Republic Of The Philippines

Court Of Appeals
Manila -------

NINTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 MEMBERS: BRAWNER, R., Chairman DEL CASTILLO, M., and DE LEON, M., JJ.

LOVINIA SANTERO Y RONQUILLO a.k.a. MALOU Promulgated: PADILLA, Accused-Appellant. _________________ x ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x

DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, M., J.: This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 9, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-9987601 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo a.k.a. Malou Padilla for Violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The facts of this case are as follows:
1

Records, pp. 437-452

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 2

On October 20, 1999, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed an Information2 against the accused Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo for violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Sec. 2(e), (f), (m) and (o) of Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 1999, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly give and deliver to poseur buyer PO2 Margie P. Javier NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR POINT THREE (974.3) grams of white crystalline substance containing (sic) Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride which is a regulated drug. CONTRARY TO LAW.3

The case was originally filed before Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where the accused was arraigned on December 7, 1999 and with the assitance of counsel of her own choice, entered a plea of not guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter, pre-trial ensued where the following

admissions/stipulations were made by the prosecution and the defense:

1. That the person who appeared today as the accused is the same person who was arraigned on December 7, 1999; 2. That the accused was arrested in Quezon City on August 17, 1999 by the elements of the PNP Narcotic Group, 3rd Regional Narcotic Office, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga; 3. That the accused was brought to the police station and thereafter referred for inquest;
2 3

Records, pp. 1--2 Records, p. 1

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 3

4. That the accused was gainfully employed at Marias Laundry Stop, etc. at the time of her arrest; 5. That the marked money was never presented during the inquest proceedings.4

The following evidence were likewise marked as exhibits:

FOR THE PROSECUTION Exhibit A - One (1) selfsealed transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance commonly known as shabu weighing approximately 900 grams; - Photograph of a Mercedes Benz Sedan color blue with Plate No. PPJ 371; - Affidavit of poseur-buyer PO2 Margie Javier; - Booking sheet and arrest report dated August 17, 1999; - Request for laboratory examination; - Initial laboratory report dated August 18, 1999; - Final laboratory report; - Joint Affidavit of arrest of SPO4 Jamisalamin and PO3 Ernesto Viray, Jr. Venusto

Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H

FOR THE DEFENSE Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 - DTI Certificate of Registration under the name of Marias Laundry Stop, etc.; - Mayors Permit;

Records, p. 63

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 4

Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4

- Certificate of Registration of one motor vehicle with Plate No. PPJ 371; said motor vehicle.5 Deed of Absolute Sale of the

Prior to the arraignment of the accused, the latter filed an Omnibus Motion 1. For Resetting of Time of Arraignment in the Afternoon; 2. For Bail.6 Acting thereto, the court a quo issued an Order dated December 3, 1999 which stated, to wit:

As prayed for by the accused in her Omnibus Motion filed thru counsel the arraignment set on December 7, 1999 is hereby reset from 8:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. With respect to the prayer for bail, the Court hereby orders that the pre-trial be held on January 10, 2000 at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon during which date the prosecution will proceed to present its evidence for purposes of the motion for bail. Accordingly, let a subpoena be issued directing the prosecution witnesses listed in the Information to appear during the hearing on January 10, 2000 at 2:00 P.M. IT IS SO ORDERED.7

Accordingly, the prosecution and the accused presented evidence for the purpose of resolving the Motion for Bail filed by the accused. However, prior to the presentation of the evidence for the defense, the accused, through counsel, on May 2, 2000, filed an Urgent Motion To Inhibit praying for the inhibition/disqualification of the presiding judge of Branch 81, RTC.
5 6

Records, pp. 63-64 Records, pp. 41-43 7 p. 44, Record.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 5

In a Resolution dated May 16, 2000, the court a quo denied the Motion for Bail filed by the accused.8 With regard, however, to the Urgent Motion to Inhibit filed by the defense, the same was granted by the court a quo per its Order dated May 19, 2000.9 conducted the trial of the case.10 During the trial, the prosecution filed a Compliance11 which stated that it will no longer present additional evidence as part of its evidence-inchief and that it is adopting the evidence it presented in the petition for bail. The evidence for the prosecution showed that on or about the first week of August 1999, P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, who was the Chief of the 3rd Regional Narcotics Group in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, received verbal instructions from PNP Narcom Director, Reynold Gonzales, to conduct a buy-bust operation against one Lovinia Santero a.k.a. Malou Padilla. To confirm the information on the illegal activities of the subject, Col. Abastillas organized a team led by SPO4 Venusto Jamisolamin to conduct a casing and surveillance operation. The team received word that Lovinia Santero a.k..a Malou Padilla, on board a blue Mercedez Benz with Plate No. PPJ 371 could be seen in Sapa, Sto. Nio, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga and in Balibago, Angeles City, drug dealing with a certain `Eddie Boy and `Don, respectively both notorious Drug Traffickers. The team members posed themselves in the said area and in
8 9

Thus, the case was ordered re-

raffled and accordingly assigned to Branch 95 of the same court which

Pp. 189-194, Record. Pp. 195-196, Record. 10 P. 200, Record. 11 P. 206, Record.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 6

the course of their operation noted the presence of the car, without however, seeing the driver. It was also learned that the accused was selling shabu worth P650,000.00. All the data gathered were reported to Col. Abastillas, who three (3) days prior to August 17, 1999 (the date the buy-bust operation was conducted) started to mobilize his men to raise the amount of P650,000.00. From friends and their assets, the money was produced. Between 9:00 and 9:30 in the morning of August 17, 1999, the confidential informant called Col. Abastillas and told the latter that she made contact with the accused and placed an order for the delivery of one kilogram of shabu at P650,000.00. Accused and informant agreed that the amount would be brought at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City, between 4:00 and 4:30 in the afternoon of that same day because the accused wishes to first count the money. Around 10:30 in the morning, Co. Abastillas summoned his men for a conference during which a buy-bust team was formed composed of SPO4 Venusto Jamisolamin, PO3 Ernesto Viray, Jr. and PO2 Margie Javier who was designated to act as the poseur-buyer, and the back-up team with PO2 Reyes, SPO1 Lopez and PO3 Gamit as members. At 12:45 in the afternoon, Col. Abastillas gave the money to PO2 Javier which the latter placed in a white handy shoulder bag. She was instructed that the money would not be given to anyone no matter what and that same would only be used as show money. At 1:00 in the afternoon, the teams, on board three (3) vehicles proceeded to Quezon City. In a Caltex gasoline station located at the corner of Santolan Road and EDSA, the team members were given final

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 7

briefing by Col. Abastillas.

At around 3:30 in the afternoon, upon

instruction of their superior, PO3 Viray brought PO2 Javier to the target area while SPO4 Jamisolamin went to Camp Crame to coordinate with the authorities therein. When PO2 Javier and PO3 Viray reached house No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City, the latter knocked on the door which the informant promptly opened. After receiving the bag containing the money from P02 Javier, the informant told the two police officers to sit down. Thereafter, the informant, using her cellphone, called the accused. PO2 Javier overheard that the informant would be waiting for the accused who still had to retrieve her car which was then being repaired in Kamuning, Quezon City. PO3 Viray then left leaving PO2 Javier alone inside the house. At 4:00 in the afternoon, the accused arrived together with a man. To avoid being noticed, PO2 Javier went to the lavatory and pretended to be washing her hands. She saw the informant and the accused and the latters companion went upstairs. As the three were ascending, the informant She heard the man pointed to PO2 Javier as the buyer. PO2 Javier listened to the conversation by pretending to sweep the stairs with a broom. complaining that he had a hard time counting the money with small denominations. After three minutes, she went downstairs and sat on the sofa. Five minutes later, the three went down without the bag containing the money. Accused then told the informant We should go to the Tutuban Center para magpalitan. Informant did not agree and reasoned that the police might arrest them. The male companion of the accused was in

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 8

agreement with the latter that the exchange of drugs and money be done somewhere. However, the informant insisted that she would not bring out the money. Eventually, the accused and her male companion acceded. After they left, PO2 Javier and the informant watched TV and talked about whether to proceed with the deal and if not, for the former to just get the money and for them to arrange for another deal. Having agreed, PO2 Javier was about to go upstairs when the informant received a call from the accused, who decided to return with the shabu between 10:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. that night. PO2 Javier then called Col. Abastillas and reported what had so far transpired including the plan of the accused to return with the shabu later in the evening. The team deployed in the area were instructed by Col. Abastillas to wait for the accused. Meantime, PO2 Javier just watched TV until the accused and her two (2) female companions (who turned out to be the maids of the accused) holding an empty bag arrived at around 10:30 P.M. Accused then invited the informant and PO2 Javier to see the shabu kept inside the Mercedes Benz with Plate No. PPJ 371, parked in front and seated herself on the driver seat. She then opened the right front door for PO2 Javier and the informant to get in. The maids sat at the back. When all of them were aboard, the accused showed to PO2 Javier the shabu placed in a handy leather dark brown bag kept beneath the drivers seat. Thereafter, accused asked where the money was and PO2 Javier replied that she would just get the money inside the house.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 9

As soon as PO2 Javier alighted from the car, she flashed her penlight from downward up to signal her companions that the deal had been made. At that precise moment, other members of the team who had been deployed at a distance in the area, rushed towards the scene and apprehended the accused. On the other hand, PO2 Javier embraced the two (2) female companions of the accused when they alighted from the car to run away. The NARCOM Agents then took the accused and her two companions to the Narcotics Command Headquarters at Camp Crame for investigation. The seized evidence and the vehicle were likewise brought to Narcom for disposition. prepared. A booking sheet and arrest report were then PO2 Javier, placed her signature outside the plastic bag

containing the white crystalline substance. The companions of the accused were later released after a couple of hours. The following day, a request for chemical analysis of the white crystalline substance found inside the car of the accused was sent to PNP Crime Laboratory. The specimen were examined by Forensic Chemist Benjamin Cruto, Jr. who made two written reports indicating that the specimen weighing 974.3 grams was found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a regulated drug. SPO3 Ernesto Viray corroborated the testimony of PO2 Margie Javier and testified that sometime in August 1999, while assigned at the 3rd Regional narcotics Group, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, he was

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 10

instructed by his chief, P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, to conduct surveillance operations against a certain Malou Padilla who was said to be frequenting the area and was engaged in illicit trafficking at Sapa Sto. Nio, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. He and another police officer then posted themselves near the area and found that the said Malou Padilla was indeed frequenting the place on board a blue Mercedes Benz car. He reported the matter to P/Supt. Abastillas who then talked to a civilian informant over the phone to arrange a drug deal with Malou Padilla. When the informant told P/Supt. Abastillas that a drug deal had been arranged for P650,000.00, P/Supt. Abastillas then told SPO3 Viray to produce that amount. P/Supt. Abastillas then formed a but-bust team composed of himself, SPO4 Jamisolamin, PO2 Javier and others who would serve as back up men. They then proceeded to the area at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City in three (3) separate vehicles. SPO3 Viray dropped off PO2 Javier at 12th Avenue and then proceeded to the gasoline station located at the corner of Santolan Road and EDSA, Quezon City for a briefing with P/Supt. Abastillas. They were instructed by P/Supt. Abastillas to position themselves at 12th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City near the house where the drug deal would take place between PO2 Javier and the accused. He and the police officers waited inside their respective cars and when PO2 Javier gave the pre-arranged signal indicating that the drug deal had been consummated, he and the other police officers rushed to the area and arrested the accused. The accused and her two (2) companions were then brought to Camp Crame, Quezon City. The two (2) companions of the accused were later released as they turned out to be simply the maids of the accused. Thereafter, SPO3 Viray and the rest of the team executed their sworn statement in regard to the arrest of the accused.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 11

P/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, Jr., a forensic chemical officer of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, who was first qualified to be an expert witness by the prosecution, testified that on August 18, 1999, he received a request for laboratory substance/ specimen contained in a transparent plastic bag with markings B-389799. He conducted three (3) types of examination on the specimen, In the physical examination, he saw that the specifically the physical examination, the chemical examination and the confirmatory examination. specimen contained white crystalline substance which weighed 974.3 grams. In the chemical examination, he took a random sample from the specimen and treated it with Simons reagent and Marks reagent. The result was that the specimen proved positive to the test of methamphetamine. In the confirmatory examination, he also took a examination on a white crystalline

random sample from the specimen which he found to contain methamphetamine hydrocholoride. Thereafter, he reduced his findings into writing as Physical Science Report No. D-3897-99. P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, chief of the 3rd Regional Narcotics Group in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, corroborated the testimonies of PO2 Margie Javier and SPO3 Ernesto Viray that they conducted a buy-bust operation at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City after having a pre-operational coordination. the accused. He coordinated with his men through cellular phone and were successful in apprehending

