Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 28 April 2008

G.R. No. 176155 (People of the Philippines v. Ramon Kimuel Regulasyon)

This case was elevated to this Court via the Court of Appeals' (CA's) Resolution dated October 23, 2006 issued in accordance with Section 3(c), in realtion to Sec. 3(a), of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court and the ruling in People v. Mateo.^[1] The CA affirmed in toto the Decision^[2] dated December 10, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 70 in PAsig City, finding accused-appellant Roman Regulasyon guilty of violation of Sec. 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9156 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which reads:

SEC. 5. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousandd pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, despense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or tansport any dangerous drug, including any all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. x x x

The records show that on February 26, 2003, at around 7:00 p.m., a concerned citizen informed the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of PAsig City that accused-appellant was selling an illegal drug in Barangay Mapayapa. Acting on this, Unit organized a task force, consisting of PO1 Michael Familara, the poseur-buyer,^[2] SPO3 Leneal Matias, the team leader, PO3 Carlo Luna, PO1 Michale Espares, and a confidential informant, to entrap accused-appellant. PO1 Familara was given a marked Php 100 bill as buy-bust money^[4].

After the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency was notified of the operation, the team proceed to the designated place. When Po1 Familara and the confidential informant arrived there, covertly followed by the rest of the team, they surveyed the area and noticed accused-appellant selling an illegal drug. Accused-appellant approached PO1 Familara and the confidential informant and asked them what they were doing. The confidentl informant replied that they were there to buy shabu.^[5] Accused-appellant told them that they were there to buy from him and asked PO1 Familara and the confidential informant how much shabu they wanted to buy, whereupon PO1 Familara answered, "Piso lang (one peso only)."^[6]

Accused-appellant asked for the payment and was given the marked PhP 100 buy-bust bill which he then placed in his pocket. He then took out a plastic sachet which he handed to PO1 Familara. After the shabu sachet was handed to him, PO1 Familara put on his cap, the signal to the rest of the team that the shabu was handed to him, and PO1 Familara and the team made the arrest.^[7]

PO1 Familara then took the marked Php 100 bill, and sealed and marked the plastic sachet containing shabu. PO1 Familara personally handed over the sachet to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, Eastern Police District, Mandaluyong City,^[8] which determined that the subject sachet contained 0.03 gram of shabu.

An information was thereafter filed against accused-appellant, as follows:

On or about February 26, 2003, in PAsig City, and within the jurisdiction of [the RTC], the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Michael R. Familara, a police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plactic sachet containing three centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, hich was foundpositive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrocloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of [RA 9165].^[9]

When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. According to his version of the events, while he was vending goods on a street of Barangay Mapayapa on February 26, 2003, four police officers suddenly arrived and parked their vehicle near his cart. As the officers were aproaching, the people seated near accused-appellant's cart ran away, and the officers chased them. When the officers failed to catch them, the officers turned to accused-appellant and asked him whether he knew the people who fled. He answered he did not. The officers then searched his cart but found nothing, after which they invited him to the police station. He asked why he should be brought to the station, but the officers forced him to go with them. He was detained at the station for further investigation.^[10] In essence, accused-appellant's defense was that he weas framed.

On December 10, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision in Criminal Case No. 12127-D, finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and imposing upon him life imprisonment and a fine of PhP 500,000.

Upon accused-appellant's appeal, the CA rendered a Decision^[11] on September 27, 2006, affirming in toto the Decision of the RTC. Thus, the CA elavated the case to this Court for further review.

We adopt the lone assigned error accused-appellant raised before the CA:

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.^[12]

We affirm the Decision of the CA.

Accused-appellant raises the defense of "frame-up." The incantation of frame-up is nothing new. It is a common and standard linr of defense in most prosecutions for violation of hte Dangerous Drugs LAw. While such defense cannot and should not always be considered s contrived, nonetheless it is generally rejected for it can easily be concocted but it is difficult to prove.^[13] Like alibi, his defense is inherently weak because of the ease and facility by shich it could be fabricated.^[14] Being factual in nature, the tenability of this defense depends largely on the trial court's assessment of hte credibility of the testimonial evidence of the acused.^[15] In this particular case, the trial court found the evidence of the prosecution more credible than thatof the defense, and this finding must be respected. We have ruled that clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense of frame-up because in the absence of proof of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands.^[16] Here there was also no evidence to show ill motive on the part of the police officers that would compel to stage a frame-up.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the CA's Decision dated September 27, 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00805 is AFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.