Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82529:56427&catid=1576&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:14:53+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 176269, November 13, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. KENNETH MONCEDA Y SY ALIAS “WILLIAM SY” AND YU YUK LAI ALIAS “SZE YUK LAI,”Appellants.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. KENNETH MONCEDA Y SY ALIAS “WILLIAM SY” AND YU YUK LAI ALIAS “SZE YUK LAI,”Appellants.
The appellants were duly arraigned and they entered a plea of “not guilty” on April 14, 1999.6 Trial on the merits thereafter took place.
The defense presented a different version of events. The appellants denied selling the shabu and claimed that they were victims of a frame-up. Lai, together with five other witnesses, took the witness stand for the defense, but Monceda declined.
The appellants appealed to the CA. During the pendency of the appeal, Monceda committed suicide.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA found that the collective testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were corroborated by the physical evidence on record. The CA also found Lai’s defense to be weak, especially after she failed to present her son and her driver as witnesses. Her defense was further weakened when no single complaint was ever filed against the members of the buy-bust team for the abuses they allegedly committed.
THE CA ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WHILE TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE.
THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT DID NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
THE CA ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS PROPER HANDLING AND TRANSFER OF THE CUSTODY OF THE CONFISCATED DRUGS.
Lai argues that the lower courts erred in evaluating the testimonial evidence by relying mainly on the presumption of regularity: they failed to give due weight to the possible motive that impelled the police officers to perpetuate the frame-up. Lai also faults the lower courts for disregarding the defense’s evidence which pointed out the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. She emphasizes that her testimony was sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of the other defense witnesses.
Lai also contends that her constitutional right was violated because the confidential informant was not presented as witness. Lastly, she argues that the identification of the shabu was not sufficiently proven since the seized items were not marked at the time she was apprehended and were improperly handled.
In this case, we find from the records sufficient evidence of the illegal sale with the accused as the sellers and see no compelling need to re-evaluate the trial court’s assessments.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely: PO3 Pastrana, P/Inspector Arsenal, SPO3 Anasta, P/C Supt. Licup, and Col. Castillo were positive and straightforward. While there existed some inconsistencies in their individual testimonies compared with one another, these testimonies – considered in their totality – leave no doubt in our minds that an illegal sale of shabu had actually taken place with the accused as the sellers.
After you were introduced by your confidential agent, what transpired next?
He went back to his car and he whispered something to his lady companion and then came back to me. He insisted that he be shown the casino chips. And after I showed them to him, he went back to his car.
After he return[ed] to his car, what happened next?
When that carton box was handed to you by William Sy, what did you do?
I examined the contents of the carton to ascertain if it is shabu. Then I placed the carton inside our car and I got the 4 casino chips and gave them to William Sy. After that, I executed the pre-arranged signal and I introduced myself as Narcom Agent. At this point, William Sy tried to escape but I got hold of him. (interrupted).
During the last hearing, you identified the carton box containing 3 plastic bags containing shabu, could you tell us what is the relation of that box that you mentioned and the shabu inside it to that you identified during the last hearing?
In People v. Zheng Bai Hui,33 we held that like the defense of alibi, frame-up is an allegation that can easily be concocted. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of official acts of government officials.
Lai, unfortunately for her, failed to corroborate her statements regarding the alleged arrest which occurred at Diamond Hotel. Her presented witnesses all testified on the events before or after her arrest. Lai’s lone testimony regarding the circumstances of arrest at Diamond Hotel, on the other hand, failed to overcome the positive and credible testimony showing the existence of the buy-bust operation at Sofitel Hotel. Worse, the two persons, her son and her driver, who accompanied her during the alleged arrest at Diamond Hotel, and who could have possibly shed light to her version of the events – both refused to testify. We find this development perplexing and is a matter which greatly weakened Lai’s frame-up allegations.
Lai next argues that the absence of any prior surveillance casts doubt on the veracity of the buy-bust operation. This argument, in our view, suffers from obvious lack of merit.
We have held that prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied at the target area by the informant.34 Similarly, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success in prosecuting drug-related cases.35 It is only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his identity be disregarded.36 In this case, the informant had actively participated in the buy-bust operation and her testimony, if presented, would merely corroborate the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team.
Before you placed the carton box inside your Hunchback Honda Civic, did you wrap it?
Are you aware that pictures were taken of the stuff that was placed in the rear seat of your Honda Civic Hunchback?
I do not know about that, sir.
You show him the picture if there is a picture.
I am showing to you a picture which purports to have been taken on November 7, 1998, are you familiar with the items and personalities depicted in that picture?
Now, are you aware, Mr. Witness that the red plastic box which Major Suan and Col. Ruiz are shown in this picture as in the process of urbaning allegedly contained the cartoon box which you placed at the rear seat of your car?
What was handed to me was a cartoon box and it was not contained in a plastic bag as shown in the picture.
Itong pinapakita sa akin, sigurado ako dahil hindi ko nakita ‘yan.
So, it’s only now that you saw this plastic bag colored red and white which is supposed to contain the [carton], this is the first time you saw this plastic bag?
Are you telling the Honorable Court, that immediately after the confidential agent parked the car at the parking area in front of the Diamond Hotel, she left the premises?
Who turned over the key, you or the confidential informant?
But you did not remove the [carton] box at the rear seat of the Honda Hunchback?
And you were no longer around when pictures were taken of the stuff that you allegedly confiscated?
And you were the one [who] personally brought the [carton] box containing plastic bags?
Yes, sir, because it was under my direct custody already, sir.
At your office, what did you do [to] them in connection with this case?
I waited for the operating elements and when Major Suan arrived, I called for him and turned over these evidences to him as much as he is the project officer on case, sir.
Now, in connection with this case, Mr. Witness, do you recall whether you requested for laboratory examination?
After this request, what else did you do in connection with this case?
In convicting an accused for drug-related offenses, it is essential that the identity of the drugs must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.48 In this case, we see no irregularity on the part of the buy-bust operatives as to break the required chain of custody which could warrant the acquittal of Lai.
1 Decision dated May 30, 2005 and resolution dated September 13, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00434; penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes, and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina-Salonga and Fernanda Lampas Peralta. Rollo, pp. 4-34; and CA rollo, pp. 309-310, respectively.
2 Decision dated September 20, 2001, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila; CA rollo, pp. 175-215. Penned by Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.
3 The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
4 AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
5 CA rollo, p. 19.
15 Records II, pp. 16-17; italics ours.
16 TSN, February 23, 2001, pp. 11-19.
22 TSN, March 30, 2001, pp. 16-18.
23 Records II, pp. 32-33.
25 Records II, p. 52.
26People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324.
27The People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.
28 People v. Alivio, G.R. No. 177771, May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 318, 328.
29 Records II, p. 14.
31 People v. Khor, 366 Phil. 762, 790.
32 TSN, September 15, 1999, pp. 16-18; italics ours.
33 393 Phil. 68, 135 (2000).
34People v. Abedin, G.R. No. 179936, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 322, 336.
35People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 445-446.
37 TSN, January 10, 2000, pp. 1-33.
39People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 274.
41 TSN, October 6, 1999, p. 23.
42 Id. at 23-25; italics and emphases ours.
43 TSN, January 12, 2000, pp. 36-40.
44 TSN, October 13, 1999, p. 5.
45 Records II, p. 19.
46 TSN, January 12, 2000, pp. 29-32.
47 Records I, p. 25.
48Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 680, 688-689.

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