Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53073:gr-187503-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:42:40+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TECSON LIM Y CHUA and MAXIMO FLORES Y VITERBO, Accused-Appellants.
For review is the Decision1 dated 18 November 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01871, which affirmed in toto the Decision2 dated 12 February 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of ParaÃ±aque City, Branch 258, in Criminal Case No. 00-0100, finding herein appellants Tecson Lim y Chua (Lim) and Maximo Flores y Viterbo (Flores) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15,3 Article III of Republic Act No. 6425,4 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,5 sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering each to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00.
During arraignment, the appellants, assisted by their counsel de parte, refused to enter a plea after the Information was read to them; thus, the court a quo ordered that a plea of NOT GUILTY be entered into the records for both appellants. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Police Officer (PO) 1 Mangontawar Amerol (PO1 Amerol), member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Group, Camp Crame, Quezon City, who acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation on 3 December 1999; Annalee R. Forro, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City; and Police Senior Inspector Eleazar Mata (P/Sr. Insp. Mata), member of the PNP Narcotics Group, Camp Crame, Quezon City, who conducted a briefing of his team members on the conduct of their buy-bust operation on 3 December 1999.
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of the following witnesses: appellant Lim, a Chinese national; appellant Flores; Bienvenido Olan (Olan); and SPO1 Sorreda, as adverse witness.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, finding [appellants], TECSON LIM y CHUA and MAXIMO FLORES y VITERBO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. [No.] 6425, as amended by R.A. [No.] 7659 in relation to Number 3,35 Section 20 thereof, and [appellants] TECSON LIM y CHUA and MAXIMO FLORES y VITERBO are hereby sentenced to each suffer the penalty [of] RECLUSION PERPETUA and for both [appellants] to pay a fine of TWO MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00) each.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu confiscated from both the [appellants] is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and the Sheriff of this Court is directed to immediately turn over the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board and for the said office to acknowledge receipt thereof.
The records of this case were originally transmitted to this Court on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Mateo,37 the records were transferred to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.
On 18 November 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming in toto the 12 February 2003 Decision of the trial court.
Appellants appealed to this Court, contending that the trial court erred in relying heavily on the testimonies of PO1 Amerol and P/Sr. Insp. Mata. Appellants claimed that PO1 Amerol was silent on the instructions given during the briefing as to what the rest of the buy-bust team would do upon arrival at the target area, while he was transacting with appellants. They insisted that if there was really a briefing, the buy-bust team should have discussed and identified the areas where they would conceal themselves to boost the confidence of PO1 Amerol as the poseur-buyer. In the absence of such briefing, it cannot be presumed that the other members of the buy-bust team concealed themselves.
Moreover, P/Sr. Insp. Mata, the officer-in-charge in the buy-bust operation, failed to perform his regular duty to conduct a test-buy before the buy-bust operation. For failure of P/Sr. Insp. Mata to do this, the trial court should not have given much weight and reference to the said buy-bust operation.
The appellants also faulted the trial court for convicting them despite the fact that PO1 Amerol had already prepared the crime laboratory result of the white crystalline substance even prior to its submission for laboratory examination.
Finally, appellants asserted that the trial court erred in considering the testimony of PO1 Amerol despite the inconsistencies therein, particularly his testimony referring to two different places where he put markings on the buy-bust money, to wit: (1) at the scene of the crime; and (2) at their office in Camp Crame, Quezon City. The said inconsistencies, if ignored, would cause injustice to appellants.
Appellants' contentions are bereft of merit.
We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.
In this case, the trial court correctly upheld the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, i.e., PO1 Amerol and P/Sr. Insp. Mata, the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It did not err in applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by law enforcement agents.
A: About 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, sir.
A: We waited there and the subject arrived at 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, sir.
A: Two (2) of them, Maximo Flores, sir.
A: When they arrived our reliable informant saw them and then Tecson Lim went out of the vehicle and they talk to each other, sir.
A: They approached me and then our reliable informant introduced Tecson Lim to me, sir.
