the 18th day of September 2003, in the City of Makati Philippines and a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession two point sixty three (2.63) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.

This is the language of the Information alleging possession, and it identifies the drug and the lack of authority to possess it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court sustained the conviction. It began from the settled rule that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, because the trial judge had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses. Still, because the liberty of the accused was at stake, the Court conducted a painstaking review of the entire records. It found that the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence.

For illegal sale, the Court held that conviction lies when two elements are present: first, the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. The Court stressed that the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction, and that the crime is committed as soon as the sale is consummated. All these elements were present. The poseur-buyer categorically identified the accused as the seller, identified the sachet he bought by the marking WSE, and identified the six other sachets by the markings WSE-1 to WSE-6. The laboratory examination confirmed that the substance was shabu. His testimony was corroborated on material points by the team leader and the back-up operative.

On the second issue, the Court held that for illegal possession, three elements must concur: the accused is in possession of an item identified to be a prohibited drug; such possession is not authorized by law; and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. All three were duly proven. The accused was found in possession of the shabu, his identity as the person in possession was established, and he was not authorized to possess it.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. For illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the elements are 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 crime is consummated upon delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and receipt of the marked money. For illegal possession, the elements are possession of a prohibited drug, absence of authority to possess it, and free and conscious possession by the accused. Findings of the trial court on credibility, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded respect absent glaring errors or misapprehension of facts. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of committing an offense.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining the accused's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu.

Remember This

Memorize the consummation rule: the crime of illegal sale is complete the moment the contraband is delivered to the poseur-buyer and the marked money is received. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession, and the deference given to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility.