THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.CESAR LACBANES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Lacbanes versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Cesar Lacbanes, a criminal appeal from a conviction for selling marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused was caught in a buy-bust operation and convicted by the trial court; on appeal he attacks the operation as an unproven entrapment and the evidence as hearsay. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold onto: it states the rule that the non-presentation of the informant or poseur-buyer is not fatal where a police witness saw the sale itself, and it refuses to treat a receipt for property seized, signed by the accused without counsel, as an extrajudicial confession. It is also a working lesson in the retroactive application of a favorable amendatory penalty law.

Procedural History

Cesar Lacbanes was arrested and charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act. The Regional Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, through Judge Pedro Espina, convicted him and sentenced him to thirty years of imprisonment. He appealed to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was resolved by the Court's Third Division, with Justice Romero writing the decision.

Facts

The Narcotics Section of the Tacloban Police Station received information that Lacbanes had been peddling marijuana cigarettes in Tacloban City. After conducting surveillance, the police set up a buy-bust operation. On the afternoon of October 3, 1986, at the corner of Burgos and Tarcela Streets, their confidential agent made contact with Lacbanes. The team, led by Lieutenant Saranza and including Patrolman Rosales, deployed themselves so that they could clearly see the transaction.

According to Patrolman Rosales, the confidential agent handed Lacbanes two five-peso bills, and Lacbanes in return handed over sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes. The team then approached, introduced themselves as members of the Narcotics Section, and arrested him. They recovered the two marked bills from his person and three sticks of suspected marijuana. A forensic chemist, Lieutenant Liza Madeja-Sabong, later confirmed in her chemistry report that the three sticks were positive for marijuana.

Lacbanes denied the sale. He testified that he was asleep at home from two o'clock until past four o'clock that afternoon, and that he was awakened by his father, who told him that Lieutenant Saranza and two patrolmen wanted to take him to the police station. He said the investigators forced him to sign a piece of paper whose contents he did not know, which turned out to be a receipt for property seized. He claimed the case was filed against him because he could not give information about the New People's Army. He presented evidence that he was a confidential agent of the Regional Security Unit and a barangay tanod, and witnesses testified to his good moral character.

Issues

• Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to present the confidential informant who acted as poseur-buyer violated the accused's constitutional right to meet the witnesses against him, and rendered the testimony of Patrolman Rosales hearsay.
• Whether or not the prosecution clearly established the fact of entrapment, including the conduct of a prior surveillance and the presentation of the marked money.
• Whether or not the receipt for property seized, signed by the accused, is admissible as evidence against him.
• Whether or not the amendatory penalty provisions of Republic Act 7659 may be applied retroactively in favor of the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, as amended, defines and punishes the sale of prohibited drugs, and is the provision under which the accused was charged and convicted:

Section 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited 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, 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.

The Court applied this provision to the transaction and then turned to the amendatory law to fix the penalty.

Section 13 of Republic Act 7659 amended Section 4 of Republic Act 6425 so that the penalty depends on the quantity of the drug involved, and the Court gave it retroactive effect because it is favorable to the accused:

Section 13. Section 4 of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-four Hundred Twenty-five is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited 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, 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.

Section 20 of Republic Act 6425, as last amended by Republic Act 7659, supplies the graduated scale of penalties according to quantity, which the Court used to reduce the sentence:

Section 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. The penalties for offenses under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities: 1. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana shall be punished with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos; 2. 500 grams or more but less than 750 grams of Indian hemp or marijuana shall be punished with reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua and a fine ranging from four hundred thousand pesos to five hundred thousand pesos; 3. 250 grams or more but less than 500 grams of Indian hemp or marijuana shall be punished with prision mayor to reclusion temporal and a fine ranging from three hundred thousand pesos to four hundred thousand pesos; 4. Less than 250 grams of Indian hemp or marijuana shall be punished with prision correccional to prision mayor and a fine ranging from two hundred thousand pesos to three hundred thousand pesos.

Finally, the constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation, which the Court invoked to reject the receipt for property seized as an extrajudicial confession:

Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that there was no need to present the poseur-buyer, because Patrolman Rosales himself witnessed the whole transaction, seeing the marked money exchanged for the three sticks of marijuana. The settled rule is that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, if positive and clear and not arising from an improper motive, deserves full credit, and the non-presentation of the informant, whose testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that what is indispensable is proof that the sale took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer, and that the drug itself be presented in court. The accused was, in the Court's words, caught in flagrante delicto, in the very act.

On the second issue, the Court held that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, especially where the team was led to the scene by the informant, and that there is no rigid method of conducting buy-bust operations. It also rejected the claim that the marked money was never presented, since it was offered during the direct examination of Patrolman Rosales and the defense admitted the photocopy was a faithful reproduction. In any event, the absence of the marked money does not create a gap in the prosecution's evidence as long as the sale is adequately proven and the drug is presented.

On the third issue, the Court refused to accept the receipt for property seized as proof that the drugs and the bills were taken from the accused, because the prosecution failed to show that he was assisted by counsel when he signed it. The Court treated such a conforme, a signature of conformity, as a declaration against interest and a tacit admission of the crime, and therefore as an extrajudicial confession obtained in violation of the right to counsel and to remain silent, inadmissible in evidence. The Court added that it is the confiscating officers who should have signed such a receipt. Nevertheless, the sale was sufficiently established by the positive assertions of the witnesses.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that although the offense was committed in 1986, when the quantity of the drug was immaterial, the amendatory provisions of Republic Act 7659 are favorable to the accused and must be given retroactive effect. Since there was no evidence of the weight of the three sticks, the Court resolved the doubt in his favor and concluded that the quantity was below 750 grams, and not less than 250 but not more than 499 grams, so that the maximum penalty is prision mayor and the minimum is prision correccional.

Doctrine

In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is proof that the sale took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer, and the presentation in court of the drug itself as the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. The non-presentation of the informant or poseur-buyer is not fatal where a police witness positively saw the transaction, because such testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative.

Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite to a valid entrapment or buy-bust operation, and there is no rigid textbook method for conducting one; flexibility is a trait of good police work.

A receipt for property seized signed by the accused without the assistance of counsel is a tacit admission of the crime and amounts to an extrajudicial confession, inadmissible for violating the constitutional rights to counsel and to remain silent. It is the confiscating officers who should sign such a receipt.

An amendatory law imposing a lighter penalty according to the quantity of the drug involved is given retroactive effect when favorable to the accused, and any doubt as to quantity is resolved in his favor.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of four years and two days of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered the accused released immediately, having already served more than the maximum, unless he is held on other legal grounds.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the absence of the poseur-buyer is not fatal where a police witness saw the sale and the drug itself is in court, and that a receipt for property seized signed without counsel is an inadmissible extrajudicial confession. Examiners use this case on buy-bust operations, the corpus delicti in drug cases, and the retroactive application of a favorable penalty law.