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 12

A joint affidavit of arrest and affidavit of poseur-buyer were also executed by SPO4 Venusto T. Jamisolamin and PO3 Ernesto Viray Jr., and PO Margie Javier, respectively. For her part, the accused presented her own testimony and those of her sister, Ma. Theresa Blardony, the testimony of SPO4 Venusto Jamisolamin, as hostile witness and that of Socorro Manahan. Ma. Theresa Blardony testified that on August 17, 1999, at around 1 to 1:30 p.m., she arrived at Marias Laundry in Makati, a laundry shop she jointly owned with the accused. At the shop were the accused, employees Heidi Vicente and Nina Barredo, and a former employee with the latters daughter. At around 8 p.m., accused Santero left the shop with Vicente and Barredo to deliver the laundry of their client Mrs. Manahan in Kamuning. The duplicate original of the sales invoice was presented in court to prove the delivery. The accused used the Mercedez Benz of Blardony. On August 18, 1999, at around 2 a.m., accused Santero called Blardony informing the latter that she was arrested by a team composed of Pampanga policemen along Murphy Avenue, Quezon City and that she was being charged for illegal possession of shabu together with employees Vicente and Barredo, and a certain Tintin Lacap. Thereafter, at 3 A.M., Blardony went to the office of Col. Gonzales at the Narcotics Division in Camp Crame where she again saw the accused, who then told Blardony that an unidentified man got her watch and belongings. The same unidentified

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 13

man approached them and offered to release the accused for P200,000. Blardony was able to give the man $2,000 and P20,000 in cash. When the accused was not released despite payment, Blardony went to the office of Col. Gonzales who instructed her to file a formal complaint with Col. Abastillas. A line-up was first conducted where she was able to identify two of the four men who demanded money from her. She saw the man who actually took the money but was not included in the line-up. When she informed Col. Abastillas of this fact, she was told that there would be a second line-up but none was ever conducted. She then prepared her formal complaint and gave the same to policeman Jamisolamin. SPO4 Venusto Jamisolamin as hostile witness testified that about two weeks prior to August 17, 1999, he and PO3 Viray, both police officers assigned at the 3rd Regional Narcotics Office at San Fernando, Pampanga as members of the National Support Unit, conducted a casing and surveillance operation, upon information received from a confidential informant. It was during said surveillance operation that they were able to positively identify accused Lovinia Santero. The confidential informant then made arrangements with the accused for the purchase of at least one (1) kilo of shabu on August 17, 1999. SPO4 Jamisolamin, a back-up member of the buy-bust team, saw the accused for the first time when the latter arrived at the agreed place of the sale at around 4:30 p.m. of the said date. The accused was first shown the P650,000.00 cash which she counted and five hours thereafter, the accused delivered the shabu to the poseur-buyer inside the Mercedes Benz owned by Blardony, the sister of the accused. Thereupon, PO2 Javier flashed her pen light, the

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 14

pre-arranged signal indicating that delivery was effected, and PO3 Viray apprehended the accused inside the car in front of #45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Quezon City at 10:30 p.m. The money used in the buy-bust operation was not presented in court since it was returned the following day to the 5 civilian assets from whom it was borrowed. The money was likewise not receipted. Accused Lovinia Santero @ Malou Padilla testified that on August 17, 1999, from about 10:00 in the morning until 8:00 in the evening, she received separate calls from Tintin Lacap, the daughter of a good friend of her ex-husband. During the first call, she was looking for the boyfriend of the accused, Pablo Ramos @ Ambo, and asking for a rediscount of a check worth P200,000.00. During the second call, she got the assurance that accused will go to her house to visit her and to rediscount the check. Thereafter, accused, together with two maids, Heidi Vicente and Nina Barredo, delivered dry-cleaned pants using the blue Mercedes Benz of her sister to Socorro Manahan at Kamuning, Quezon City. She stayed there for about an hour waiting for a call from Ambo and discussing about the opening of a laundry shop station. At around 10:00 in the evening, she received the third call from Tintin Lacap who insisted that she go to her house. She and the two maids proceeded to the place of Tintin Lacap at 12th Avenue, Murphy Cubao, Quezon City. She stayed there for about twenty minutes. They agreed that they would talk about the check the next day

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 15

because accused had not yet talked to Ambo. When she left and upon stepping out of the gate, three men accosted her. She was dragged to a car and her bag was grabbed. She was then brought directly to the NARCOM Office in Camp Crame. On their way, she asked the persons who accosted her what was happening. They told her to just keep quiet and that she has a warrant. At the NARCOM Office, she saw the mother of Tintin Lacap talking to Col. Abastillas and handing a package containing money to a certain guy with a mustache. That guy then went to her and took her pieces of jewelry. Maria Theresa Blardony, her sister, also arrived and talked to Col. Abastillas and Jamisolamin about money and her supposed warrant. The NARCOM men allegedly demanded from her sister P20,000.00 and $2,000.00 cash to facilitate her release from custody. She was inquested only after 24 hours after her arrest because her sister filed a complaint against the NARCOM men. In addition, she controverted the claim of the prosecution witness that she was seen counting the buy-bust money at the residence of the confidential agent in the afternoon of August 17, 1999 and also the allegation that she was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of one (1) kilogram of shabu inside the blue Mercedes Benz which she drove. She likewise controverted the claim that there was a pending criminal case and an outstanding warrant against her. The last witness for the defense was Socorro Manahan. She testified that at around 9:00 in the evening of August 17, 1999, Lovinia Santero

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 16

along with two maids went to her house at No. 109 Scout Rallos St., Diliman, Quezon City to deliver finished laundry. She stayed there for about an hour. Socorro Manahan identified the logbook kept by the She further testified that the security personnel in her house confirming the fact that the accused actually went to her place on the said occasion. discrepancy in the logbook as to the time the accused arrived is attributed to a possible error on the part of the security guard. The defense did not present the two maids who were supposedly with the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation and who executed a Joint Affidavit to support the defense of the accused. On May 7, 2002, the accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion (A) to Reopen Case for Presentation of Additional Evidence; and (B) To Defer the Promulgation scheduled on May 9, 2004.12 On May 8, 2002, the court a quo issued an Order the dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to wit:
Wherefore, the Urgent Omnibus Motion A) To Reopen Case for Presentation of Additional Evidence; and B) To Defer the Promulgation scheduled on 9 May 2002 is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the promulgation of the decision shall proceed as scheduled, the original schedule of promulgation having been postponed upon the instance of the accused. SO ORDERED.13

On May 9, 2002, the court a quo promulgated the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to wit:
12 13

Records, pp. 408-414 Records, p. 435

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 17

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo a.k.a. Malou Padilla, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 15, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a FINE of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). The period within which the accused was detained at the City Jail of Quezon City shall be credited to her in full as long as she agrees in writing to abide by and follow strictly the rules and regulations of the said institution. The Court cannot order the forfeiture of the shabu because as earlier stated in the decision, the same was lost due to robbery when the case was about to be submitted for decision. IT IS SO ORDERED.14

Aggrieved by the said Decision, accused interposed the present appeal ascribing upon the court a quo the following errors, viz: A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS MOTION TO REFER THE DRUG SPECIMEN TO THE NBI FOR A QUANTITATIVE EXAMINATION THEREOF, AS WELL AS IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT ALTOGETHER AFTER THE LOSS OF THE SAID SPECIMEN ALL IN BLATANT AND CALLOUS DISREGARD OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE

PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED WITH MORAL CERTAINTY OR BY PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, CONSIDERING THAT THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES DID NOT ONLY GIVE

14

Records, pp. 451-452

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 18

PATENTLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, BUT ALSO CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER.15

On the first assigned error, accused-appellant argues that he was denied due process of law and basic fairness because the court a quo did not give her an opportunity to disprove that the prosecutions Exhibit A actually contained methamphetamine hydrochloride and that the actual content thereof exceeded the 200 gram threshold required under Republic Act 7659 as would qualify the crime as a capital offense. Appellant contends that the court a quos denial of her Motion to Refer Exhibit A to the National Bureau of Investigation for a quantitative examination is a denial of her right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in her behalf. She also argued that the only way that she could disprove the veracity and truthfulness of the findings of the forensic expert who conducted a qualitative examination of the substance taken from her on the day of the buy-bust operation, is for her to have the same examined by an expert of her choice, particularly through a quantitative process of examination. We are not in accord with the above contentions of the appellant for the following reasons: First. The substance offered as Exhibit A by the prosecution could no longer be subjected to another examination for the reason that the same was among the items stolen from the office of the court a quo on October 19, 2000. As per report of the court a quo to the Office of the Court Administrator, the subject evidence was among those taken by the person/s
15

