Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53025:gr-179475-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:41:33+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. DANIEL SIBUNGA Y AGTOCA, Appellant.
Daniel Sibunga y Agtoca (appellant) was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61 of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act).
At 7:15 p.m. also on September 26, 2003, the members of the team motored to Bonifacio Street and met their informant infront of the Baguio Central University. As PO2 Lagan remained inside their vehicle, SPO4 Malateo, PO3 Lag-ey and the informant walked towards U Need Lumber,5 also in Bonifacio Street, where they were to meet "Marty" and "Daniel."
Soon, two persons approached the informant who introduced the two officers to them as prospective buyers of shabu. The stouter one, later identified to be appellant, asked them how much they were buying to which SPO4 Malateo replied "isang bulto lang." The younger one, later identified to be Marty Ampadi (Ampadi), at once brought out one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing crystalline substance from his pocket and handed it to Ampadi who thereupon demanded payment from SPO4 Malateo. At that instant, SPO4 Malateo and PO3 Lag-ey introduced themselves as police officers, took the sachet, and arrested the two whom they brought to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Baguio City Police Office for documentation.
The crime laboratory confirmed the contents of the seized sachet as methamphetamine hydrochloride,6 hence, appellant's indictment.
As for Ampadi, the Public Prosecutor's Office recommended that he be charged for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug.7 However, it is not apparent from the records of the case whether Ampadi was charged.
In fine, appellant claimed that he was framed up.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by Decision of June 1, 2007,11 affirmed that of the trial court's.
The appellate court discredited too appellant's contention that since no payment for the shabu was given, no sale was consummated.
Hence, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari .
What is important is that SPO4 Malateo and PO3 Lag-ey's respective testimonies are consistent insofar as the presence of the elements of the crime is concerned.
WHEREFORE, the June 1, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02008 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
2 TSN, July 14, 2005, pp. 3-24.
4 TSN, November 9, 2004, pp. 4-11.
8 TSN, November 10, 2004, pp. 3-16.
9 TSN, October 12, 2005, pp. 4-19.
11 Penned by Justice Cecil C. Librea-Leagogo, with the concurrence of Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Regalado E. Maambong, rollo, pp. 2-29.
12 CA rollo, pp. 81-108.
13 TSN, Nov. 10, 2004, p. 8.
14 TSN, July 14, 2005, p. 11.
A: After a sort conversation and the Informant already introduced SPO4 Malateo, Daniel Sibunga asked how much will SPO4 Malateo buy, Sir.
A: During that time we were just a foot away, Sir.
A: He answered two (2) grams only, Sir.
15 CA rollo, p. 31.
17 People v. Nicolas, 311 Phil. 79, 88 (1995).
18 TSN, July 14, 2005, p. 11.
20 TSN, February 9, 2005, pp. 11-13.
21 People v. Chua, 416 Phil. 33, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 121039-45, 302 SCRA 21, 51-52 (1999).
22 People v. Nicolas, 311 Phil. 79, 88 (1995).
23 People v. Concepcion. G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 442.
24 Juanito Chan y Lim, a.k.a. Zhang Zhenting v. Secretary of Justice, Pablo C. Formaran III and Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, represented by PO3 Danilo L. Sumpay, G.R. No. 147065, March 14, 2008, citing Marilyn H. Co v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 168811, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 147.
25 People v. Nicolas, G.R. No. 110116. February 1, 1995, 241 SCRA 67.

References: v. 
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.