| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
464 Phil. 848
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 148048, January 15, 2004 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RADZMA AHMAD Y ABDULLAH AND AMIN MUSTALI Y AHMAD, APPELLANTS.
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
On appeal is the January 5, 2001 Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 16, convicting herein appellants Radzma Ahmad y Abdullah and Amin Mustali y Ahmad for violation of Section 15, Article III, in relation to Section 21 (b), Article IV, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.
The Information,[2] dated September 25, 1999, charged appellants, as follows:
On the basis of the testimonies of their witnesses and documentary evidence, the prosecution presented the facts, as follows:
On September 23, 1999, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, an informant reported to P/Ins. Alfredo Francisco, Team Leader of Task Force Tumba Droga I, Zamboanga City, that a certain Amin, known to be a big-time drug pusher, was looking for prospective buyers for a large quantity of shabu that he wanted to dispose of. Amin was described as a Tausug from Baliwasan Grande, 30-32 years old, 5 feet in height, of slim built and with short hair.
On the strength of this information P/Ins. Francisco instructed SPO1 Amado Aquino Mirasol, to go with the informant to the Galleria Shopping Center located along Gov. Lim Avenue, Zamboanga City, to locate this pusher and investigate the case. When they found him, he identified himself as Amin Mustali who, upon confirming that he was talking to a buyer, asked him if he had the money. Mirasol informed him that he had P175,000.00 but he did not bring it with him and proceeded to ask for the price of a pack of shabu weighing 50 grams more or less. After some haggling, Amin agreed to a price of P43,000.00 per pack and Mirasol said that he would buy 5 packs. They agreed to meet again the next day, September 24,1999, at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon in the same place, at which time Mirasol would bring the money.
Mirasol went back to their office and reported to P/Ins. Francisco on the result of his negotiations with Amin Mustali. The next day, September 24, 1999, they prepared the money for the buy-bust operation and at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon P/Ins. Francisco conducted a briefing attended by the members of the Task Force Tumba Droga I regarding the buy-bust operation to be conducted at the Galleria Shopping Center and gave the members their respective assignments.
At 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon Mirasol went to the Galeria Shopping Center with a black Nike bag containing P175,000.00. At 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon appellant Amin Mustali arrived and upon verification that Mirasol brought the money, he told Mirasol to come back at 6:00 o'clock that afternoon because he had to check the stuff with his boss.
Mirasol returned to their office at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and reported this development to P/Ins. Francisco, who then instructed him to return the P175,000.00 to the Finance Officer and get the amount of P3,300.00 in P100.00 bills. They then prepared four bundles of strips of bond paper cut to money size and they placed their initials on these and on all the P100 bills which they later placed on both sides of the bundles of cut bond paper and then inserted each bundle on Solid Bank bill wrappers. P/Ins. Francisco and Mirasol placed their initials on the Solid Bank wrappers. They put the money and strips of bond paper inside the black Nike bag on which they also placed their initials. At 5:45 o'clock in the afternoon, Mirasol proceeded to the Galeria Shopping Center, and the other members of the Tumba Droga Team followed behind.
At 6:30 o'clock in the evening, Amin Mustali arrived alone and said to Mirasol: "OK [na] ang Auntie Radzma ko, apat na lowest lang ang kaya ng pera mo." He told Mirasol that they would finalize the transaction at the house of his Auntie at Magsanaw Drive, Baliwasan Grande. Mirasol was reluctant to go but when he got instructions to proceed from P/Ins. Francisco who was stationed nearby, he went with appellant Amin while the other members of the team followed at a distance. They arrived at Magsanaw Drive at Baliwasan Grande about 7:15 o'clock in the evening and met Amin's auntie Radzma Ahmad.
