Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40384:g-r-no-129019-august-16,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-ricky-uy&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:56:45+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICKY UY y CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.
That in the evening of 13 June 1996 in Pasay City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute, and/or deliver 250.36 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu", a regulated drug without the corresponding license and/or legal authority to sell, distribute and/or deliver the aforesaid regulated drug.
The accused-appellant, assisted by his counsel de parte, when duly arraigned on July 19, 1996 entered a plea of NOT GUILTY to the crime charged in the Information. 3 Thereafter, trial ensued.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused RICKY UY y CRUZ Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 15 of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7659, and hereby imposes on him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and condemns said accused to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) PESOS without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of suit.
The 250.36 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" (Exhibits "B", "B-1", "B-2", "B-3", "B-4" and "B-5") are hereby confiscated in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to cause the delivery and transportation thereof to the Dangerous Drugs Board for disposition in accordance with law.
The accused shall be credited in full for the period of his detention at the City Jail during the pendency of his case provided that he agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Inspector Ofelio Sotelo, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, (2) PO3 Emmanuel Lopez, (3) PO3 Edgar Bitadora, (4) SPO1 Juanito Lazaro, and (5) PO3 Wilfredo Lumba, the last four came from the Narcotics Command.
On June 13, 1996, at around 5:00 p.m., one Lino Buenaflor was arrested as a result of a buy-bust operation in Taguig, Metro Manila. When investigated, Lino Buenaflor divulged that his source of shabu is Ricky Uy, appellant herein (TSN, 8-28-96, pp. 2-5).
Thereafter, Lino Buenaflor cooperated with the arresting officers to entrap appellant. The team was composed of PO3 Bitadora, PO3 Manuel Lopez, PO3 Lumba, PO3 Anabiso, PO3 Lazaro and PO3 Labrador as the poseur buyer.
On the evening of July 13, 1996, he was at home suffering from diarrhea. It was around 6:00 p.m. when Lino Buenaflor called inviting him for a disco. He, however, refused the invitation due to the said stomach ache. At around 11:00 p.m. Lino Buenaflor called again, this time being answered by the wife since he was inside the comfort room. After twenty minutes, he called again and insisted on his invitation because he is going to tell him something, and that he is already near the place.
Accused told Eddie Baybago, cousin of his wife, to open the gate as Lino Buenaflor would be arriving. Later accused heard the blowing of horns of the car of Lino Buenaflor. After 2-3 minutes, Eddie Baybago did not come back and a person entered then followed by another two persons. They asked if he is Ricky Uy. Four men came along, one of whom hit accused with a 45 cal. pistol on his back.
Accused asked them what were they doing inside the house and actually one of them entered a part of the house carrying a tissue box paper. Then they proceeding to the kitchen, and the one carrying the tissue box, opened the cabinet below the sink and brought out something and they said "this is the thing." Accused, however said, he does not own it, but was hit instead.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ELEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE CHARGE OF ILLEGAL SALE OF SHABU WERE DULY SUBSTANTIATED.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED WAS POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED BY A PROSECUTION WITNESS AS THE SELLER OF THE SHABU TO A POSEUR-BUYER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POSEUR-BUYER DID NOT TESTIFY IN COURT.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE BARANGAY OFFICIAL WAS PRESENT ONLY AFTER THE COMMOTION INSIDE THE HOUSE HAD BEEN FINISHED AND CONSEQUENTLY AFTER THE FRAME-UP HAD ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED.
THE TRIAL COURT, ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE OF THE BARANGAY OFFICIAL TO TESTIFY IN COURT WAS DUE TO HIS REFUSAL TO TESTIFY FOR FEAR OF THREATS FROM THE POLICE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE REFUSAL OF THE WIFE TO ACCOMPANY HER HUSBAND TO GO TO CAMP CRAME AFTER HIS ARREST, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE WIFE, TOGETHER WITH HER COUSIN, EDDIE BAYBAGO, AND OTHER PERSONS, FOLLOWED THE GROUP TO CAMP CRAME BUT THEY WERE DELAYED IN REACHING THE CAMP BECAUSE THEIR JEEP DEVELOPED ENGINE TROUBLE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT BELIEVING THE CLAIM OF THE ACCUSED THAT THE POLICE OFFICERS BARGED INTO THEIR HOUSE, PLANTED EVIDENCE AND TOOK AWAY THEIR JEWELRY BY TAKING JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE OF ALLEGED PERNICIOUS PRACTICE OF THOSE CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO OF ASCRIBING TO POLICE OFFICES WHO ARREST THEM CRIMINAL AND/OR IRREGULAR ACTS TO EVADE CRIMINAL CULPABILITY.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NOT EARNEST EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE WIFE TO PURSUE HER COMPLAINT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE NARCOTICS COMMAND OR PURSUED HER COMPLAINT FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE ARTICLES ILLEGALLY TAKEN FROM THEM, OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE SAID PERSONAL ARTICLES WERE TAKEN FROM THEM THROUGH ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND WITHOUT ANY SEARCH WARRANT IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND MOREOVER, THEIR FAILURE TO MAKE CONTINUOUS FOLLOW-UP OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT THROUGH THE FAULT OF THE ACCUSED’S WIFE BUT DUE TO THREATS ON HER LIFE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPUTING ALLEGED INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE ACCUSED AND HIS WIFE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF THE BARANGAY OFFICIAL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SUCH ALLEGED INCONSISTENCIES DO NOT IMPAIR THEIR CREDIBILITY AS THEY WERE SPEAKING OUT THE TRUTH IN THEIR TESTIMONY.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE AND WEIGHT TO THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS EDDIE BAYBAGO AND IN HOLDING THAT HIS TESTIMONY REGARDING THE OCCURRENCE INSIDE THE HOUSE WAS HEARSAY.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED’S DEFENSE OF FRAME UP, LIKE ALIBI, IS A WEAK DEFENSE, DESPITE AMPLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THE SAID DEFENSE.
