Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40360:g-r-no-130836-august-11,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-arnel-c-montano&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:25:59+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL C. MONTANO, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal from the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City, finding accused-appellant Arnel C. Montano guilty of violation of Art. III, §15 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P2 million and the costs of the suit.
That in the afternoon of (the) 22nd of January, 1996, in the municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell, distribute and/or deliver 229.7 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as ‘shabu’ which is a regulated drug, without the corresponding license and/or legal authority to sell, distribute and/or deliver the same.
When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, whereupon he was tried.
Sometime in the second week of January 1996, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano received a tip from a female confidential informant that the accused-appellant was engaged in the distribution of shabu in Taguig, Metro Manila. 4 Agent Rejano and the informant, therefore, conducted a "test-buy" operation on January 18, 1996 at accused-appellant’s residence at 104 N. P. Cruz St., Barangay Ususan, Taguig, Metro Manila. 5 When they arrived at the place, the female informant went inside the gate as Agent Rejano stayed behind. After thirty minutes, the informant asked Agent Rejano to come in, and the two then proceeded along a roofed alley with concrete walls on both sides. They entered a second gate where a store with a long bench was located. A woman, whom Agent Rejano came to know was accused-appellant’s mother, tended the store.
At the gate, the informant introduced Agent Rejano to accused-appellant as a Chinese drug-user and a big-time buyer of shabu. While Agent Rejano waited at the store, the informant went with accused-appellant in front of the latter’s house about 15 meters away and transacted business with him on the porch. Agent Rejano saw them sniffing something while seated on the metal chairs. After thirty minutes, the informant returned to Agent Rejano and secretly told him that she already had the stuff from the Accused-Appellant. Thereafter, they left and returned to the NBI office in Taft Avenue, Manila.
On January 19, 1996, Agent Rejano, together with the female informant and another intelligence agent, returned to accused-appellant’s house to purchase more shabu. Again, it was the informant who transacted with accused-appellant while Agent Rejano and the intelligence agent stayed at the store. After half an hour, the informant returned and discreetly told them that she had with her the stuff from accused-appellant and that the latter was willing to deliver 200 grams of shabu on January 22, 1996. Then, they left.
On January 22, 1996, a team of NBI agents proceeded to Taguig, Metro Manila aboard three vehicles. About 100 meters away from the target area, the buy-bust team, composed of Agent Reynaldo Esmeralda, Agent Regner Peneza, and the informant, took a tricycle to accused-appellant’s house, while the rest of the NBI operatives waited for a signal at a distance. Accused-appellant and his mother met the buy-bust operatives. The informant informed accused-appellant that they already had the money and were ready to buy 250 grams of shabu. Accused-appellant then led the group to an alley towards the kitchen outside his house. The informant introduced Agent Peneza as her husband and Agent Esmeralda as the bodyguard of her employer, the Japanese financier. Accused-appellant’s mother then served the group some snacks, consisting of leche flan and softdrinks. Accused-appellant left them and, after a few minutes, returned with Hector Tinga. Accused-appellant told the group to follow him. Accused-appellant’s mother was left behind. They passed through a dark narrow alley leading to an enclosed space at the back of accused-appellant’s house. Tinga brought out two plastic packets of a white crystalline substance and handed them to Accused-Appellant. Accused-appellant gave the packets to the informant who tested the contents by burning a small amount using an improvised tooter. When the informant confirmed that the substance was shabu, Accused-appellant asked for the money.
Agent Esmeralda handed accused-appellant bundles of P100 bills. While the accused-appellant and Tinga were counting the money, Agents Esmeralda and Peneza announced the arrest and handcuffed the two. Esmeralda radioed the other members of the NBI team to proceed to the area. 10 After the team secured the house, Agent Auralyn Pascual served the search warrant to the mother of Accused-Appellant. With two barangay officials as witnesses, the NBI agents recovered from the search, besides the two packets of white crystalline substance, a tooter, a burner, aluminum foil, a pair of scissors, and a match. 11 The items were listed in the inventory of articles seized which was signed by Agent Pascual and attested to by the barangay officials. 12 Agent Pascual gave the mother of the accused-appellant a copy of the inventory.
In the afternoon of January 18, 1996, while he was cleaning the passenger jeepney he was driving, a woman arrived and introduced herself as "Solly." As she was looking for the residence of Hector Tinga, Accused-appellant pointed to her the direction to the said house. After a few minutes, Solly returned and told him that the gate was closed. She requested him to fetch Tinga. Accused-appellant said he acceded to the request and that, after a while, Tinga came to meet the stranger. According to accused-appellant, Solly told him that she and Tinga met in a nightclub in Ermita, and that she worked for a Japanese employer. Accused-appellant said that he got interested, because he wanted to work abroad, and the stranger might be able to help him get employment overseas.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Arnel C. Montano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, in relation to Section 20, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Said accused is hereby sentenced to: (a) suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, (b) pay a fine in the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), and (c) pay the costs.
We find these contentions without merit.
Second. Accused-appellant invokes the defense of alibi. He claims that he went out of his house to get an electric fan and only witnessed the illegal transaction after his return and that he was merely implicated by the arresting, officers.