After determining that Mirasol was the buyer Radzma introduced herself and asked Mirasol if he had the money with him, to which she got an affirmative answer. Radzma told him to wait and went inside the house. Mirasol lighted a cigarette and when Radzma returned she brought a folded newspaper, saying, "Nandito na ang stuff," as she handed it to Mirasol. Inside the folded newspaper Mirasol found four (4) pieces of big heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing suspected shabu. After examining the plastic packs and seeing that they contained shabu, Mirasol handed the black Nike bag containing the marked money and strips of bond paper to appellant Amin and threw his lighted cigarette outside the terrace as the signal to his companions that the transaction was consummated. As appellant Amin was about to open the black Nike bag, SPO1 Eduardo Bernardo, P/Ins. Francisco and P/Sr. Ins. Joseph Arguelles rushed to the terrace and introduced themselves as members of the PNP. Mirasol also introduced himself to Radzma Ahmad as a policeman and arrested her. SPO1 Bernardo arrested Amin Mustali and recovered the black Nike bag containing the buy-bust money and the strips of bond paper cut to money size.
After Mirasol arrested Radzma Ahmad, a man came down from the second floor of the house and introduced himself as the husband of Radzma. He said to P/Ins. Francisco, "Puede bang pag-usapan lang natin ito?"
The arrest and the confiscation of four (4) big heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing suspected shabu wrapped in a Tempo newspaper, as well as the buy-bust money amounting to P3,300 together with four (4) bundles of strips of bond paper placed inside a black Nike bag, were recorded in a Complaint/Assignment Sheet at 8:30 o'clock in the evening of September 24, 1999 at the Zamboanga City Police Office. PO3 Gonzaga placed his initials on the evidence turned over to him and prepared a request for a laboratory examination of the four (4) big heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing suspected shabu addressed to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, which after testing and examination by PNP Forensic Chemist P/Sr. Ins. Delfin Diestro gave positive result of the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).[4]
Denying the alleged buy-bust and claiming to be victims of an illegal raid and police frame-up, appellants present their version of the facts, as follows:
The appeal has no merit.
At the outset, it should be pointed out that prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings,[8] it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses during trial. Hence, factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[9]
Time and again, this Court has ruled that a buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment which has been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law."[10] The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are, as follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[11] The straightforward testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution clearly established these elements. The material portions of the poseur-buyer's testimony, which were amply corroborated by the other members of the buy-bust team, are quoted, as follows:
The collective testimonies of these prosecution witnesses were, moreover, corroborated by the physical evidence on record. As indicated in Physical Sciences Report No. D-620-99, which was verified in court by PNP Forensic Chemist Mercedes Diestro, the substance contained in the marked plastic packs recovered from appellants tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.
To discredit the prosecution's version, appellants draw attention to the initial testimony of the poseur-buyer SPO1 Amado Mirasol, wherein he manifested uncertainty with regard to the existence of the informer. Said testimony is quoted in part hereunder, as follows:
Appellants' further seek to cast doubt on the prosecution's version by stressing on the manner by which the buy-bust operation was allegedly conducted. They aver that the success of the alleged entrapment is highly unbelievable taking into consideration the sudden change of venue, from the originally planned site in the Galeria mall to an unknown location in Baliwasan Grande, a place which was not made subject of a police briefing. They claim that standard operating procedures dictate a careful planning of a buy-bust operation to ensure its success. They thus point out that the lack of a subsequent briefing after a major change of plans renders the prosecution's account of entrapment unworthy of belief.
The argument fails in light of the recognition of the fact that there is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.[15] The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority, as police officers are assumed to have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[16] This Court notes, moreover, that the manner by which the operation was conducted even with the change of venue was not exactly without planning. The records disclose that the poseur buyer in this case did communicate the unforeseen change with his superior, who in turn coordinated with the rest of the back-up team for the necessary adjustments.[17]
Appellants moreover point to the surrounding circumstances of the alleged buy-bust operation, which they claim to throw the prosecution's version open to doubt. They aver that it is highly unbelievable for big-time drug pushers to sell drugs worth P200,000 to buyers in a public place such as the mall, unguarded and unverified. They moreover insist that a drug dealer would not risk storing drugs, much less, transacting illegally inside the confines of his own family residence.
These bare speculations do not affect the veracity of the prosecution's testimonies. This Court has taken notice that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever-increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell for the right price their wares to anybody, be they strangers or not. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the same.[18] Neither is it contrary to human experience for drug pushers to conduct the actual exchange of illegal drugs at their own homes. This may even prove to be a preference by drug dealers, for it gives them a sense of security as they would always have a place to seek refuge in or people to seek assistance from in case a transaction gets bungled up and they get pursued by authorities.[19]
Appellants allege that this is a case of police frame-up or hulidap, and that the buy-bust operation was merely concocted by the police officers after allegedly failing to collect Extortion money from them.
This Court is not convinced. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[20] Being factual in nature, the tenability of this defense depends largely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused. True, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, this Court also realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of policemen's allegedly rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. Hence, for such defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[21]
Unfortunately for appellants, this Court finds their defense to be unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. First, the testimonies of the defense witnesses are absolutely silent on the claim that the apprehending policemen demanded extortion money allegedly worth P400,000. This allegation was never brought up during the trial, and is curiously being raised only for the first time on appeal. Second, neither did appellants give any satisfactory explanation why the buy-bust team would single out their house among the many residences in the area on that particular day, just to frame them up and extort money. The defense witnesses themselves admitted that they did not know the policemen previous to the arrest, hence negating any improper motive on the part of the police officers.[22] Third, it is to be noted that appellants have not filed a single complaint against the police officers who allegedly attempted to extort money from them.[23] Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.[24] Considering the foregoing, this Court upholds the buy-bust account of the prosecution witnesses who, being police officers, are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Certainly, this presumption must prevail over appellants' unfounded allegations.[25]
Lastly, appellants assert that the police officers failed to comply with the proper procedure in the custody of the seized drugs as specified in People v. Lim.[26]
Again, their contention deserves no merit. Contrary to their claim, the records disclose the undisputed fact that after the seizure, the four packs of drugs were immediately brought to the police station and marked by the buy-bust team leader, the poseur-buyer, and the assigned police investigator right in front of appellants. The four plastic packs upon presentation in court indeed bore the initials of the three officers.[27] Moreover, the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs beginning from the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the forensic chemist whose laboratory tests were well-documented. It is also worth noting that the reliance on the aforecited case is misplaced, as this Court therein found substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers thus creating uncertainty on whether the crime had indeed been committed. No such flaw attended the present case.
All told, the unlawful sale of drugs having been established beyond reasonable doubt, appellants' conviction for the offense charged stands.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 68-87.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Certificate of Arraignment, Records, p. 12; Order, Records, p. 13.
[4] Rollo, pp. 140-152. Citations omitted; TSN, April 3, 4, 6 & 7, 2000.
[5] Id., at 75-81.
[6] Id., at 86.
[7] Id., at 63-64.
[8] People v. Sy, 389 SCRA 594 (2002).
[9] People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 148919, December 17, 2002.
[10] Ibid.
[11] People v. Patayek, G.R. No. 123076, March 26, 2003; Ibid.
[12] TSN, April 4, 2000, pp. 4-26; TSN, April 6, 2000, pp. 4-16.
[13] TSN, April 3, 2000, pp. 8-11.
[14] Id., at 12-19.
[15] People v. Hajili, G.R. No. 149872-73, March 14, 2003, citing People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997).
[16] People v. Hajili, supra, note 15.
[17] TSN, April 6, 2000, pp. 9-10; TSN, April 7, 2000, pp. 40-41; TSN, April 10, 2000, pp. 12-13, 44-45.
[18] People v. Macasa, 229 SCRA 422 (1994), citing People v. Angeles, 218 SCRA 352 (1993).
[19] People v. Madrid, 210 SCRA 196 (1992).
[20] People v. Astudillo, G.R. No. 140088, November 13, 2002.
[21] People v. Sy, supra, note 8.
[22] TSN, April 13, 2000, p. 32; TSN, May 3, 2000, pp. 15-16; TSN, May 5, 2000, pp. 8-9.
[23] TSN, May 2, 2000, p. 27.
[24] People v. Sy, supra, note 8.
[25] Ibid.
[26] 386 SCRA 581 (2002).
[27] TSN, March 31,2000, pp. 29-37; TSN, April 6, 2000, p. 23-25.
The Information,[2] dated September 25, 1999, charged appellants, as follows:
That on or about September 24, 1999, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding and assisting with one another, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to SPO1 AMADO A. MIRASOL, a PNP poseur-buyer, four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic packs each containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 212.7191 grams, which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing [the] same to be a regulated drug.When arraigned on October 15, 1999, appellants pleaded not guilty.[3] Trial thereafter ensued.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On the basis of the testimonies of their witnesses and documentary evidence, the prosecution presented the facts, as follows:
On September 23, 1999, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, an informant reported to P/Ins. Alfredo Francisco, Team Leader of Task Force Tumba Droga I, Zamboanga City, that a certain Amin, known to be a big-time drug pusher, was looking for prospective buyers for a large quantity of shabu that he wanted to dispose of. Amin was described as a Tausug from Baliwasan Grande, 30-32 years old, 5 feet in height, of slim built and with short hair.
On the strength of this information P/Ins. Francisco instructed SPO1 Amado Aquino Mirasol, to go with the informant to the Galleria Shopping Center located along Gov. Lim Avenue, Zamboanga City, to locate this pusher and investigate the case. When they found him, he identified himself as Amin Mustali who, upon confirming that he was talking to a buyer, asked him if he had the money. Mirasol informed him that he had P175,000.00 but he did not bring it with him and proceeded to ask for the price of a pack of shabu weighing 50 grams more or less. After some haggling, Amin agreed to a price of P43,000.00 per pack and Mirasol said that he would buy 5 packs. They agreed to meet again the next day, September 24,1999, at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon in the same place, at which time Mirasol would bring the money.
Mirasol went back to their office and reported to P/Ins. Francisco on the result of his negotiations with Amin Mustali. The next day, September 24, 1999, they prepared the money for the buy-bust operation and at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon P/Ins. Francisco conducted a briefing attended by the members of the Task Force Tumba Droga I regarding the buy-bust operation to be conducted at the Galleria Shopping Center and gave the members their respective assignments.
At 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon Mirasol went to the Galeria Shopping Center with a black Nike bag containing P175,000.00. At 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon appellant Amin Mustali arrived and upon verification that Mirasol brought the money, he told Mirasol to come back at 6:00 o'clock that afternoon because he had to check the stuff with his boss.
Mirasol returned to their office at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and reported this development to P/Ins. Francisco, who then instructed him to return the P175,000.00 to the Finance Officer and get the amount of P3,300.00 in P100.00 bills. They then prepared four bundles of strips of bond paper cut to money size and they placed their initials on these and on all the P100 bills which they later placed on both sides of the bundles of cut bond paper and then inserted each bundle on Solid Bank bill wrappers. P/Ins. Francisco and Mirasol placed their initials on the Solid Bank wrappers. They put the money and strips of bond paper inside the black Nike bag on which they also placed their initials. At 5:45 o'clock in the afternoon, Mirasol proceeded to the Galeria Shopping Center, and the other members of the Tumba Droga Team followed behind.
At 6:30 o'clock in the evening, Amin Mustali arrived alone and said to Mirasol: "OK [na] ang Auntie Radzma ko, apat na lowest lang ang kaya ng pera mo." He told Mirasol that they would finalize the transaction at the house of his Auntie at Magsanaw Drive, Baliwasan Grande. Mirasol was reluctant to go but when he got instructions to proceed from P/Ins. Francisco who was stationed nearby, he went with appellant Amin while the other members of the team followed at a distance. They arrived at Magsanaw Drive at Baliwasan Grande about 7:15 o'clock in the evening and met Amin's auntie Radzma Ahmad.
After determining that Mirasol was the buyer Radzma introduced herself and asked Mirasol if he had the money with him, to which she got an affirmative answer. Radzma told him to wait and went inside the house. Mirasol lighted a cigarette and when Radzma returned she brought a folded newspaper, saying, "Nandito na ang stuff," as she handed it to Mirasol. Inside the folded newspaper Mirasol found four (4) pieces of big heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing suspected shabu. After examining the plastic packs and seeing that they contained shabu, Mirasol handed the black Nike bag containing the marked money and strips of bond paper to appellant Amin and threw his lighted cigarette outside the terrace as the signal to his companions that the transaction was consummated. As appellant Amin was about to open the black Nike bag, SPO1 Eduardo Bernardo, P/Ins. Francisco and P/Sr. Ins. Joseph Arguelles rushed to the terrace and introduced themselves as members of the PNP. Mirasol also introduced himself to Radzma Ahmad as a policeman and arrested her. SPO1 Bernardo arrested Amin Mustali and recovered the black Nike bag containing the buy-bust money and the strips of bond paper cut to money size.
After Mirasol arrested Radzma Ahmad, a man came down from the second floor of the house and introduced himself as the husband of Radzma. He said to P/Ins. Francisco, "Puede bang pag-usapan lang natin ito?"
The arrest and the confiscation of four (4) big heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing suspected shabu wrapped in a Tempo newspaper, as well as the buy-bust money amounting to P3,300 together with four (4) bundles of strips of bond paper placed inside a black Nike bag, were recorded in a Complaint/Assignment Sheet at 8:30 o'clock in the evening of September 24, 1999 at the Zamboanga City Police Office. PO3 Gonzaga placed his initials on the evidence turned over to him and prepared a request for a laboratory examination of the four (4) big heat-sealed transparent plastic packs containing suspected shabu addressed to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, which after testing and examination by PNP Forensic Chemist P/Sr. Ins. Delfin Diestro gave positive result of the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).[4]
Denying the alleged buy-bust and claiming to be victims of an illegal raid and police frame-up, appellants present their version of the facts, as follows:
Giving more credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the trial court convicted appellants of the crime charged. It rejected appellants' denial and upheld the positive testimonies of the police officers, whom it deemed to have regularly performed their duties given the lack of proof that they were actuated by any ill motive. The dispositive portion of the decision reads, as follows:xxx xxx xxx
Radzma Ahmad y Abdullah, 42 years old, is the wife of Hadji Nasir Ahmad. At past 6:00 o'clock in the evening of September 24, 1999, she was at the first floor of their house talking to her friend Edwina Escobar. While she was talking over the phone with Edwina, she heard three shots coming from outside their fence. Then she heard that something bump their fence as if there were persons "chasing and running." She told Edwina that she will just call her again.
When she was about to go and verify and before she reached the door, a man in civilian attire poked a gun at her. The man was followed by another male person and a woman who were in civilian attire. All of them were armed with guns. One of them told Radzma to sit down. Another went to the kitchen. The woman with a gun went up to the second floor. She met Hadji Nasir going down the stairs and poked her gun at him. Hadji Nasir was made to sit down on the sofa. Six other persons went inside the house and started searching and scattering things. Amin Mustali, his wife and child were brought down the house. A gun was poked at them. They were told to sit down. The man and woman who brought Amin Mustali, his wife and child went up again. Michelle and his mother, Rosemarie Short, were also brought down, poked with guns and told to sit down in the sala. One of the persons told Radzma, "I think Mrs. The money is with you."
Radzma kept asking what they [were] doing. The persons said they are policemen and that they [were] looking for shabu. Hadji Nasir then called their lawyer Atty. Asterio Solis and talked to him. The policemen continued searching using an emergency light which they borrowed from the Ahmad couple. One of them said in Chavacano: "Cosa man camo quiere no way man kita encontra el sin, hindi pa kita iiba hente." (What do you like, we did not find money and we [are not different people]).
A barangay councilman arrived and asked what happened. One of the policemen said that Nasir, Radzma, Amin, and Calma are under arrest because of shabu. The Barangay Councilman said, "I know them, they are good people."
Radzma, Nasir Amin and Lerio were told to board a jeep. They were taken to the police station. Nasir and Calma were later released. Radzma and Amin were detained.
Amin Mustali y Ahmad, 35 years old, married, a tricycle driver, denied that he was at Galeria Department Store on September 23 and 24, 1999. On both days he was at his uncle's house at Baliwasan Grande. He does not know where Galeria department Store is although he [had] been staying in Zamboaga City for more than a year. His wife was inside the room. [H]is uncle, Hadji Nasir Ahmad, told him to lock the door of the room. A few minutes later, someone kicked the door. When the door was opened, he saw a man pointing a gun at him, telling him to go down. He gave his child to his wife and went down followed by his wife and the policeman who kicked the door. When he reached downstairs, he saw his uncle Nasir and his Auntie Radzma sitting down on the sofa. There were about 6 to 8 persons with firearms searching inside the house, the kitchen and the comfort room. They searched for about one hour. Later, Amin, his Auntie and Uncle Nasir, and Calma Lerio were taken to the police station.[5]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds both accused RADZMA AHMAD y ABDULLAH and AMIN MUSTALI y AHMAD GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 21 (b), Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and SENTENCES each of said accused to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and its accessory penalties, to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS each, and to pay the costs.In view of the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua, appellants interposed this direct appeal, raising the following issues:
The 212.7191 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu (Exhs. "B-1"; "B-2"; "B-3"; "B-4") are ordered to be turned over under receipt to Dangerous Drugs Board thru the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Zamboanga City, upon finality of this decision, for disposition in accordance with law.
The buy-bust money in the total amount of P3,300.00 should be returned to Task Force Tumba Droga Team I, Zamboanga City Police Office, after the finality of the decision.
GIVEN this 5th day of January, 2001, Zamboanga City, Philippines.[6]
Essentially, appellants are questioning the court a quo's finding of sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence and its disregard of the version of the defense.
- THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE BY ADOPTING ITS VERSION RATHER THAN THAT OF THE ACCUSED'S.
- THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION IS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE III, IN RELATION TO SECTION 21 (b), ARTICLE IV OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, AS AMENDED.[7]
The appeal has no merit.
At the outset, it should be pointed out that prosecutions involving illegal drugs largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings,[8] it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses during trial. Hence, factual findings of the trial court are accorded respect absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[9]
Time and again, this Court has ruled that a buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment which has been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law."[10] The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are, as follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.[11] The straightforward testimonies of the principal witnesses for the prosecution clearly established these elements. The material portions of the poseur-buyer's testimony, which were amply corroborated by the other members of the buy-bust team, are quoted, as follows:
It is therefore beyond doubt that the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements of the illegal sale of drugs. Concurrent on material points, the police officers' testimonies were replete with relevant details that sufficiently supported the trial court's conclusions.
The collective testimonies of these prosecution witnesses were, moreover, corroborated by the physical evidence on record. As indicated in Physical Sciences Report No. D-620-99, which was verified in court by PNP Forensic Chemist Mercedes Diestro, the substance contained in the marked plastic packs recovered from appellants tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.
To discredit the prosecution's version, appellants draw attention to the initial testimony of the poseur-buyer SPO1 Amado Mirasol, wherein he manifested uncertainty with regard to the existence of the informer. Said testimony is quoted in part hereunder, as follows:
Appellant's argument is misleading. It seeks to highlight only a portion of Mirasol's testimony, while brushing aside the latter's subsequent statements, quoted as follows:
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, at the time Mirasol gave the prior testimony, he was mentally and psychologically unprepared, in view of the fact that he was then saddled by a grave problem involving a relative. It was for this reason that the trial court rescheduled the taking of his testimony. The incoherent declarations having been sufficiently explained, the trial court was thus correct in upholding the poseur-buyer's testimonial account of the buy-bust operation.
Appellants' further seek to cast doubt on the prosecution's version by stressing on the manner by which the buy-bust operation was allegedly conducted. They aver that the success of the alleged entrapment is highly unbelievable taking into consideration the sudden change of venue, from the originally planned site in the Galeria mall to an unknown location in Baliwasan Grande, a place which was not made subject of a police briefing. They claim that standard operating procedures dictate a careful planning of a buy-bust operation to ensure its success. They thus point out that the lack of a subsequent briefing after a major change of plans renders the prosecution's account of entrapment unworthy of belief.
The argument fails in light of the recognition of the fact that there is no rigid or textbook method in conducting buy-bust operations.[15] The choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority, as police officers are assumed to have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.[16] This Court notes, moreover, that the manner by which the operation was conducted even with the change of venue was not exactly without planning. The records disclose that the poseur buyer in this case did communicate the unforeseen change with his superior, who in turn coordinated with the rest of the back-up team for the necessary adjustments.[17]
Appellants moreover point to the surrounding circumstances of the alleged buy-bust operation, which they claim to throw the prosecution's version open to doubt. They aver that it is highly unbelievable for big-time drug pushers to sell drugs worth P200,000 to buyers in a public place such as the mall, unguarded and unverified. They moreover insist that a drug dealer would not risk storing drugs, much less, transacting illegally inside the confines of his own family residence.
These bare speculations do not affect the veracity of the prosecution's testimonies. This Court has taken notice that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever-increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell for the right price their wares to anybody, be they strangers or not. The fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the same.[18] Neither is it contrary to human experience for drug pushers to conduct the actual exchange of illegal drugs at their own homes. This may even prove to be a preference by drug dealers, for it gives them a sense of security as they would always have a place to seek refuge in or people to seek assistance from in case a transaction gets bungled up and they get pursued by authorities.[19]
Appellants allege that this is a case of police frame-up or hulidap, and that the buy-bust operation was merely concocted by the police officers after allegedly failing to collect Extortion money from them.
This Court is not convinced. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[20] Being factual in nature, the tenability of this defense depends largely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused. True, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, this Court also realizes the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of policemen's allegedly rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. Hence, for such defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[21]
Unfortunately for appellants, this Court finds their defense to be unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. First, the testimonies of the defense witnesses are absolutely silent on the claim that the apprehending policemen demanded extortion money allegedly worth P400,000. This allegation was never brought up during the trial, and is curiously being raised only for the first time on appeal. Second, neither did appellants give any satisfactory explanation why the buy-bust team would single out their house among the many residences in the area on that particular day, just to frame them up and extort money. The defense witnesses themselves admitted that they did not know the policemen previous to the arrest, hence negating any improper motive on the part of the police officers.[22] Third, it is to be noted that appellants have not filed a single complaint against the police officers who allegedly attempted to extort money from them.[23] Such inaction runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.[24] Considering the foregoing, this Court upholds the buy-bust account of the prosecution witnesses who, being police officers, are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Certainly, this presumption must prevail over appellants' unfounded allegations.[25]
Lastly, appellants assert that the police officers failed to comply with the proper procedure in the custody of the seized drugs as specified in People v. Lim.[26]
Again, their contention deserves no merit. Contrary to their claim, the records disclose the undisputed fact that after the seizure, the four packs of drugs were immediately brought to the police station and marked by the buy-bust team leader, the poseur-buyer, and the assigned police investigator right in front of appellants. The four plastic packs upon presentation in court indeed bore the initials of the three officers.[27] Moreover, the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs beginning from the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to the forensic chemist whose laboratory tests were well-documented. It is also worth noting that the reliance on the aforecited case is misplaced, as this Court therein found substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers thus creating uncertainty on whether the crime had indeed been committed. No such flaw attended the present case.
All told, the unlawful sale of drugs having been established beyond reasonable doubt, appellants' conviction for the offense charged stands.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 68-87.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Certificate of Arraignment, Records, p. 12; Order, Records, p. 13.
[4] Rollo, pp. 140-152. Citations omitted; TSN, April 3, 4, 6 & 7, 2000.
[5] Id., at 75-81.
[6] Id., at 86.
[7] Id., at 63-64.
[8] People v. Sy, 389 SCRA 594 (2002).
[9] People v. Corpuz, G.R. No. 148919, December 17, 2002.
[10] Ibid.
[11] People v. Patayek, G.R. No. 123076, March 26, 2003; Ibid.
[12] TSN, April 4, 2000, pp. 4-26; TSN, April 6, 2000, pp. 4-16.
[13] TSN, April 3, 2000, pp. 8-11.
[14] Id., at 12-19.
[15] People v. Hajili, G.R. No. 149872-73, March 14, 2003, citing People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997).
[16] People v. Hajili, supra, note 15.
[17] TSN, April 6, 2000, pp. 9-10; TSN, April 7, 2000, pp. 40-41; TSN, April 10, 2000, pp. 12-13, 44-45.
[18] People v. Macasa, 229 SCRA 422 (1994), citing People v. Angeles, 218 SCRA 352 (1993).
[19] People v. Madrid, 210 SCRA 196 (1992).
[20] People v. Astudillo, G.R. No. 140088, November 13, 2002.
[21] People v. Sy, supra, note 8.
[22] TSN, April 13, 2000, p. 32; TSN, May 3, 2000, pp. 15-16; TSN, May 5, 2000, pp. 8-9.
[23] TSN, May 2, 2000, p. 27.
[24] People v. Sy, supra, note 8.
[25] Ibid.
[26] 386 SCRA 581 (2002).
[27] TSN, March 31,2000, pp. 29-37; TSN, April 6, 2000, p. 23-25.