At the core of the assigned errors is the issue of whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the Accused-Appellant.
Accused-appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He posits that the prosecution could not have proved an essential element of the crime which is the identity of buyer and seller due to their failure to present the poseur buyer in open court. He maintains that he was the victim of a frame-up and that what really happened on the night of the alleged buy-bust operations was that the police officers barged into their house, planted evidence and stole valuable property. Thus, the trial court erred in not believing his version of the facts, which is supported by the testimony of his wife and Eddie Baybago, as against the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The actual sale of the shabu, which is the as corpus delicti in the crime of illegal distribution and sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, has been sufficiently established by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
Q.	Now after you saw Lino Buenaflor, Ricky Uy and Labrador talking or conversing with each other what else did you observe?
A.	Ricky Uy left and entered his house sir.
Q.	And after Ricky Uy left, what transpired next?
A.	He came out with something sir.
Q.	Alright, when Ricky Uy returned with something where was Labrador then?
Q.	Alright, when Labrador alighted from the car what else did you observed (sic).
The witness said "pera" siguro na marked money.
Q.	And after the exchanges what happened next?
A.	Labrador made a signal by scratching his head.
Q.	Will you tell us the significance of the sign by scratching his head?
A.	Because before we left the office it was agreed if he makes a signal by scratching his head the transaction has been consummated.
Q.	And when the transaction is consummated what will happen Mr. Witness?
Q.	Now, Mr. Witness, this person Ricky Uy, if you will see him, will you be able to identify him?
Q.	Will you look around the courtroom and see for yourself if Ricky Uy is in the courtroom.
A.	Witness approaching the gallery and tap the shoulder of a man in the courtroom who responded to the name when asked as Ricky Uy.
Q.	Now, Mr. Witness, did you come to know whether these was really shabu confiscated from the accused Ricky Uy?
A.	Well, I saw it sir.
Q.	If you will see that shabu, will you be able to identify?
Q.	Now, there is shabu here which was already previously marked as Exhibit "B" containing five (5) plastic packs marked as Exhibit "B-1" to "B-5", tell us the relation of these exhibits to the one you saw.
Accused-appellant, however, argues that the failure of PO3 Nelson Labrador to testify on his allegedly having purchased "shabu" from the accused during the incident in question was fatal to the prosecution’s case.
This contention is without merit.
The crux of this case is the alleged illegal sale of "shabu" by the Accused-Appellant. Whether two or three cars were used in the buy-bust operation is immaterial and does not impair the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. 25 In the case at bar, the prosecution witnesses were in chorus in pointing to the accused as the seller of the shabu to the poseur-buyer.
Q	You stated a while ago you brought Lino to your headquarters and cooperated with your office, in what way did he cooperated with your office?
A	He revealed to us his services of shabu.
Q	And did your office came (sic) to know the source of shabu?
Q	After that what happened next?
A	We formed a team we conducted a buy bust.
Q	Was there any occasion this Lino Buenaflor had any conversation with Ricky Uy while at your office?
Q.	Do you know the reason why Lino Buenaflor would call a certain person by the name of Ricky Uy?
Q	Do you know how much shabu Lino Buenaflor will order from Ricky Uy?
A	I overheard 250 grams sir.
Q	While Lino Buenaflor was talking to Ricky Uy did you hear what they were conversing about?
Q	Tell us the exact words.
Q	What was the answer Mr. Witness?
Q	Tell us, what will be the participation of PO3 Nelson Labrador In this drug buy-bust operations?
A.	He will act as poseur-buyer.
Q.	While you were on board the white Toyota Corolla car what happened?
Q	You said that the car parked near the house of Ricky Uy after it parked what happened?
A	Well, I saw Ricky and Lino talking to each other sir.
Q.	At what distance did you see?
A	Approximately 20 meters Your Honor.
Q	When Ricky Uy was talking to Labrador, Lino to Labrador, where was Lino then?
A	Lino was still inside the car, sir.
A	Labrador was also inside the car, sir.
Q	And what about Ricky Uy?
Q	And after Ricky left, what transpired next?
A	He came out with something sir.
Q	Alright, when Ricky Uy returned with something where was Labrador then?
A	He was already outside the car, sir.
Q	How about the driver, how about Labrador?
A	He was just seated at the driver’s seat sir.
Q	How about the accused?
A	He was inside (sic), Your Honor.
Q	So it was Labrador who stepped out of the car?
Q	Alright, when Labrador alighted from the car what else did you observed (sic)?
A	I saw there was an exchange of something sir.
A	Well, I guess something inside a bag "Supot" sir, and marked money.
Q	And after this exchanges (sic) what happened next?
A	Labrador made a signal by scratching his head.
Q	Will you tell us the significance of the sign by scratching his head?
Q	And when the transaction is consummated (sic) what will happen Mr. Witness?
A	We can already arrest the person, sir.
Q	Alright, when Labrador made that pre-arranged signal by scratching his head what did you do?
A	I run towards the area sir.
Q	And what about Lumba what did he do if any thing?
A	Lumba alighted from the car while I guarded Lino.
Q	And how did you guard Lino?
A	I went inside the car and it was then that I handcuffed Lino sir.
Q	While you were rushing to the place where Ricky Uy and Labrador was (sic) what did you observe insofar as Ricky Uy is concerned?
A	Well, he might have learned of the operations so he attempted to run towards his house.
Q	Was he able to get inside his house?
A	Labrador was able to grab him sir.
Q	And after Labrador grabbed him Mr. Witness, what happened next Mr. Witness?
There is no evidence of any ill-motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, PO3 Bitadora included, which would affect the credibility of their testimony. Hence, the law enforcers involved in the buy bust operation on accused-appellant are presumed to have regularly performed their duty. 41 The testimony of PO3 Bitadora shows that Ricky Uy was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. This testimony was corroborated in its material points by the testimonies of PO3 Emmanuel Lopez, SPO1 Juanito Lazaro and PO3 Wilfredo Lumba. This too is supported by the presentation of the 250.36 grams of shabu which the accused-appellant sold to the poseur-buyer.
[N]o arresting officer would plant such huge quantity of shabu mentioned in the information if only incriminate an individual who was not shown to be of good financial standing and business importance.
As borne in the records, there is no showing of ill-motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. The accused-appellant is not shown to be of good financial standing and business importance.
In short, the trial court found the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible and those of the defense witnesses unworthy of belief. Time and again, this Court has ruled that the findings of the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses during their testimony is accorded with great respect. 45 After a careful review of the testimonies of both the prosecution and defense, we see no cogent reason to depart from this doctrine.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
1.	Penned by Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg, Records, pp. 272-284.
3.	RTC Decision, p. 1; Id., at 272.
7.	Brief for the accused-appellant, Rollo, pp. 50-53.
8.	CONST. Art. III, sec. 14, par. (2); RULES OF COURT, Rule 115, Sec. 1, par. (a), as amended; Rusita v. Ramos, 48 Phil. 292, 297 (1925-26); People v. Bato, 284 SCRA 223, 238 (1998); People v. Hilario, 284 SCRA 344, 356 (1989); People v. Medel, 286 SCRA 567, 584 (1998).
9.	People v. Eslaban, 218 SCRA 534, 544 (1993); People v. Quetua, 222 SCRA 357, 364 (1993).
10.	People v. Jorge, 231 SCRA 693, 700 (1994).
11.	U.S. v. Losada, 18 Phil. 90, 96 (1910-1911).
12.	People v. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621, 629-630 (1998); People v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 87, 92 (1997).
13.	TSN, September 2, 1996, p. 24.
17.	RTC Decision, p. 4; Rollo, p. 275.
18.	September 2, 1996; p. 29-31.
19.	People v. Malakas, 228 p. 310 319-320 (1993) citing People v. Polizon, 214 SCRA 56 (1992). This exception enunciated in People v. Ramos, 186 SCRA 184 (1990); People v. Tantiado and People v. Olaes, 188 SCRA 91 (1990), applies when the sale occurred within the house of the accused and not within view of the other police officers and, hence, only witnessed by the poseur-buyer.
20.	Id., at 2 per manifestation of Fiscal Vibandor.
21.	TSN, Sept. 4, 1996, pp. 10-12.
22.	TSN, Nov. 11, 1996, p. 22.
23.	People v. Magno, 296 SCRA 443, 450 (1998).
24.	People v. Sy Bing Yok, 309 SCRA 28 (1999).
27.	Appellants’s Brief, p. 22-24.
28.	People v. Salazar, 266 SCRA 607 (1997).
29.	People v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 87 (1997).
30.	People v. Pagaura, 267 SCRA 17, 24 (1992).
31.	People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193, 261 (1997), Espano v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558, 569 (1998); People v. Alegro, 275 SCRA 216, 220 (1997); People v. Lising, 275 SCRA 804, 811 (1987).
32.	People v. Agapito, 154 SCRA 695, 699-700 (1987).
33.	People v. Sy Bing Yok, supra.
34.	TSN, Sept. 2, 1996, p. 7.
41.	People v. Sy Bing Yok, supra.
42.	RTC Decision, pp. 7-13; Records, pp. 278-284.
45. People v. Gomes, 230 SCRA 270, 275 (1994); People v. Gumahin, 21 SCRA 729, 736 (1967); People v. Garcia, 89 SCRA 440, 450 (1979).
46.	Sec. 20, RA No. 642S as amended.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.