A: Our reliable informant introduced me to Tecson Lim that, this is Mike Amerol, a [M]usli[m] and wanted to buy shabu, sir.
A: Tecson Lim asked me if I brought money, sir.
A: I said "yes" and I showed to him the buy-bust money, sir.
Atty: Bringas: Objection, your honor, no basis yet.
A: He excused himself and go back to his car, sir.
A: He was standing in front of the vehicle, sir.
A: After a while both of them alighted, sir.
A: They came to me and Maximo Flores was carrying a black bag, sir.
A: Both of them approach me, sir.
A: Maximo Flores open (sic) that bag and showed to me its contents, sir.
A: I saw one tape sealed on a transparent plastic bag containing the methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir.
A: One (1) kilo, sir.
A: Tecson Lim asked the money in payment of the item, sir.
A: He just showed it to me, sir, and we exchange, I got the black bag and he got the money, sir.
A: I execute my pre-arrange signal, sir.
From the foregoing, this Court is strongly convinced that the testimony of PO1 Amerol as the poseur-buyer was, indeed, clear and credible. He recounted in full detail how the deal was set by the informant, their meeting with appellants at McDonald's, Sucat, ParaÃ±aque City, their agreement to purchase one kilo of shabu for P700,000.00, the actual exchange of the black bag with a tape-sealed transparent plastic bag containing the substance and the boodle money, and the apprehension of appellants. Further, the prosecution presented before the court a quo the shabu subject of the buy-bust operation and the boodle money, which were marked as Exhibit "B" and Exhibits "F" to "F-8."
Appellants allege that (1) the buy-bust team should have discussed and identified the areas where they would conceal themselves to boost the confidence of PO1 Amerol as the poseur-buyer because, in absence thereof, it cannot be presumed that the other members of the buy-bust team concealed themselves; and (2) P/Sr. Insp. Mata, the team leader of the buy-bust operation, failed to perform his regular duty to conduct a test-buy before the buy-bust operation. We do not agree.
Further, the choice of effective ways to apprehend drug dealers is within the ambit of police authority. Police officers have the expertise to determine which specific approaches are necessary to enforce their entrapment operations.47 Thus, there was no irregularity in the performance of duty on the part of the members of the buy-bust team, even though they did not anymore conduct a test or trial buy-bust operation.
Contrary to appellants' claim that PO1 Amerol had already prepared the crime laboratory result of the white crystalline substance even prior to the submission of the specimen for laboratory examination, the records revealed otherwise. Records showed that after appellants were apprehended, a request was made for the laboratory examination of the white crystalline substance confiscated by the buy-bust team from appellants. The white crystalline substance was subsequently submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination by its forensic chemist, Annallee R. Forro. The examination yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Forensic chemist Forro reduced the result of the examination into writing, as evidenced by Physical Sciences Report No. D-5933-99 dated 4 December 1999. Clearly, the crime laboratory result of the examination of the shabu confiscated from appellants was not prepared prior to the submission of the specimen for laboratory examination, as appellants would want this Court to believe.
Appellants' assertion that the trial court erred in considering the testimony of PO1 Amerol despite the inconsistencies therein, which, if ignored, would cause injustice to the appellants, is likewise specious.
This Court has repeatedly held that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not actually touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair their credibility. Instead of weakening their testimonies, such inconsistencies tend to strengthen their credibility, because they discount the possibility of such testimonies being rehearsed.48 Moreover, PO1 Amerol satisfactorily explained the inconsistencies in his testimony. He stated that he was not able to understand the question, as he thought that it referred to the markings on the shabu. He then clarified that the markings on the buy-bust money were made at their office in Camp Crame, Quezon City. What was marked at the scene of the crime was the shabu and not the buy-bust money.
Finally, this Court affirms the findings of both lower courts that there was conspiracy between appellants Lim and Flores to commit the crime charged, and that the same was apparent from their actuations in selling the prohibited drug to PO1 Amerol.