Rollo, p. 148

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 19

who perpetuated the robbery. Thus, it would be difficult to conduct another examination of the subject substance. Accused-appellant merely insisted on another examination by the NBI of the substance after it was stolen. A review of the records would show that appellant filed the Motion to Refer the Prosecutions Exhibit A to NBI for Analysis and Examination only on November 15, 2002 or after October 19, 2000 the day the robbery of several evidence in the custody of the court a quo took place. Second. If indeed appellant would like to disprove the findings of the forensic expert who conducted the examination of the substance by subjecting the same to another examination by the NBI, she could have requested for said re-examination at the earliest opportunity, such as the time the substance as well as the report on its examination were presented in evidence, or even prior thereto. However, no such request was ever made by the defense. She could also have made a similar request during the presentation of her evidence. However, no such request was ever made by the appellant until the evidence was stolen and when the request would then be impossible to grant. Additionally, at the time the evidence was stolen, the defense has already rested its case without any manifestation to the court a quo that appellant would request for a re-examination of the substance.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 20

Third.

The result of the laboratory examination conducted by

P/Inspector Benjamin Cruto, Jr., a forensic chemist, on the sample taken from the 974.3 grams of crystalline substance confiscated from appellant, shows that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Thus, if the prosecution was able to prove that the sample was positive for methamphetamine hydrocloride or shabu, it can be presumed that the entire substance was shabu. Hence, there is no need to examine the whole specimen in order to determine the exact content of methamphetamine hydrochloride in the entire substance as suggested by appellant. If the prosecution proves that the sample is positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, it can be presumed that the entire substance seized is shabu.16 Fourth. There was no evidence presented indicating that the

laboratory examination conducted on the specimen showing that it was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, was erroneous. This fact, in conjunction with the undisputed presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, adequately established that the white crystalline substance confiscated from appellant during the buy-bust operation was indeed shabu. Appellants claim that the case should have been dismissed after the loss of specimen, must likewise fail. The loss of the subject drug was due to a robbery that took place in the lower court when the case was about to be terminated. Nonetheless, before the robbery took place, the shabu had already been identified and
16

People vs. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 21

marked in court as the same drug confiscated from appellant, and formally offered by the prosecution when it rested its case. In short, the corpus delicti had been ascertained and proven. On the last assigned error, accused-appellant argues that the court a quo erred in declaring that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant contends that the prosecution witnesses did not only give conflicting statements but also contradicted each other. Appellant, therefore, argues that by reason of the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. We do not agree. Specifically, appellant points out to the alleged inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PO3 Viray and SPO4 Jamisolamin who both testified that they conducted a casing and surveillance operation on the person of the appellant weeks prior to August 17, 1999, the day the buy-bust operation took place. Appellant claims that said witnesses testified that they only saw the accused-appellant for the first time on August 17, 1999 which thus, renders the alleged surveillance operation unbelievable. On this point, however, the witnesses clarified that while they only saw for the first time accused-appellant on August 17, 1999, they were already following her prior thereto driving the same vehicle that she used on the night that she committed the crime and that they explained that they never saw her face to face during the surveillance operation. This Court,

