FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 142885. October 22, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. WILLIAM TIU y LIU AND

EDGARDO DE PAZ y DANAO, appellants.

DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:

Appellants William Tiu y Liu and Edgardo De Paz y Danao were charged before
the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City[1] with violating Section 15, Article III of Republic
Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972. Both were found guilty of the offense charged and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and solidarily to pay the mandatory conjunctive penalty of
a fine of P1,000,000.[2] The convictions are now up for review before the Court.

The Prosecutions Version of the Facts

The testimonies of prosecution witnesses PO3 Benedicto R. Tupil, [3] P/Insp. Julieto
Culili,[4] P/Insp. Julius Mana[5] and P/Insp. Isidro Cario,[6] are as follows:
On June 26, 1998, at about 2:30 p.m., police officers Tupil, Culili and Mana were on
alert duty at the Philippine National Police Narcotics Group, Special Operations Division
(SOD) situated in Camp Crame, Quezon City when a confidential informant (CI) walked
in and reported that he had knowledge of two persons, going by the names William and
Edgar, who were engaged in the selling and/or delivering of large volumes of shabu in
Metro Manila. The CI disclosed that Edgar promised him a commission if he can find a
good buyer for their available stocks of shabu.
After interrogating the CI and evaluating the information given, Mana instructed the
CI to contact Edgar and to arrange the purchase of 2 kilos of shabu. At about 7:30 p.m.,
the CI returned, claiming that he closed a deal with Edgar for the purchase of 2 kilos
of shabu for P1,000,000. The exchange would take place between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00
a.m., the next day, at the 7-11 convenience store parking area located in Bayan-Bayan
Ave., Concepcion, Marikina City.
A team was immediately formed comprising of Tupil, to act as the poseur-buyer, Culili
and a certain P/Insp. Carlito Dimalanta, to give backup support, and six other police
officers, to provide the perimeter security. The buy-bust money was also prepared using
six pieces of marked P1,000 bills that were placed on top of ten bundles of boodle
money[7] and contained inside a paper bag. Thereafter, the police officers proceeded to
the target area. In route, they dropped by the Eastern Police District Station to coordinate
the buy-bust operation to avoid a misencounter with the local police.
The police officers arrived in the target area at around 3:30 a.m. Tupil and the CI
parked their vehicle in the parking lot of 7-11, while Culili and Dimalanta took positions in
front of a Meralco building some 10 to 15 meters away. The rest of the team stayed at a
nearby gasoline station, about 20 meters away from 7-11.
At around 6:30 a.m., a metallic green Toyota Corolla XL, with license plate UHE 156,
arrived carrying on board the two appellants. De Paz first approached Tupil and the CI.
The CI immediately introduced Tupil to De Paz by saying Siya iyong interasadong bumili
ng shabu. De Paz, in turn, requested to see the money, whereupon Tupil went to the car
to retrieve the paper bag. Tupil then took out a bundle of boodle money and flashed it in
front of De Paz. Satisfied, De Paz left to fetch Tiu who was, during all this time, waiting
inside the Toyota Corolla. When De Paz returned with Tiu, the latter was carrying a black
shoulder bag. Tiu handed the black bag over to Tupil saying Pare, ito iyong order nyo na
bato. Dalawang kilo yan. After receiving the black bag, Tupil handed over to De Paz the
paper bag containing the boodle money. As he was doing so, Tupil executed the
prearranged signal by removing the cap he was wearing. Thereafter, Tupil identified
himself as a police officer and grabbed Tiu. De Paz managed to run away at first, but was
immediately caught by Dimalanta and Culili.

