April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184956 : April 27, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HENRY DE LUNA Y MAURICIO AND IRENE SUNICO Y HINAY:
[G.R. No. 184956 : April 27, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HENRY DE LUNA Y MAURICIO AND IRENE SUNICO Y HINAY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 27 April 2009:
G.R. No. 184956 (People of the Philippines v. Henry De Luna y Mauricio and Irene Sunico y Hinay). - Both appellants, who are common-law spouses, were arrested for the illegal sale of shabu following a buy-bust operation. After the arrest, two more sachets of the prohibited drug were confiscated from appellant Irene Sunico and the three (3) marked P100.00 bills were recovered from appellant Henry De Luna. The appellants were then taken to the Tejeros Barangay Hall and presented to the kagawad and to the duty investigator. The contents of the seized sachets were examined and found by PNP Forensic Chemical Officer May Andrea Bonifacio positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu with approximate weights of .07, .03 and .60 grams.[1] Appellants allegedly tested positive for shabu after a laboratory examination of their urine samples.
Three informations were thereafter filed charging appellants with the sale, possession and use of shabu, respectively, all in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:
Appellants pleaded not guilty to all charges and trial on the merits was held. Their primary defense was denial thereby insinuating frame-up. They alleged that police officers entered their home one night without any warrant, searched their home for illegal drugs and frisked both of them but recovered none. When the police officers entered their house a second time that night, they came out of the house with small plastic sachets and told appellants that said items were taken from them. Appellants were then brought to the police station where they allegedly were made to sign a document they were not allowed to read. Thereafter, they were brought to the laboratory for drug tests but De Luna was allegedly not able to give a sample. They were then detained at Fort Bonifacio. Appellants further argued that their arrest was illegal and the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from them were admissible in evidence. In addition, they challenged the credibility of prosecution witness P03 Esterio Ruiz, Jr., who acted as poseur-buyer, claiming that the latter was a total stranger to them and it would be foolish for one who peddles illegal drugs to boldly and unashamedly present his wares to total strangers.
The trial court acquitted De Luna of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 05-2250 as he was found not to have been informed of the results of the laboratory examination allegedly conducted which thereby deprived him of the opportunity to contest the same, as provided in Section 38, Article III of R. A. No. 9165.
In Criminal Case Nos. 05-2016 and 05-2017, the trial court found the guilt of both appellants had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and sentenced them as follows:
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the conviction of appellants.[4]
Both the trial court and the appellate court found the conduct of the buy-bust operation in order.[5] Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation conducted by the police. Thus, the sachets containing shabu that were seized from them are admissible in evidence. Both courts further found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish the elements of the crime - the transaction or sale of shabu with appellants as sellers and the identification in court of the corpus delicti - and were convinced of appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This case is now before us on automatic review. This Court directed the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.[6] The appellants and the Solicitor General manifested that they are dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief and that they are adopting their respective briefs submitted before the appellate court.[7]
The basic issue to be resolved hinges on whether there was a legitimate "buy-bust" operation. Stated differently, the issue is whether the prosecution was able to prove the elements of an illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs which are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[8]
There is no doubt that appellants were caught in flagrante delicto. The prosecution's evidence in this regard is substantial and convincing. The testimony of PO3 Ruiz, Jr. deserves full faith and credit, given that police officers involved in buy-bust operations are presumed to have performed their duties regularly.[9] This presumption can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence that show either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty; or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. Appellants failed to show either of these two conditions.
We agree with the trial court and the appellate court that the elements necessary for the successful prosecution of this case were satisfactorily established.
There was testimony given by the poseur-buyer, PO3 Ruiz, Jr. which clearly proved the identity of appellants as sellers in the illegal sale, as well as the passage of the contraband from Sunico to PO3 Ruiz, Jr. and the marked money from PO3 Ruiz, Jr. to De Luna. His testimony was corroborated by Herminia Facundo, an operative of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) who served as his back-up during the buy-bust operation. She was the one who recovered the two other sachets of shabu from Sunico. She marked the two sachets as well as the sachet that appellants sold to PO3 Ruiz, Jr. with her initials. The seized sachets were brought by PO3 Ruiz, Jr. and his team to the crime laboratory for testing. The testimony of forensic chemist Bonifacio established that what was sold to PO3 Ruiz, Jr., as well as the contents of the two other sachets recovered from Sunico during the buy-bust operation were indeed shabu. And finally, there was the positive identification of the specimens in court by PO3 Ruiz, Jr. as the same contraband they recovered from appellants.