Third. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties in favor of the arresting officers had not been sufficiently controverted by accused-appellant; hence, this Court is bound to uphold the same. 38 Except for his self-serving statements, Accused-appellant failed to present evidence to establish that the buy-bust operation was "resorted to harass, extort and abuse." In a vain attempt to establish his inculpability, he even questioned the validity of his arrest on account of the absence of a warrant. The fact, however, is that accused-appellant was apprehended in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation against him and his arrest falls within the ambit of Rule 113, §5(a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on arrests without a warrant. Indeed, this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law." 39 The validity of the arrest in this case must be sustained.
Fourth. Nor is there merit in accused-appellant’s assertion that, because of the release of Hector Tinga, he is entitled to an acquittal. No principle of equality justifies setting free a man who is otherwise guilty just because his co-conspirator escaped prosecution. Accused-appellant’s guilt is not dependent on whether or not Tinga was similarly charged with the same offense. As discussed above, the evidence against accused-appellant sufficiently establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
However, it cannot be denied that Agents Peneza and Esmeralda testified that Tinga, who brought out the sachets from his pocket and counted the purchase money with accused-appellant, also directly participated in the sale. What should be done, therefore, is to let a copy of the decision be given to the Department of Justice so that it may review its resolution in the case of Hector Tinga.
The evidence shows that accused-appellant was indeed a principal in the commission of the crime charged in this case. Though it was Tinga who produced the two plastic packets of shabu, it was accused-appellant who delivered the same to the buy-bust team. He was the one who asked for payment, who received the same, and who counted it in the presence of the buy-bust team. It is undeniable that accused-appellant directly participated in the illegal sale of the shabu. Consequently, his conviction must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City is AFFIRMED in toto.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Honorable Secretary of Justice for whatever action he may deem necessary to take in the case of Hector Tinga.
1.	Per Judge Gregory S. Ong.
3.	TSN, pp. 2-5, Aug. 14, 1996.
4.	TSN (Reynaldo Esmeralda), p. 7, Aug. 14, 1996; TSN (Timoteo Rejano), p. 5, Sept. 10. 1996.
5.	Id., pp. 7-8; Id.
6.	Id., p. 9; Id., p. 13.
7.	Exh. G; Records, p. 170.
8.	Exh. H; Id., p. 171.
9.	TSN (Timoteo Rejano), pp. 6-28, Sept. 10, 1996.
10.	TSN (Reynaldo Esmeralda), pp. 14-22, Aug. 14, 1996; TSN (Regner Peneza), pp. 5-9, Nov. 11, 1996.
11.	Id., pp. 22-24; TSN (Timoteo Rejano), pp. 7-9, Sept. 23, 1996; TSN (Regner Peneza), pp. 9-10, Nov. 11, 1996; TSN (Auralyn Pascual), pp. 6-8, Nov. 18, 1996.
12.	Exh. J; Records, p. 22.
13.	TSN (Reynaldo Esmeralda), p. 3, Sept. 4, 1996; TSN (Timoteo Rejano), p. 10, Sept. 17, 1996.
14.	Exhs. C and C-1, respectively, are in the trial court’s custody per the Certification dated Oct. 10, 1997; Records, p. 282.
16.	Exh. A; Records, p. 167.
17.	Exh. D; Id., p. 168.
19.	TSN (Reynaldo Esmeralda), p. 21, Aug. 14, 1996.
20.	TSN (Arnel Montano), pp. 3-29, May 6, 1996.
23.	TSN (Aurora Montano), pp. 3-17, Jan. 29, 1997.
27.	Brief for the Appellant, p. 1; Rollo, p. 59.
28.	Reply Brief for the Appellant, p. 15.
29.	People v. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 (1998); People v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 87 (1997).
30.	TSN (Reynaldo Esmeralda), p. 15; Aug. 14, 1996; TSN (Timoteo Rejano), pp. 7-8, Sept. 10, 1996; TSN (Auralyn Pascual), p. 7, Nov. 18, 1996.
31.	Id., p. 4; Id., p. 24; TSN (Regner Peneza), p. 10-11, Nov. 11. 1996.
32.	TSN, pp. 4-5, Aug. 14, 1996.
33.	People v. Encinada, 280 SCRA 72 (1997).
34.	TSn (Reynaldo Esmeralda), p. 19, Aug. 14, 1996; TSN (Regner Peneza), p. 24, Nov. 11, 1996.
36.	People v. Atop, 286 SCRA 157 (1998); People v. Caisip, 290 SCRA 451 (1998); People v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 87 (1997); People v. Flores, 252 SCRA 31 (1996); People v. Brocamonte, 257 SCRA 380 (1996).
37.	People v. Guarin, 259 SCRA 34 (1996); People v. Buemio, 265 SCRA 582 (1996).
38.	Mallari v. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 456 (1996); People v. Jain, 254 SCRA 686 (1996).
39.	People v. Juatan, 260 SCRA 532 (1996).
40.	People v. Galapin, 293 SCRA 474 (1998).

References: v. 
 §15
 §5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.