February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 173468 : February 22, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LOUIE CHUA Y WICO
G.R. No. 173468 (People of the Philippines vs. Louie Chua y Wico). - The records of this case were elevated to this Court on July 27, 2006, pursuant to the Court of Appeals Resolution dated July 12, 2006 which gave due course to the notice of appeal filed by accused-appellant Louie Chua y Wico.
In compliance with the Court's Resolution dated September 11, 2006, the accused-appellant filed his Supplemental Brief on January 10, 2007, while the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Manifestation stating that it was no longer filing its Supplemental Brief with this Court; and that it was adopting all the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in its briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.
After a perusal of the records of the case, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for failure of the accused-appellant to sufficiently show reversible error in the challenged decision to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Settled is the rule that the findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[1] The appellate courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses.[2] The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals as in this case.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense. Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimony on the operation deserves faith and credit.[3]
In the present case, the Court sustains the conviction of the accused-appellant. Absent any proof of ill motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over the accused- appellant's defense of alibi. Moreover, in prosecutions involving the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.[4]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the September 22, 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. H.C. No. 01250, finding accused-appellant Louie Chua y Wico guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and AFFIRMS said decision in toto. (Peralta, J., no part, as his spouse, CA Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals decision; Villarama, Jr., J., designated Member per Raffled dated December 1, 2010.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] People v. Lazaro, Jr., G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 250.[2] People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688.
[3] People vs. Dumangay, G.R. No. 173483, September 23, 2008.
[4] People vs. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009.