We thus refer to the lower court's findings mindful of the rule that its findings of fact and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect and due weight, unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise, which circumstance is not obtaining in this case.
Lastly, appellants' argument that assuming they were drug-pushers, it was rather irrational that they would sell shabu to a total stranger like PO3 Ruiz, Jr., is untenable. That the sale was in public does not diminish the prosecution witnesses' credibility or the trustworthiness of their testimony.[10] We have previously held that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not, as if it were a perfectly legitimate operation.[11] Besides, the success of every buy-bust operation depends largely on the concealed identity of the poseur-buyer such that it has become a standard operating procedure to designate as poseur-buyer one who is a total stranger to a suspected seller of prohibited drugs in the area of operation.[12]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 31 January 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02276 which affirmed in toto the Decision dated 21 April 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 05-2016 and 05-20175 finding appellants Henry De Luna and Irene Sunico guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. Appellant Irene Sunico is further found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of the same law and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. Costs against appellants. Quisumbing, J., on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion and Teresita L. De Castro (additional member per Special Order No. 619), Members, Second Division, this 27th day of April, 2009.
G.R. No. 184956 (People of the Philippines v. Henry De Luna y Mauricio and Irene Sunico y Hinay). - Both appellants, who are common-law spouses, were arrested for the illegal sale of shabu following a buy-bust operation. After the arrest, two more sachets of the prohibited drug were confiscated from appellant Irene Sunico and the three (3) marked P100.00 bills were recovered from appellant Henry De Luna. The appellants were then taken to the Tejeros Barangay Hall and presented to the kagawad and to the duty investigator. The contents of the seized sachets were examined and found by PNP Forensic Chemical Officer May Andrea Bonifacio positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu with approximate weights of .07, .03 and .60 grams.[1] Appellants allegedly tested positive for shabu after a laboratory examination of their urine samples.
Three informations were thereafter filed charging appellants with the sale, possession and use of shabu, respectively, all in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 05-2016
That on or about the 12th day of November, 2005, in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Sunico and De Luna], conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and transport Methylamphetemine [sic] Hydrochloride, weighing zero point zero seven (0.07) - gram, which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of three hundred ([P]300.00) pesos, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 05-2017
That on or about the 12th day of November 2005 in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [Sunico], not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, direct custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride {Shabu) weighing zero point zero three (0.03) gram, and xero point sixty (0.60) gram, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 05-2250
That sometime on or prior to 12th day of November 2005 in the City of Makati, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused [De Luna], not being lawfully authorized by law to use drug [sic] and having been arrested and found positive for use of Methylamphetamine, after confirmatory test, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Appellants pleaded not guilty to all charges and trial on the merits was held. Their primary defense was denial thereby insinuating frame-up. They alleged that police officers entered their home one night without any warrant, searched their home for illegal drugs and frisked both of them but recovered none. When the police officers entered their house a second time that night, they came out of the house with small plastic sachets and told appellants that said items were taken from them. Appellants were then brought to the police station where they allegedly were made to sign a document they were not allowed to read. Thereafter, they were brought to the laboratory for drug tests but De Luna was allegedly not able to give a sample. They were then detained at Fort Bonifacio. Appellants further argued that their arrest was illegal and the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from them were admissible in evidence. In addition, they challenged the credibility of prosecution witness P03 Esterio Ruiz, Jr., who acted as poseur-buyer, claiming that the latter was a total stranger to them and it would be foolish for one who peddles illegal drugs to boldly and unashamedly present his wares to total strangers.
The trial court acquitted De Luna of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 05-2250 as he was found not to have been informed of the results of the laboratory examination allegedly conducted which thereby deprived him of the opportunity to contest the same, as provided in Section 38, Article III of R. A. No. 9165.