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 22

does not in any way find any inconsistencies in said testimonies of the witnesses. Moreover, prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not indispensable to the prosecution of drug cases.17 Accused-appellant also laments another alleged inconsistency on the arrangement of the details of the buy-bust operation which was supposedly planned on August 17, 1999 per the Affidavit of Arrest executed by the two witnesses. Appellant contends that the witness for the prosecution, SPO4 Jamisolamin testified that the amount of the buy-bust money of P650,000.00 was prepared a few days before the buy-bust operation which, therefore, cast doubt on the existence of the said buy-bust operation. This, according to appellant, is inconsistent with the said affidavit of arrest. We find no inconsistency or discrepancy on the said testimony of the prosecution witness. The amount of P650,000.00 was raised by the police authorities days prior to the buy-bust operation based on the prevailing market value of the shabu at the time of the operation. Moreover, there is nothing in the Affidavit of Arrest18 which would show that the details of the buy-bust operation were only planned on August 17, 1999. Said affidavit of arrest merely made mention of the details on who should act as poseurbuyer and the events surrounding the buy-bust operation conducted on August 17, 1999. Finally, accused-appellant finds discrepancy in the testimony of the poseur-buyer who testified that she was immediately introduced to the appellant as the interested buyer of the shabu upon the latters arrival at the
17 18

People vs. Chen Tin Cheng, 375 SCRA 776 Exhibit H, prosecution, Record, p. 133.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 23

informants house. Appellant claims that PO2 Javier, the poseur-buyer allegedly testified that she had to act as a helper in the house in order to listen to the conversation between the appellant, the latters boyfriend and the informant which took place in the room upstairs earlier in the afternoon prior to the buy-bust operation. Such testimony, according to appellant, contradicts her earlier statement that she was introduced as the buyer. Again, there is nothing in the testimony of said witness which would show that she acted as a helper. What she said was that she pretended to be sweeping the stairs in order to eavesdrop on the conversation between the accused and her boyfriend without creating any suspicion. The above alleged inconsistencies are all collateral matters which do not affect the prosecution witnesses credibility. Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses or the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Accused-appellant likewise questions the act of the court a quo in not exerting efforts to use court processes in order for the civilian informant to testify in court. On this point, We rule that there is no need to present the informant in court because the prosecution witness who acted as poseurbuyer has actually witnessed and adequately proved the crime committed by the appellant. This was the ruling enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Doria,19 that there is no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses. The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases.20
19 20

301 SCRA 668 People vs. Cheng Ho Chua, 305 SCRA 28

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 24

Appellant also argues that the non-presentation of the amount of P650,000.00 as the supposed payment for the shabu would show that the police authorities merely fabricated the buy-bust operation. This Court, however, rules that the failure to present the marked money is of no great consequence the Dangerous Drugs Law punishes the mere act of delivering prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the prohibited drug seller.21 to the prosecution of drug cases.22 During the trial, the prosecution witnesses, who were members of the buy-bust team that entrapped appellant on August 17, 1999, testified on the material events that transpired in the buy-bust operation. PO2 Margie Javier, the poseur-buyer, testified that before appellant was entrapped in the evening of August 17, 1999, she and a male companion first counted the show money of P650,000.00 in the house of the confidential informant. Appellant returned in the evening to deliver the shabu and was arrested. PO2 Javier testified on the full details of the buybust operation:
Q: A: Now, when you arrived at 12th Avenue, Quezon City, what did you do? We alighted from the car and SPO3 Viray knocked at the door of our confidential informant, sir.

Moreover, the

presentation of the informant and the buy bust money are not indispensable

21 22

People vs. Fabro, 325 SCRA 285 People vs. Chen Tin Cheng, 325 SCRA 776

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 25

Q: A: Q: A:

And what happened when you alighted from the car and SPO3 Viray knocked at the door of your confidential informant? Our informant alighted to enter the house and SPO3 Viray told our informant that the money was already with me. So, after SPO3 Viray told your confidential informant that the money was already with you, what happened next? We were asked to sit down by our confidential informant and he made a call thru his cellphone and I heard from that phone call that our CI will be waiting for the subject because the subject had still to have her car fixed or repaired in Kamuning. XXX XXX XXX

Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

After staying for 1 hour, what happened next? Malou Padilla arrived at the house as she had promised. How do you know that it was Malou Padilla who arrived at 4:00 oclock in the afternoon? Because she was the person that we were waiting for and the CI told me that she was the person. When she arrived at the house, what did you do? When she arrived at the house, I pretended that I was washing my hands at the lavatory and then I saw them walking proceeding upstairs. When you saw the CI and Malou Padilla were going upstairs, what did you do? I got a broom and went upstairs and pretended to be sweeping the stairs so that I could hear what were they talking about. And what did you hear about? I heard someone said, What is this kind of money, they are P50 bills and P100 bills, they are hard to count. XXX XXX XXX

Q: A: Q: A:

Q: A:

How long did you stay upstairs? For 3 minutes because they might see me going downstairs, sir.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 26

Q: A:

So, after 3 minutes, what did you do? I sat and waited at the sofa and I waited for them to go downstairs. XXX XXX XXX

Q: A:

So, when these three persons, the confidential informant, Malou Padilla and the man went downstairs, what did you do? I remained seated on the sofa and then I heard Malou Padilla saying we should go to Tutuban Center para magpalitan but our CI told us that that is not possible because a policeman might arrest us. What was the reaction of your confidential informant when Malou told her that? The man was the first one to react and our CI refused and told us that we will not bring out the money. What did Malou Padilla and her companion say when your CI told them about not bringing out the money? The man uttered: Ma, huwag na, then Malou Padilla said: Okey, we will be leaving. XXX XXX XXX

Q: A: Q: A:

Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

For how long did you seat (sic) and watched TV? We watched TV for around five (5) hours, from 6:00 until she arrived at 10:30 in the evening. When you say they arrived at 10:30 P.M., to whom are you referring to, this (sic) persons who arrived? They were three (3) women, two of which were addressing Malou ate. After these three women arrived at the house, what happened next? She invited us to her car to inspect the shabu which was inside the car.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 27

Q: A: Q: A:

And did you accede to her information? Yes, sir. And where was this located? In front of the house at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City. XXX XXX XXX

Q: A:

When you arrived at the place where her car was parked, what did you do? She showed to me the bag where the shabu was placed, sir. XXX XXX XXX23

PO2 Margie Javiers exhaustive testimony was corroborated on all material points by the testimony of SPO3 Ernesto Viray who was a member of the buy-bust team. On the other hand, the testimony of P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas corroborated the testimonies of PO2 Javier and SPO4 Viray that a buy-bust operation was conducted and that he coordinated with his men during said operation. Credence is given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. There was no evidence presented by the defense to prove that the prosecution witnesses were inspired by improper motives or that they were not properly performing their duties.

23

TSN, February 7, 2000 Prosecution Evidence

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 28

Against the positive declarations of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation, appellant could only interpose the defense of denial and alibi which can be easily concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. It is a weak defense and cannot overcome the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. In the present case, appellant failed to prove that it was physically impossible for her to be at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed. The trial court noted that Kamuning, Quezon City was near to Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City. Hence, the trial courts ruling:
To the charge against her, the accused interposed the defense of denial and alibi and invoked that she was a victim of `hulidap. These defenses are generally looked with disfavor because they are easy to concoct and are considered standard defense ploy in most prosecution for violation of the dangerous drugs law. Furthermore, the defense of denial is a weak defense and cannot overcome the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness/poseur-buyer. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative selfserving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. That the accused claimed that she went to deliver finished dry cleaned laundry to a customer in Kamuning, Quezon City cannot disprove the fact that she was at the informants house about an hour after the delivery. Thus, she cannot claim that it was physically impossible for her to have been at Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City at the time the drug deal took place because the two places are near to each other. Besides, the accused testified that she was at the customers place at 9:00 oclock in the evening while the poseur-buyer testified that the accused arrived at 10:00 oclock in the evening, hence, it is but logical to conclude that the accused first went to Kamuning and then proceeded to Cubao, Quezon City. For alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he was not at the crime scene but it was also physically impossible for him to have been present there at the time the offense was

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 29

committed. Basic is the rule that alibi which is easy to concoct, cannot prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses who were not shown to have been ill-motivated to testify against the accused. Neither could the defense of frame-up or `hulidap by the police officers be countenanced in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers had other motives behind the arrest of the accused. Frameup, often imputed to police officers, requires strong proof when offered as a defense, because of the presumption that public officers acted in the regular performance of their official duties.24

The courts are not unaware of the observation that in drug-related cases, the defense of frame-up coupled with hulidap operation is often raised. Without any proof shown, the defenses allegation of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed.25 Foregoing discussed, We find no error on the part of the court a quo in convicting the accused of the crime charged. WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice

24 25

Records, pp. 449-450 People vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 562

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363 DECISION

Page 30

WE CONCUR:

ROMEO A. BRAWNER Associate Justice

MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ROMEO A. BRAWNER Associate Justice Chairman, Ninth Division