THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY TING UY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Jerry Ting Uy

The Case

This is a criminal appeal by Jerry Ting Uy, a Taiwanese national, from his conviction by the Regional Trial Court of Manila for two violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended — illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. The People of the Philippines prosecuted him after a buy-bust operation. The case matters to a Bar candidate because it gathers, in one decision, the Court's settled rules on the credibility of buy-bust operations, the non-presentation of the police informant, the defense of frame-up, and the admissibility of evidence seized in a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.

Procedural History

Jerry Ting Uy was charged before the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region, Branch Seventeen, in Manila, under two separate Informations. He pleaded not guilty to both, and a joint trial followed. On July 6, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment convicting him in both cases, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of 500,000 pesos in each, and ordering the forfeiture of the seized shabu in favor of the government. He appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising errors on the credibility of the poseur-buyer, the non-presentation of the informant, his defense of frame-up, the admissibility of the seized drugs, and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Facts

At around half past three in the afternoon of July 21, 1998, a Chinese-Filipino informant went to the Western Police District headquarters in Ermita, Manila, and told the Drug Enforcement Unit that a certain Jerry Ting Uy was engaged in illegal drug activities in Sta. Cruz, Manila. The police asked the informant to contact the appellant and negotiate a purchase. After two calls, they agreed that the appellant would deliver half a kilo of shabu for 200,000 pesos at Severino Street, near the corner of Remigio Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, at half past six that evening. The police planned a buy-bust operation, prepared eight genuine 500-peso bills marked with the letter C on top and bottom of four bundles of bogus money, and designated PO3 Luis Chico as poseur-buyer.

At about six o'clock in the evening, thirteen police officers, the informant, and PO3 Chico proceeded to the meeting place. The appellant arrived in a green Mitsubishi Lancer, rolled down his window, and spoke to the informant in Chinese. PO3 Chico boarded the car and sat in front. The appellant asked for payment, and PO3 Chico handed him the marked money. The appellant reached under his seat, took a plastic bag, and gave it to PO3 Chico, who opened it and saw a transparent plastic bag containing suspected shabu. PO3 Chico then introduced himself as a police officer and arrested the appellant, retrieved the marked money from his lap, and inspected the space underneath the driver's seat, where he found three more plastic bags of suspected shabu. SPO2 Rodolfo Rival arrived and informed the appellant of his constitutional rights. The seized items were turned over to the National Bureau of Investigation, and the next day, Forensic Chemist Antonino de Belen certified that the specimens, weighing 505.6 grams and 1,510.8 grams, tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The appellant claimed he was framed up. He testified that at about two o'clock in the afternoon of that same day, after depositing money at a bank on Masangkay Street, two vehicles blocked his car, and police operatives in civilian clothes demanded 200,000 pesos without telling him why. When he said he could not produce the money, he was blindfolded, taken to a house, warned that he would be implicated for drug pushing, then brought to a police station and locked up. A defense witness, Alex Cruz, testified that he saw men in civilian clothes block the appellant's vehicle and take him away.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of PO3 Chico, the poseur-buyer, on the appellant's sale and possession of shabu during the buy-bust operation.
• Whether or not the prosecution's failure to present the Chinese informant as a witness rendered doubtful the testimony of PO3 Chico on the buy-bust operation.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving full weight and credence to the appellant's defense that he was a victim of a frame-up in an unsuccessful extortion attempt by police operatives.
• Whether or not the three bags containing suspected shabu were inadmissible in evidence for having been illegally seized in a warrantless arrest.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

This provision supplies the exception to the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches, and the Court uses it to uphold the seizure of the shabu from the appellant's car as incidental to a lawful arrest.

Section 2, Article III of the Constitution, as discussed by the Court, provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The Court cites this as the general rule, then recognizes the exceptions, including a search incident to a lawful arrest.

Section 3, paragraph 2, Article III of the Constitution provides:

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

This is the exclusionary rule invoked by the appellant, which the Court holds does not apply because the search was valid.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court's assessment of PO3 Chico's credibility. It found that he testified in a frank, spontaneous, straightforward, and categorical manner, unflinching even on cross-examination, and that his testimony was corroborated on its material points by PO2 Gene Nelson Javier. The Court held that credence shall be given to the narration of prosecution witnesses, especially police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, absent evidence to the contrary. It also rejected the argument that a drug peddler would not agree to a sale without checking for entrapment, observing that drug pushers have become increasingly daring and are concerned only with the swift disposal of their goods.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure to present the informant does not diminish the integrity of the prosecution's witnesses. Informants are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police, and their testimony would be merely corroborative, especially where the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the defense of frame-up. It held that such a defense is viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove, and that the evidence adduced must be clear and convincing. The appellant failed to substantiate his allegations, and the fact that he filed no criminal or administrative charges against the arresting officers bolstered the conclusion that the frame-up existed only as a figment of his imagination.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the search was incidental to a lawful arrest. It quoted Section 13, Rule 126, and explained that a buy-bust operation is vastly different from an ordinary arrest. In lawful arrests during a buy-bust operation, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the accused but also in the permissible area within his reach. The three plastic bags were seized inside the car where the appellant himself was arrested, within his area of immediate control.

On the fifth issue, the Court found the evidence sufficient. For illegal sale, the elements are the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. For illegal possession, the elements are that the accused is in possession of an item identified to be a prohibited drug, that such possession is not authorized by law, and that the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. All were present. The Court also held that under Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659, in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act Number 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from 500,000 pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall sell or possess 200 grams or more of shabu. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua and a fine of 500,000 pesos in each case.

Doctrine

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment sanctioned by law, and the testimony of the buy-bust team deserves full faith and credit absent clear and convincing evidence of improper motives. The non-presentation of the police informant does not impair the prosecution, because the informant's testimony would be merely corroborative where the poseur-buyer himself testifies on the sale. The defense of frame-up must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, and the failure to file charges against the arresting officers weakens it. A warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest is valid and may extend beyond the person of the arrested to the premises or surroundings under his immediate control, as provided in Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. For illegal sale, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. For illegal possession, it must prove possession of a prohibited drug, lack of legal authority, and free and conscious possession.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision in toto, upholding the appellant's conviction in both criminal cases and the penalties imposed.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest may extend to the area within the arrested person's immediate control, and that the non-presentation of a police informant does not weaken the prosecution where the poseur-buyer testifies. Examiners use this case for buy-bust operation validity, the frame-up defense, and the search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception.