417 Phil. 53
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"That on or about the 12th day of March, 1999, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to one PO3 ORLANDO HERRERA, a poseur-buyer two (2) bricks of dried Marijuana fruiting tops weighing 951.70 (nine hundred fifty one point seventy) grams and 919.00 (nine hundred nineteen point zero zero) grams or a total of 1,870.70 (one thousand eight hundred seventy point seventy) grams, a prohibited drug, in violation of the said law."
"ACCORDINGLY, accused Evangeline Ganenas y Urbano is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended, as charged herein, and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of one million pesos (P1,000,000.00)."[4]
"A few days before March 12, 1999, the District Police Intelligence Unit (DPIU) of the Central Police District (CPD) Headquarters in Camp Karingal, Quezon City received an information from a confidential informant that Edgardo Ganenas alias `Egay' and his wife, appellant Evangeline Ganenas, were engaged in the selling of illegal drugs.
"On order of his superiors to verify the information and to conduct a surveillance, PO3 Orlando Herrera proceeded to the area of Macaneneng, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City where the spouses Ganenas were said to be residing. The queries made by PO3 Herrera in the neighborhood of that area confirmed the veracity of the information.
"Thereafter, an entrapment team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation against the Spouses Ganenas. PO3 Herrera was assigned as the poseur buyer, to be assisted and introduced to the seller by the confidential informant who had previously told the Ganenas, that he had an interested and ready buyer of marijuana. The designated back-up officers were SPO4 Benjamin Elenzano, Jr., SPO2 Regie Antolin, SPO1 Ricardo Duque, SPO1 Jhonalden Tabios, PO2 Ramon Tolentino, and PO2 Resty Tudillo.
"During the briefing, the marked money was also prepared for the operation. It consist[ed] of two (2) pieces of genuine five hundred peso[-bills] (P500.00) x x x with Serial No. BL232579 and AV102746, and six (6) fake five hundred peso[-bills] (P500.00). PO3 Orlando Herrera wrote his initials `OH' at the lower right portion of the said bills.
"The rendezvous was set at 6:00 p.m. under the overpass bridge in Camachile Road, Quezon City.
"Upon arriving there at the designated place on the appointed time, PO3 Herrera, who was wearing sando, maong pants, and slippers, was introduced as the interested buyer by the informant to a woman who was already waiting there. The woman, who later on turned out to be the appellant, demanded the money from PO3 Herrera before she would hand over the marijuana leaves, wrapped in newspaper, which she was carrying. PO3 Herrera handed the money and appellant in turn handed to him the wrapped marijuana. When the exchange (`kaliwaan') took place and PO3 Herrera saw that the wrapped item handed to him by appellant consisted of two (2) bricks of suspected dried Marijuana leaves and upon noticing that appellant was all alone, he placed his arm around appellant's shoulder, identified himself to her as an undercover police officer and told her that she was being arrested. At this time, the back-up officers, who had earlier positioned themselves separately in different strategic locations where they witnessed the deal taking off and the arrest being effected by PO3 Herrera, approached them one after the other. Recovered from appellant's grip was the buy-bust marked money.
"The team investigated appellant on the spot about her source of the illegal drugs, and she led them to her residence in 25 Cadena de Amor, Macaneneng, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. PO3 Herrera and the confidential informant did not join the team in going to appellant's residence.
"Inside what appear[ed] to be a `bodega' in appellant's house in Caloocan, the officers saw nine (9) decks or bricks of suspected dried Marijuana leaves. Some were wrapped in a newspaper, others were not. One of the officers, PO2 Resty Tudillo, then got a big black travelling bag from the same room and placed all the bricks inside that bag. Afterwards, the team returned to Camp Karingal with the appellant and the bag.
"At Camp Karingal, PO3 Herrera and PO2 Tudillo executed their sworn statements. A police report was prepared by the officer-on-case, SPO4 Benjamin Elenzano, Jr., signed by the Chief of the CPD-DPIU, P/Supt. Cipriano Erfe Querol, Jr., Al-Haj. On the two (2) decks or bricks of suspected dried Marijuana leaves, subject of the buy-bust operation, PO3 Herrera wrote his initials `OH1' and `OH2.' On the other hand, PO2 Tudillo wrote his initials `RT1' to `RT9' on the nine (9) bricks that they got in Caloocan.
"Upon a request by the police for a laboratory examination of the total eleven (11) bricks or deck of suspected dried Marijuana leaves, the PNP Crime Laboratory thru Forensic Chemical Officer, Engr. Isidro L. Carino, conducted a qualitative examination thereof. All of the eleven (11) bricks, including the two (2) bricks subject of the buy-bust operation, yielded a positive result to the test for Marijuana, a prohibited drug."[7]
"3. As held in People vs. Boco (G.R. No. 129676, June 23, 1999, En Banc), material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. Corpus delicti has two elements: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event - for example, that a man has died or a building has been burned; and (2) some person's criminal liability for the act. The principal witnesses to the commission of the offense for which the accused is charged clearly established the above elements: an illegal sale of the dangerous drug actually took place and the accused was the author thereof. There are no material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses. Rather, they complement each other to give a complete picture of how the accused's illegal sale of the prohibited drug transpired, and how the sale led to her apprehension in flagrante delicto. At the very least, their testimonies establish beyond doubt that dangerous drugs were in the possession of the accused who had no authority to possess or sell them.
"4. The law enforcers enjoy the presumption that they have regularly performed their official duties in the absence of proof to the contrary. The imputation by the accused of an ill-motive to the police officers by claiming that PO3 Herrera and the husband of the accused, who are allegedly cousins, had a fight just before the accused was arrested is not enough to convince this court that the accused was a mere victim of a frame-up by an allegedly vengeful PO3 Herrera. This is so because firstly, both the claim of relationship as cousins as well as the contention that there was a prior fight were not corroborated, not even by the `centennial' lady witnesses for the accused despite their claim of being long time residents in the area; secondly, credibility[-]wise, the court leans in favor of the prosecution witnesses, the police officers, who ought to be commended for a successful operation; thirdly, the seizure of the huge quantity of drugs (11 bricks of marijuana leaves weighing around 900 grams each) by the officers make a very serious case against the accused and the court believes that no low-ranking police officer would be in a position to secure such quantity and use the same to falsely charge a heinous crime against someone who claims to be [the] mere housewife of a tricycle driver.
"5. Assuming arguendo that the black traveling bag containing (9) bricks of marijuana leaves was seized not from the house of the accused but from the house of a certain `Kiko' or Francisco Ramos in Macaneneng, Caloocan City, the instant case, however, involves not the seizure of said drugs but the seizure of the two (2) bricks of marijuana leaves which were the subject of the buy-bust operation earlier in Camachile, Quezon City. The denial by the accused of her arrest during the entrapment as well as her alibi that she was in Caloocan washing clothes are weak defenses as she was positively identified as the actual seller by the arresting officers including the poseur buyer.
"6. Moreover, when the accused testified in court, both on direct and cross-examination, the court has observed her demeanor to be evasive and sometimes she was responding belatedly or absent-mindedly to questions propounded to her with head bowed giving thereby a clear impression of shame and guilt."[9]
"I
The trial court overlooked certain facts of substance and value in convicting the accused-appellant of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, which could have altered the result of the case"II
The trial court erred in finding that the law enforcers regularly performed their official duties"[10]
"Q. On March 1999 where were you assigned? A. District Police Intelligence Unit, Camp Karingal Q. What [were] your specific duties? A. Intelligence and operatives. Q. On March 12 in the afternoon around 6:00, do you remember having reported for duty? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you likewise remember if you were dispatched to a certain mission? A. Yes, sir. Q. What mission was that? A. To act as a poseur buyer. Q. Before you were dispatched to this buy bust operation, what preparation if any did you make? A. Marked money amounting to P4,000.00[,] 2 of which were genuine money and 6 were boodle money we used x x x in our buy bust. Q. Do you have any companion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who were your companion[s]? A. [SP]O4 Antolin, S[P]O1 Duke, S[P]O1 Tobias, P[O]2 Tolentino and P[O]3 Tudillo. Q. Before the actual buy bust was the briefing made? A. Yes, sir. Q. In the briefing, [did] you already kn[o]w the subject[?] A. Personally, [I did] not know the subject yet because our confidential informant [was] the one [who] made the arrangement regarding x x x the premise. Q. In the briefing, was the confidential informant present? A. Yes, sir. Q. What information was relayed to you by that informant, if any? A. Prior to the said buy[-]bust he already contacted the said drug pusher in her residence in Caloocan and they agreed that we [would] meet at Camachile and bring the stuff and we [would] give them the money. Q. What time more or less [did] the confidential informant and the suspect x x x me[e]t at Camachile? A. 6:00 p.m. Q. You said you are a poseur buyer, how about your companion what was his designation? A. They were my back up. Q. Did you and your companion including the confidential informant [go] to Camachile Quezon City on that day? A. Yes, sir. Q. What time more or less did you arrive? A. 6:00, sir. Q. What transportation did you take? A. We [used] 2 cars. Q. Who were the occupants of the car which you [were] in? A. S[PO]1 Antolin, P[O]2 Tudillo, [the] confidential informant and myself. Q. How about the other car? A. Duke, Tobias and Tolentino. Q. Upon arriving at the scene will you [describe to] the court your actual positioning there? A. We placed our car in a strategic place. My colleague[s] x x x also positioned themselves in a strategic place within x x x viewing distance x x x while x x x the confidential informant [and I] separated [from] them. Q. You said you and your confidential informant [were] separated from your back up? A. Yes, sir. Q. Aside from you and your confidential informant, who else were with you [o]n that spot where the supposed buy[-]bust [took place]? A. Only the 2 of us. Q. Upon arrival in Camachile how long did you wait [for] the suspect? A. The said suspect was already there. Q. What transpired next? A. When we arrived there our confidential informant introduced me to the said suspect [who] later on was identified as Mrs. Ganenas[; she] introduced me as the one who [was] interested in buying marijuana leaves. Q. Will you describe what your attire [was]? A. Sando, slipper[s] and maong pants. Q. How about the informant? A. T-shirt, short pants, slippers. Q. Upon being introduced to Ganenas, what happened next? A. She demanded [that I] show the money. Q. When this Ganenas demanded the money [from] you, what did you do? A. I show[ed] the money to her and likewise she took it [from] me and she handed 2 bricks of marijuana wrapped in a newspaper. Q. Upon giving her the money she gave you the merchandi[s]e? A. `Kaliwaan' Q. After that what happened next? A. Since she was alone there [and] a woman I introduced myself as a police officer [and] I immediately effected her arrest. x x x x x x x x x Q. Upon effect[ing] her arrest, what happened next? A. From the time when my back up [saw] the completion of the arrest they immediately approached us. Q. And what happened next? A. They subjected the subject [to a] spot interview and questioning"[19]
"We are not unaware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be concocted [and] hence commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well being of society, if the courts x x x accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. x x x." (Italics supplied)