Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50173:gr-175281-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:59:49+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. VINCENT EVANGELISTA, Appellant.
For review1 is the decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated 14 July 2006 and its subsequent resolution3 dated 3 November 2006 affirming in toto the judgment4 dated 14 December 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)5 of Quezon City, Branch 103, finding Raymundo Reyes (Reyes) and appellant Vincent Evangelista (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 (R.A. No. 6425), otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each.
That on or about the 13th day of December, 2000 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with and mutually helping each other, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did, then and there wilfully [sic] and unlawfully sell (or offer for sale) nine hundred seventy four point twelve (974.12) grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding both accused Raymundo Reyes y Dizon and Vincent Evangelista y Bernaldez, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of selling in conspiracy with one another, methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing nine hundred seventy-four and 12/100 grams (974.12 grams), as charged herein, in violation of Section 15, R.A. [No.] 6425, and both accused are here[by] sentenced to suffer a jail term of Reclusion Perpetua and a fine each of P500,000.00.
The shabu subject of this case is ordered transmitted to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition after this sentence becomes final. No costs.
Appellant assails the decision of the Court of Appeals for failing to apply the "objective" test in entrapment and buy-bust operations. Likewise, he makes issue of his conviction based on the sole testimony of SPO2 Dela Cruz and the failure of the prosecution to present the informant and other members of the buy-bust team. He attacks SPO2 Dela Cruz's testimony as replete with serious contradictions, pointing to inconsistencies made during SPO2's direct examination in relation to his Joint Affidavit, on the matter of who received the marked money.
We find no cogent reason to overturn the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC in the case before us. The positive identification made by poseur-buyer SPO2 Dela Cruz and the laboratory report, not to mention the dubious defenses of alibi and frame-up which Reyes and appellant have resorted to, sufficiently prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime charged.
Contrary to the assertion of appellant that SPO2 Dela Cruz was only the delivery man thus characterizing his testimony as hearsay, the evidence on record shows that SPO2 Dela Cruz in fact did have personal knowledge of the offer to purchase the prohibited drugs, the acceptance thereof and the consideration therefor. He was present at the meeting between the informer and Lt. Anrade, as well as during at meeting between the informer and Reyes and appellant. Finally, as poseur-buyer, he directly transacted with appellant and Reyes for the purchase of the drugs. Thus, there is no basis to exclude SPO2 Dela Cruz's testimony, let alone on the ground of hearsay.
Police authorities rarely, if at all, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court.34 Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted, their identities are kept secret.35 Thus, except for a situation where the accused vehemently denies selling any prohibited drugs, coupled with inconsistent testimonies of the arresting officers or with the possibility that there exist reasons to believe that the arresting officer had motives to testify falsely against the accused, or in a situation where it was only the informant-poseur-buyer who witnessed the entire transaction,36 the testimony of the informant is not essential for conviction to lie. No such exception obtains in the case at bar. What is crucial is that both of the accused were caught red-handed in the act of trafficking illegal drugs.
All told, we are persuaded that the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs have been herein sufficiently established, i.e.: (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.42 Thus, we are in full accord with the assailed decision finding appellant and Reyes guilty of violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425 and imposing upon them the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 each.
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals finding appellant Vincent Evangelista guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de oficio.
1 The instant case is captioned "People of the Philippines v. Vincent Evangelista" following the caption in the Petition for Review which Evangelista filed before the Court on his behalf only, excluding his co-accused Reyes, in regard to the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Following the prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty effected by Republic Act No. 9346, there is no longer any automatic review of cases. Thus, the doctrine in People v. Mateo [433 SCRA 640 (2004)] which requires the Court of Appeals, should it affirm an appellant's conviction for death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, to refrain from entering judgment and elevate the entire records of the case to this Court for final disposition is deemed superseded. A notice of appeal by the appellant is therefore necessary to elevate the case to this Court for review. Consequently, as Reyes failed to file a notice of appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeals, became final as to him.
2 Rollo, pp. 28-47. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina A. Guevara-Salonga and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
5 Presided by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
6 CA rollo, pp. 6-7.
7 TSN, 3 July 2001, pp. 4-9.
8 Id. at 7, 10-11, 33.
12 Records, p. 137. See Exhibit "B."
13 TSN, 16 October 2001, pp. 13-14; TSN, 20 November 2001, pp. 6-7.
14 TSN, 16 October 2001, pp. 3-6, 8.
16 TSN, 30 October 2001, pp. 3-14.
18 TSN, 20 November 2001, pp. 3-6, 11.
23 Id. at 171-172, 174-175.
24 People v. Corpuz, 442 Phil. 405, 415 (2002), citing People v. Sy, G.R. No. 147348, 24 September 2002; 389 SCRA 594 and People v. Chen Tiz Chang, 325 SCRA 776, 17 February 2000.
25 People v. Ahmad, G.R. No. 148048, 15 January 2004, 419 SCRA 677, 695, citing People v. Sy, supra.
26 People v. Ahmad, supra. See also People v. Corpuz, supra and People v. Lee Hoi Ming, 459 Phil. 187, 194 (2003).
27 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 151205, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 516, 522; citing People v. Padasin, 397 SCRA 417 (2003) and People v. Eugenio, 395 SCRA 317 (2003).
28 People v. De Guzman, supra; People v. Padasin, supra.
29 361 Phil. 595 (1999).
31 See People v. De Guzman, supra; People v. Padasin, supra; People v. So, 421 Phil. 929 (2001).
32 TSN, 3 July 2001, pp. 4-22.
33 People v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 106874, 21 January 1994, 229 SCRA 439, 447, citing People v. Odicta, 197 SCRA 158 (1991); People v. Alerta, Jr., 198 SCRA 656 (1991); People v. Rumeral, 200 SCRA 194 (1991); People v. Carpio, 207 SCRA 569 (1992); People v. Bagame, 207 SCRA 761 (1992).
34 People v. Nicolas. G.R. No. 110116, 1 February 1995, 241 SCRA 67. See also People v. Casolocan, G.R. No. 156890, 13 July 2004, 434 SCRA 276.
36 People v. Casolocan, supra note 32 at 284, citing People v. Lucero, 229 SCRA 1 (1994).
37 People v. Delos Reyes, supra note 31 at 447-448, citing People v. Abelita, 210 SCRA 497 (1992).
38 TSN, 3 July 2001, pp. 37-39.
39 People v. Cadley, G.R. No. 150735, 15 March 2004, 425 SCRA 493.
42 People v. Ahmad, supra note 24; citing People v. Patayek, G.R. No. 123076, 26 March 2003, 399 SCRA 490.

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. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.