In Criminal Case Nos. 05-2016 and 05-2017, the trial court found the guilt of both appellants had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and sentenced them as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 05-2016, accused HENRY DE LUNA y MAURICIO and IRENE SUNICO y HINAY are hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, and pay a fine of P500,00.00 each;
2. In Criminal Case No. 05-2017, accused IRENE SUNICO y HINAY is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate term of fourteen [14] years, eight [8] months and one [1] day, as minimum, to seventeen [17] years and four [4] months and to pay a fine of
P300,000.00; and
3. To pay the costs.[3]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the conviction of appellants.[4]
Both the trial court and the appellate court found the conduct of the buy-bust operation in order.[5] Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate entrapment operation conducted by the police. Thus, the sachets containing shabu that were seized from them are admissible in evidence. Both courts further found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish the elements of the crime - the transaction or sale of shabu with appellants as sellers and the identification in court of the corpus delicti - and were convinced of appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This case is now before us on automatic review. This Court directed the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.[6] The appellants and the Solicitor General manifested that they are dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief and that they are adopting their respective briefs submitted before the appellate court.[7]
The basic issue to be resolved hinges on whether there was a legitimate "buy-bust" operation. Stated differently, the issue is whether the prosecution was able to prove the elements of an illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs which are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.[8]
There is no doubt that appellants were caught in flagrante delicto. The prosecution's evidence in this regard is substantial and convincing. The testimony of PO3 Ruiz, Jr. deserves full faith and credit, given that police officers involved in buy-bust operations are presumed to have performed their duties regularly.[9] This presumption can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence that show either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty; or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. Appellants failed to show either of these two conditions.
We agree with the trial court and the appellate court that the elements necessary for the successful prosecution of this case were satisfactorily established.
There was testimony given by the poseur-buyer, PO3 Ruiz, Jr. which clearly proved the identity of appellants as sellers in the illegal sale, as well as the passage of the contraband from Sunico to PO3 Ruiz, Jr. and the marked money from PO3 Ruiz, Jr. to De Luna. His testimony was corroborated by Herminia Facundo, an operative of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) who served as his back-up during the buy-bust operation. She was the one who recovered the two other sachets of shabu from Sunico. She marked the two sachets as well as the sachet that appellants sold to PO3 Ruiz, Jr. with her initials. The seized sachets were brought by PO3 Ruiz, Jr. and his team to the crime laboratory for testing. The testimony of forensic chemist Bonifacio established that what was sold to PO3 Ruiz, Jr., as well as the contents of the two other sachets recovered from Sunico during the buy-bust operation were indeed shabu. And finally, there was the positive identification of the specimens in court by PO3 Ruiz, Jr. as the same contraband they recovered from appellants.
We thus refer to the lower court's findings mindful of the rule that its findings of fact and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect and due weight, unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise, which circumstance is not obtaining in this case.
Lastly, appellants' argument that assuming they were drug-pushers, it was rather irrational that they would sell shabu to a total stranger like PO3 Ruiz, Jr., is untenable. That the sale was in public does not diminish the prosecution witnesses' credibility or the trustworthiness of their testimony.[10] We have previously held that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not, as if it were a perfectly legitimate operation.[11] Besides, the success of every buy-bust operation depends largely on the concealed identity of the poseur-buyer such that it has become a standard operating procedure to designate as poseur-buyer one who is a total stranger to a suspected seller of prohibited drugs in the area of operation.[12]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 31 January 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02276 which affirmed in toto the Decision dated 21 April 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 05-2016 and 05-20175 finding appellants Henry De Luna and Irene Sunico guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each. Appellant Irene Sunico is further found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of the same law and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. Costs against appellants. Quisumbing, J., on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion and Teresita L. De Castro (additional member per Special Order No. 619), Members, Second Division, this 27th day of April, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CA rollo,pp. 17 and 101.
[2] Id. at 8-9,16,98-99.
[3] In a Decision dated 21 April 2006 issued by Presiding Judge Francisco B. Ibay of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 135, Makati City. Id at 22.
[4] In a Decision dated 31 January 2008 of the Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals Manila in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02276 penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guarifia and Japar B. Dimaampao. Id. at 97-120.
[5] There was pre-coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and a spot report was submitted after the operation. Id. at 18 and 104.
[6] In a Resolution dated 15 December 2008. Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[7] Id. at 25-31.
[8] People v. Almendras, 449 Phil. 587, 604 (2003); People v. Razul, 441 Phil. 62, 75 (2002).
[9] Lapuz v. People, G.R. No. 150050, 17 June 2004, 432 SCRA 443, 447; People v. Alao, 379 Phil.402 (2000).
[10] People v. Zheng Bai Hut, 393 Phil. 68,134 (2000).
[11] People v. Casolocan, 478 Phil. 363 (2004); People v. Zheng Bai Hui, supra citing People v. Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625 (1995).
[12] People v. Angeles, G.R. Nos. 95761-62, 02 February 1993, 218 SCRA 352, 359.