The Appellants Version of the Facts

Appellants claim that the buy-bust operation never took place. Instead, they depicted
an elaborate frame-up perpetrated by the police. Gathered from the testimonies of
appellants[8] and witnesses Lorna Perez,[9] Nerio Cercado,[10] Eduardo Balamiento,[11] Tessie
Lesiguez,[12] Carmelita Villanueva,[13] and Erna Boadilla,[14] the whole incident transpired as
follows:
On June 26, 1998, Lorna Perez, the common-law wife of Tiu, was in route
to Manila on board Tius Mitsubishi Lancer GRS, with license plate WLT 111, driven by
Nerio Cercado. She had just left Olongapo City, where she had a medical check-up.
Somewhere in Sta. Cruz, Pampanga, their vehicle was stopped by armed men who
introduced themselves as narcotics policemen stationed in Olongapo City. The policemen
accused them of riding in a hot car and told them that they must be brought
to Camp Crame. Because the men were armed, Perez and Cercado had no choice but
to go to Camp Crame.
Upon arrival in Camp Crame at about 8:00 p.m., Perez and Cercado were
interrogated by Dimalanta, Culili, Tupil and Mana regarding the whereabouts of Tiu. Both
replied that Tiu resides in Marikina and that he may already be home. The police officers
then proceeded to Tius house with Perez and Cercado. After seeing that Tiu was not yet
home, the police officers decided to wait for him.
 Tiu arrived at around 5:30 a.m. the following day, accompanied by De Paz. He just
came from an all-night card game in the house of De Pazs brother. As they entered the
gate, the police officers immediately drew their weapons and ordered them to lie on the
ground. One police officer told Tiu that their superior, Director Acop, is very mad at him
because of false rumors Tiu was allegedly spreading against Director Acop
in Olongapo City. Tiu, De Paz, Perez and Cercado were thereafter brought
to Camp Crame.
Later, at around 10:00 a.m., the police brought Tiu and Perez back
to Marikina because the police wanted Tiu to get in touch with a certain Paul Chua. When
he was unable to contact Paul Chua, they were taken back to Camp Crame. The following
day, around 8:00 p.m., Director Acop arrived. Upon seeing Tiu, Director Acop took off his
shoes and used them to hit Tiu. Director Acop also punched and kicked Tiu, telling
him Putang ina mo William, kung anu-ano ang pinagsasabi mo sa Olongapo. Siniraan mo
ako at pinag taguan mo pa kami.
Subsequently, the police officers offered to release Perez, Cercado and the
Mitsubishi Lancer for P270,000. Tiu managed to raise the money and it was brought in
by Perezs father early the next morning on June 28, 1998. Thus, Perez and Cercado
were set free and the vehicle released. However, Tiu and De Paz were brought before
the Marikina Prosecutors Office for inquest proceedings.
Appellants filed separate briefs. In Tius brief, the following alleged errors were
assigned:
I

THE TRIAL COURT GROSSLY MISAPPRECIATED THE FACTS AND

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE

TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE SAME INDICATES IMPROBABILITIES.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENGAGES IN GIVING UNDUE

WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION DESPITE
THE EXISTENCE OF CLEAR, POSITIVE AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE
EFFECTIVELY CONTROVERTING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION.

III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE DOUBT.
 De Paz, in his brief, assigns the following errors for consideration:
I

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE

TESTIMONIES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO CONDUCTED THE
ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION WHICH LED TO THE CAPTURE OF
WILLIAM TIU AND EDGARDO DE PAZ.

II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT WILLIAM TIU

AND EDGARDO DE PAZ WERE CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO IN AN
ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION BY A TEAM HEADED BY P/CHIEF
INSPECTOR JULIUS CESAR V. MANA AT THE SEVEN-ELEVEN (7-11)
CONVENIENCE STORE LOCATED AT BAYAN-BAYANAN AVENUE,
CONCEPCION MARIKINA CITY AT AROUND 6:20 IN THE MORNING OF
JUNE 27, 1998 DESPITE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR THE
DEFENSE THAT THERE WAS NO BUY-BUST OPERATION IN THE
AFORESAID DATE AND PLACE AND THAT WILLIAM TIU AND EDGARDO
DE PAZ WERE ARRESTED IN TIUS RESIDENCE AT 72 ISRAEL STREET,
GREENHEIGHTS NAGKA, MARIKINA CITY.

III

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF

THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT EDGARDO DE PAZ HAS BEEN PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Simply put, both appellants are asking the Court to rule that the prosecution failed to
prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Ruling

The Court understands the importance of buy-bust operations as an effective method,

sanctioned by law, of apprehending drug peddlers.[15] At the same time, it is aware that it
is susceptible to mistake, harassment, extortion and abuse.[16] As the Court declared
in People v. Ale:[17]

[W]e cannot close our eyes to the many reports of evidence being planted on unwary
persons either for extorting money or exacting personal vengeance. By the very nature
of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady
characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin
can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy
that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.

For this reason, the Court must be extra vigilant in trying drug cases.[18]
The elements necessary successfully to prosecute an accused for the illegal sale
of shabu are: 1) Identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and
2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[19] To prove that these elements
were present in the case at bar, the prosecution relies on the testimony of the poseur-
buyer, Tupil. The four other witnesses who testified for the prosecution were incompetent
to testify on these facts. Culili, who witnessed the incident from some 15 meters away,
was only able to testify on the movements of appellants, Tupil and the CI, but could not
precisely testify as to the fact of the sale. Mana, on the other hand, testified on the
preparations conducted prior to the buy-bust operation, while Cario merely reported that
the drug samples given to him for testing were positive for shabu. In short, the
prosecutions case crucially depends on the strength of the testimony of Tupil.
While the Court concedes that a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be
sufficient to convict an accused,[20] it does not hold true in this case. Tupils credibility has
been seriously eroded by the fact that, in another drug-related criminal case, he was found
to have framed-up the accused therein for illegal sale of shabu. The decision in that
case,[21] rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City and presented by appellants
as part of their evidence,[22] speaks volumes of the character of Tupil and his co-narcotics
agents. The pertinent portion of the Pasay City trial courts decision is quoted therein, as
follows:

The prosecution avers that, when the accused arrived, at 4:00 oclock in the afternoon,
on March 15, 1998, in the parking lot of the Heritage Hotel, he and the informant had
a brief conversation and that, thereafter, the informant and the accused proceeded to
the car of Savellano, in the parking lot, boarded the car and, once inside the car, the
sale transaction was forged with the Accused turning over the shabu to Bungay and
the latter showing the buy-money to the Accused. However, the VHS videotape taken,
with the cameras at the entrance door of the hotel, inscrutably shows that, as the
Accused waited in the driveway of the hotel, he was forcibly taken by armed male
persons and forcibly boarded in a car which then sped off towards the direction
of Makati City. This is graphically shown in the VHS video shown to the Court, in the
presence of the Accused and the Prosecutor. There was no transaction forged by the
Accused and the informant and Bungay at all. The Accused was brazenly abducted
from the driveway of the hotel and brought to Camp Crame, Quezon City

Eventually, the accused therein, Philip Sy, was acquitted and criminal charges were
brought by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group against Tupil and the other
policemen involved in the frame-up. When cross-examined by the defense, Tupil readily
admitted having taken part in the phony buy-bust operation against Philip Sy and that he
even testified therein as a prosecution witness. It having been indubitably shown that
Tupil has had a history of framing-up suspects, not to mention his having given false
testimony, the Court cannot give credence to his testimony in this case.
The Court also notes from the decision of the Pasay City trial court that prosecution
witnesses Culili and Mana were also part of the plot to frame-up Philip Sy. Their credibility
are, consequently, similarly questionable.
While the defense of frame-up can be easily fabricated, this claim assumes
importance when it is shown that the apprehending officers, who were also the
prosecutions witnesses, have a penchant for framing innocent people or, in our colorful
vernacular, committing HULIDAP.[23] Under the circumstances, a cloud of doubt, arising
from the lack of credibility of the prosecution witnesses, attends the finding of guilt against
appellants.
Moreover, to corroborate their claim that no buy-bust operation occurred, appellants
were able to present disinterested witnesses who had no personal or business
relationship with them:
Tessie Lesiguiez is a balut and cigarette vendor who sells her wares just beside the
7-11 convenient store, where the alleged buy-bust operation occurred. She testified that
she was at her post from the evening of June 26, 1998 until 7:30 a.m. of June 27,
1998 and that, during the entire time, she did not witness any buy-bust operation.
Carmelita Villanueva is another vendor who has a stall beside 7-11. She testified
that she tended her stall selling viands between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. of June 27,
1998 and that she does not recall any unusual incident that happened at that time.
Erna Boadilla is a next-door neighbor of Tiu. She testified that she is usually awake
by 5:00 a.m. to prepare breakfast for her husband. She said that in the morning of June
27, 1998, she heard their dogs barking, prompting her to peep through their window. From
her vantage point, she saw 5 or 6 armed men accosting Tiu who was, thereafter, boarded
inside a car.
In criminal cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.[24] The Court finds that the guilt of appellants herein
has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, as measured by the required moral
certainty for conviction. While there has been no strong proof that appellants were indeed
framed-up, in criminal cases the overriding consideration is not whether the Court doubts
the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his
guilt.[25] Considering the shady credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and the evidence
presented by appellants, the constitutional presumption of innocence has not been
overcome.
WHEREFORE, decision of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 272, in
Criminal Case No. 98-593-D-MK, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and appellants
are ACQUITTED of the crime charged. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., on leave.
[1]
Branch 272, Criminal Case No. 98-593-D-MK.
[2]
Rollo, p. 60.
[3]
TSN, October 12, 1998.
[4]
TSN, February 23, 1999.
[5]
TSN, April 12, 1999.
[6]
TSN, November 11, 1998.
[7]
Wad of paper cut out in the shape of monetary bills.
[8]
TSN, May 24, 1999; TSN, August 2, 1999.
[9]
TSN, February 8, 1999.
[10]
TSN, February 9, 1999.
[11]
TSN, April 19, 1999.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Ibid.
[14]
TSN, August 2, 1999.
[15]
People v. Saludes, et al., G.R. No. 144157, June 10, 2003.
[16]
People v. Lati, 184 SCRA 336 (1993).
[17]
145 SCRA 50 (1986).
[18]
People v. Pagaura, 267 SCRA 17 (1997).
[19]
People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420 (2000).
[20]
People v. Quetua, 222 SCRA 357 (1993).
[21]
Criminal Case No. 98-0292; Decision dated September 18, 1998.
[22]
Annex 2 of Exhibit 5, Records, Vol. I, pp. 381-389.
[23]
A term for Arrest-Hold-up.
[24]
People v. Tantiado, 213 SCRA 365 (1992).
[25]
People v. Villagonzalo, 238 SCRA 215 (1994).