Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 181323 (Lilian Manto and Emmanuel Faustina v. People of the Philippines) - We resolve the appeal filed by accused Lilian Manto (Manto) and Emmanuel Faustino (Faustino) from the 31 July 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 28061.^[1]

The Facts

On 27 October 1999, members of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of the Caloocan City Police arrested accused Manto and Faustino in a buy-bust operation for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu at Ilang-Ilang Street, Camarin, Caloocan City. The DEU seized two plastic bags from the accused; one plastic bag had a net weight of 91.73 grams, while the other one weighed 93.29 grams.

On 29 October 1999, two separate Informations were filed against accused Manto and Faustino for violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425.^[2] The cases were raffled to the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 120, where these were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. C-57995 and C-57996.

During trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses. Police Officer 2 Ramon Galvel (PO2 Galvez) - who acted as the poseur-buyer, testified on the events that took place during the buy-bust operation leading to the arrest of the accused. He also identified in court the accused as the sellers of the illegal drugs and who received the marked money and the plastic bags containing the illegal drugs.^[3] PO1 Rommel Garcia (PO1 Garcia) corroborated the accounts testified to by PO2 Galvez and also identified the accused and the drugs seized during the operation.^[4] Police Inspector Juanita Sioson of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Service testified on the results of the laboratory test, as reported in Physical Science Report No. D-825-99, which stated that the two plastic bags contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.^[5]

For the defense, accused Faustino testified first in court and denied that he was married to accused Manto. He averred that his spouse was Lucila Faustino, and that he did not have a relationship with Manto.^[6] He claimed that he knew accused Manto by the name "Daisy," because of her stall in the market.^[7] He further claimed that he had no knowledge why he was arrested^[8] and denied having sold to PO1 Galvez 93.29 grams of shabu.^[9] He explained that he knew SPO1 Lizarondo, a member of the buy-bust team, by the moniker "Boy Bulig." They supposedly met frequently at a cockpit arena in Caibiga, Caloocan City and SPO1 Lizarondo coveted his owner-type jeep.^[10] Further, the police officer allegedly owed P1,800 to accused Faustino, who later tried to collect the debt but the former refused to pay.^[11] Faustino imputed to SPO1 Lizarondo's inordinate desire for the owner-type jeep and refusal to settle the debt as the reasons why accused was framed up for the crime he was charged with in court.

Accused Manto testified that she was just a helper at her sister's meat shop at Susano Market and was tasked to collect payments from their customers. She claimed that, at the time of her arrest, she was collecting payment from a customer who resided at No. 1589 Ilang-Ilang Street, Caloocan City, where she and accused Faustino were arrested.^[12] She testified as being single and as having met accused Faustino for the first time when they were arrested on 27-October 1999.^[13] Accused Manto alleged that SPO1 Lizarondo, a member of the buy-bust team, extorted from her P10,000 and did not know why she was being charged with selling 91.73 grams of shabu.^[14] Finally, she claimed that she was not subjected to any inquest proceedings or preliminary investigation after she was arrested.^[15]

The RTC Ruling

On 09 October 2003, the RTC rendered a Decision finding accused Manto and Faustino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425. The trial court found the testimonies of the police officers to be clear, convincing and credible. It did not give credence to the defense of denial and frame-up proffered by the accused. Thus, it held that the police officers who arrested them were presumed to have regularly carried out and performed their public duty.^[16] The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding both accused Lilian Manto and Emmanuel Faustino, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor.

Let the 91.73 and 93.29 grams of shabu subject matter of these cases be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government and to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency to be disposed of in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.^[17]

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The accused questioned their conviction by the trial court at the CA, where their appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 28061. On 31 July 2007, the Tenth Division of the appellate court promulgated a Decision affirming that of the RTC. The CA found no reason to overturn the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It ruled that they were consistent on the material aspects of the case.^[18] The appellate court further ruled that the prosecution was able to prove that the illegal sale of dangerous drugs took place with the delivery of the contraband and the receipt of the marked money by the accused. Hence, it concluded that the elements proving the crime were present in the case.^[19]

The CA did not believe the accused, who alleged that their case was one of extortion or "hulidap."^[20] It noted that if the allegations of extortion were true, they should have filed the proper charges against the police officers who arrested them. Also, the accused failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, their counter-allegations against the police officers involved.^[21] The appellate court did not give credence to their arguments that the failure of the prosecution to present the buy-bust money should have acquitted them of the charges. It ruled that this was a collateral issue that was not material to their conviction, provided that the sale of the dangerous drugs was adequately proven.^[22]

Thus, the CA sustained the RTC ruling convicting the accused of the crime charged as follows:

In fine, the trial court committed no error in convicting appellants of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the appealed, decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Branch 120) is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.^[23]

The Issues

The accused elevated their appeal to this Court, raising the following issues:

1. THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS['] AND THE LOWER COURT['S] DECISIONS HAD DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
   
   
2. THAT THE LOWER COURT'S DECISION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS['] DECISION HAD DEPARTED FROM ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.^[24]

They challenged their conviction by the trial and the appellate courts on the grounds: (1) that the prosecution did not present the original marked money;^[25] (2) that there was mistake in identity;^[26] and (3) that the police officers deviated from the usual procedures.^[27]

The Ruling of the Court

We deny the appeal of the accused for lack of merit and accordingly affirm the assailed Decision of the CA.

For a successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug, such as shabu in this case, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of thing sold and the payment therefor.^[28] We have ruled that the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.^[29]

In the present case, we find that the prosecution proved the existence of the elements of the crime charged against the accused. From the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, it is clear that the elements of the crime were adequately established. The fact of sale was established by the poseur-buyer, who vividly described how the buy-bust operation took place. The corpus delicti - the shabu sold - has been properly marked then presented and identified in court by the police officers involved in the operation. PO2 Galvez positively identified accused Faustino as the one who sold the illegal drugs to him and accused Manto as the one who received the marked money. PO1 Garcia corroborated the testimony of PO2 Galvez, who narrated the same details of the buy-bust operation, which took place on 27 October 1999.

It is not disputed in the records that the white crystalline substance in the two plastic bags seized from the accused - one weighing 91.73 grams, and the other 93.29 grams - was proven to be shabu. The police officer who conducted the laboratory tests on the seized items was presented by the prosecution during the trial of the case. Police Inspector Juanita Sioson, the forensic chemical officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory assigned at the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory, testified that she received a request for a qualitative examination of the contents of two plastic bags from the Caloocan City Police Station on 28 October 1999.^[30] She also identified and attested to her Physical Sciences Report No. D-825-99, which was marked by the prosecution as Exhibit "EE-1."^[31] Her finding as stated therein was that the contents of the subject plastic bags were positive for metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.^[32]

Assailing their conviction by the trial and the appellate courts, the accused argue that they should be acquitted, because they were erroneously identified by the arresting officers as a married couple, when in fact they were not. They also contend that the original marked money was not presented in court. Furthermore, they posit that no prior surveillance was made by the police officers, whose testimonies showed inconsistencies. Hence, the accused contend that these blunders on the part of the prosecution should entitle them to an acquittal. We are not persuaded by the arguments of the defense.

We note that the accused do not challenge the results of the laboratory tests conducted on the seized drugs, which were positive for shabu. Neither do they dispute the chain of custody of those drugs. The testimonial and object evidence presented by the prosecution clearly established the elements of the crime under Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425.

The defense maintains that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are marred by inconsistencies pertaining to the place of the buy-bust operation and the traffic conditions at the time the operations were conducted.^[33] The defense believes that the perceived inconsistencies rendered those testimonies unreliable and, consequently, failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We find no merit in these arguments.

The inconsistencies pointed out by the defense are not material and do not detract from the elements of the crime committed by the accused. The CA correctly held that these are collateral matters that do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself, which was consummated when the accused sold the prohibited drug to the poseur-buyer.^[34]

We have gone through the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and for the defense. We note the efforts of the accused to present their defense by proffering a story intended to discredit the testimonies of the police officers. Accused Manto depicts herself as a victim of extortion and frame-up when she was arrested while allegedly collecting payments for pork meat from the customers of her sister. Accused Faustino also asserts that he is a victim and accuses SPO1 Lizarondo as responsible for framing him up because of the latter's desire to take the accused's owner-type jeep. Allegedly further stoking the ire of SPO1 Lizarondo was accused Faustino's attempt to collect the latter's debt amounting to P1,800. We find these allegations hard to believe.

Aside from the bare allegations of the accused casting aspersions on the police officers who arrested them, there is a palpable lack of clear and convincing evidence to support these allegations. Where there is no evidence that the principal witnesses of the prosecution were actuated by ill or devious motive, a testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.^[35] We find the testimonies of PO2 Galvez and PO1 Garcia to be credible and straightforward. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in People of the Philippines v. Lilian Manto and Emmanuel Faustino dated 31 July 2007 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28061 is AFFIRMED in all respects.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] The Decision dated 31 July 2007 of the CA Tenth Division was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Normandie B. Pizarro, rollo, pp. 98-109.

^[2] R.A. 6425, Article III, Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispension, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. In case of a practitioner, the maximum of the penalty herein prescribed and the additional penalty of the revocation of his license to practice his profession shall be imposed.

^[3] TSN, 17 May 2000, pp. 8-15.

^[4] TSN, 24 May 2000, pp. 4-12.

^[5] TSN, 29 March 2000, pp. 5-7.

^[6] TSN, 24 May 2000, p. 7.

^[7] Id. at 9.

^[8] Id. at 20.

^[9] Id. at 21.

^[10] Id. at 17.

^[11] Id. at 26.

^[12] TSN, 15 May 2002, p. 8.

^[13] TSN, 26 September 2002, p. 10.

^[14] Id. at 29.

^[15] Id. at 25.

^[16] Rollo, p. 91.

^[17] Id. at 97.

^[18] Id. at 108.

^[19] Id. at 105.

^[20] Id. at 102.

^[21] Id. at 104.

^[22] Id. at 108.

^[23] Id. at 109.

^[24] Id. at 27.

^[25] Id. at 29.

^[26] Id. at 33.

^[27] Id. at 35.

^[28] Chan v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 147065, 14 March 2003, 504 SCRA 337.

^[29] People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 03 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570.

^[30] TSN, 29 March 2000, pp. 5-7.

^[31] Id. at 6.

^[32] Id.

^[33] Rollo, p. 36.

^[34] Id. at 108.

^[35] People v. Noque, G.R. No. 175319, 15 January 2010, 610 SCRA 195.