As the Court of Appeals stated in its Decision, both appellants arrived together at the place of the buy-bust operation on board a Daihatsu car. Appellant Lim alighted from the car and spoke to the informant and to PO1 Amerol, the poseur-buyer. After the negotiation, appellant Lim went back to the car and returned with appellant Flores, who was then carrying a black bag containing a tape-sealed transparent plastic bag with shabu. Appellant Flores gave the black bag with a tape-sealed transparent plastic bag containing shabu to PO1 Amerol, and the latter handed to appellant Lim the boodle money in payment thereof. The actuations of both appellants clearly revealed that there was conspiracy between them to commit the illegal transaction of selling shabu, a regulated or prohibited drug.
With the foregoing, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the appellants were, indeed, guilty of violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
On the basis of the aforesaid provisions of law, the penalty imposed by the lower courts upon appellants, which is reclusion perpetua, is proper, considering that the shabu confiscated in this case as a result of the buy-bust operation weighs more than 200 grams, i.e., 975.4 grams.
In the same vein, the fine of P2,000,000.00 imposed by the lower courts on each appellant is also in order as the same is still within the range of fines imposable on any person who sells prohibited drugs without any authority as clearly provided in Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 18 November 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01871, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
* Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro was designated to sit as additional member replacing Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated 27 May 2009.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dican with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring; rollo, pp. 4-24.
2 Penned by Judge Raul E. de Leon, CA rollo, pp. 26-34.
3 Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.
4 Also known as "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972."
5 An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for That Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as amended, other Special Penal Laws and for Other Purposes.
b) Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs. x x x.
7 CA rollo, pp. 10-12.
9 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 31 August 2000, pp. 7-10.
12 Records, Vol. 1, p. 32.
13 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 31 August 2000, pp. 16, 19-20 and 22; P/Sr. Insp. Mata, TSN, 16 November 2000, pp. 5-11.
14 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 31 August 2000, pp. 11-14.
15 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 12 October 2000, pp. 16-17 and 21-22; P/Sr. Insp. Mata, TSN, 16 November 2000, pp. 9, 11-12 and 24-27.
16 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 31 August 2000, pp. 14-27.
17 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 12 October 2000, pp. 8 and 18.
18 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 31 August 2000, p. 28.
19 PO1 Amerol, TSN, 26 September 2000, pp. 4-16; P/Sr. Insp. Mata, TSN, 16 November 2000, pp. 17-20.
20 Records, Vol. I, p. 28.
22 Forensic Chemist Forro, TSN, 7 November 2000, pp. 13-15.
23 Records, Vol. II, p. 399.
24 Records, Vol. I, p. 29.
25 TSN, 6 March 2001, pp. 8-10.
26 TSN, 20 March 2001, p. 6.
27 TSN, 6 March 2001, p. 10; TSN, 20 March 2001, pp. 8-9.
28 Id. at 11-15; id. at 10-13.
30 TSN, 24 April 2001, pp. 6-12, 18.
31 TSN, 10 July 2001, p. 14.
32 TSN, 24 April 2001, pp. 12-14.
33 TSN, 20 September 2001, pp. 4-9; TSN 25 September 2001, pp. 16-19.
34 TSN, 11 April 2002, pp. 7-11.
36 CA rollo, pp. 33-34.
37 G.R. NOS. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
38 CA rollo, p. 212.
39 People v. Valencia, 439 Phil. 561, 567 (2002).
40 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 151205, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 516, 522-523.
41 361 Phil. 595, 621 (1999).
42 People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004).
43 TSN, 31 August 2000, pp. 12-28.
44 418 Phil. 229, 237-238 (2001).
45 G.R. No. 110357, 17 August 1994, 235 SCRA 455, 463.
46 People v. Beriarmente, supra note 44.
47 People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 305 (2003).
48 People v. Bagaua, 442 Phil. 245, 255 (2002).
49 People v. Garcia, 346 Phil. 475, 497 (1997).
50 People v. Bulan, G.R. No. 143404, 8 June 2005, 459 SCRA 550, 575.

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