People of the Philippines vs. Jason Sy

In a prosecution for illegal sale of regulated drugs, the prosecution must prove that the sale actually took place and present the drug in court, consisting of (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) he knew that what he sold and delivered was a dangerous drug; the non-presentation of the informant, absence of a blotter entry, non-use of fluorescent powder, and police extortion do not necessarily negate the commission of the offense.

Jason Sy was a businessman engaged in trading ready-to-wear clothes, with a stall at Tutuban Shopping Mall and deliveries in Metro Manila. The case arose from a police buy-bust operation conducted by the Special Action Team, 3rd CIDG, Camp Olivas, Pampanga, targeting a person allegedly named Jason Sy. The governing statute was Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, which penalizes the sale of regulated drugs with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine, while Section 20 fixes the applicable penalty based on the quantity involved, including 200 grams or more of shabu.

Jason Sy was charged in the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 47, in Criminal Case No. 11379 with illegal sale of shabu under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The Information dated 4 December 2000 alleged that on or about 3 December 2000, in San Fernando, Pampanga, Sy, without being licensed or authorized, willfully and feloniously sold one carton box of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 987.32265 grams to a poseur-buyer. At arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.

According to the prosecution, PO3 Ricardo L. Amontos, a member of the Special Action Team, 3rd CIDG, Camp Olivas, reported at about 4:00 p.m. on 2 December 2000, and Major Julian Caesar Mana told them that PO2 Christian Trambulo and a civilian informant were negotiating a drug deal with a certain Jason Sy. At about 2:00 a.m. on 3 December 2000, Major Mana conducted a briefing; Amontos was designated as back-up of PO2 Trambulo. They proceeded to the Chowking Food Chain at Gapan-Olongapo Road, Dolores, San Fernando, Pampanga, in four vehicles. At around 3:00 a.m., a red Nissan Altima arrived; Jason Sy alighted and walked toward Trambulo’s car; they talked; Trambulo removed his bull cap, the pre-arranged signal; Amontos rushed to the place, saw Trambulo holding Sy’s hand, recovered the ₱5,000.00 marked money and boodle money from Sy, apprised him of his constitutional rights, and brought him to Camp Olivas. Trambulo turned over custody of Sy, the buy-bust money, and a transparent plastic pack inside a paper bag labeled Jacob Fish cracker containing shabu to the police investigator. On cross-examination, Amontos said Major Mana gave the ₱5,000.00 marked money to Trambulo, but Trambulo prepared the boodle money; he informed Sy of his rights in English because the informant said Sy was a Chinese national, and Sy nodded when asked if he understood English.

Police Inspector Maria Luisa David Gundran, the Crime Laboratory forensic chemical officer, testified that she conducted a qualitative examination and weighed the specimen at 987.32263 grams; Simons Reagent produced a blue coloration positive for shabu; the TLC confirmatory test confirmed her initial impressions; and the findings were positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. On cross-examination, she said their technician weighed the shabu in her presence and the money was not subjected to ultraviolet forensic examination. PO2 Christian Trambulo testified that the informant introduced him to Jason through cellular phone; they conversed in Tagalog and agreed that he would buy one kilogram of shabu for ₱5,000.00; Captain Mana gave him ten genuine ₱500.00 bills and boodle money placed inside a blue paper bag; he corroborated the meeting, preparations, exchange, transfer of shabu, receipt of the blue paper bag, and arrest. He identified the Receipt of Property Seized dated December 3, 2000, booking sheet, requests for physical and laboratory examination and drug dependency test, and joint affidavit. On cross-examination, he said the team had eight members and one informant; Captain Mana told them the suspect was a Chinese person operating in the 3rd Regional area and fluent in Tagalog; he talked with accused personally over the phone; accused said he would arrive in a car; the informant said accused could speak English and Tagalog; the deal for a kilo of shabu with a street value of ₱2 Million was made in two to three minutes; and Major Mana gave him the genuine and boodle money.

Senior Inspector Julieto B. Culili corroborated the testimonies of Amontos and Trambulo. He disclosed that they questioned the confidential informant to determine the sincerity and truthfulness of the information regarding the illegal drug activities of a certain Jason; they jumped off at around 2:00 a.m. toward Chowking Restaurant along Olongapo-Gapan Road, Dolores, San Fernando, Pampanga; he recalled the vehicles used, how a Chinese-looking person alighted and approached Trambulo, how Trambulo removed his bull cap, and how they arrested the accused. He investigated Jason Sy after arrest, instructed his men to prepare their affidavit, personally prepared the request for Laboratory Examination, Request for Physical Examination, booking sheet, and other documents, and instructed his men to bring accused for physical examination and Trambulo to bring the evidence to the crime laboratory. On cross-examination, defense counsel referred to People vs. Go Lip Tse, Criminal Case No. 98-0292, filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, where Culili participated in a buy-bust operation; the accused therein was acquitted because a video showed that Go was merely abducted and there was no buy-bust. Culili also admitted that he was informed about a criminal case pending against him, Senior Inspector Mana, Medel Pono, Inspector Carlito Dimalanta, and Francisco Villaroman for violation of Section 19 of RA 7659 for planting evidence.

The defense presented a different scenario through Jason Sy, Henry Ang, Armando Escala, Jose Pepito, Allan Castro, Andrea Co, and Co Kim Eng. Sy claimed he was a businessman trading ready-to-wear clothes, delivering to Tutuban, Divisoria, Baclaran, and other commercial areas in Metro Manila, maintaining a stall on the 3rd Floor of Tutuban Shopping Mall, and residing at 14 Polyteach Street, University Hills, Caloocan City. On 2 December 2000, at dawn, he was allegedly abducted while in his car stalled in momentary traffic along EDSA in Caloocan City, in front of Max Restaurant about one hundred meters from Bonifacio Monument. Jose Pepito saw two persons commandeer Sy’s car, force him to the back seat, and speed away. Sy was initially brought to a place that looked like a cemetery near a toll gate going to the North Expressway; his vehicle was ransacked and his person searched, divesting him and his car of sample RTW products, cash amounting to ₱4,000.00 to ₱5,000.00, and his cellular phone. He was then brought to his house at Polyteach Street, University Hills, Caloocan City, where about ten persons pillaged the place and took all his stock merchandise or inventory to their own vehicles. Fifteen to twenty minutes later, they left with Sy in his car and two other cars. While on board, he was asked to call his relatives; having no relatives in the Philippines, he called his mother’s friend whom he addresses as “Auntie Kim Ying” and was instructed to ask her to raise ₱1.5 Million in ransom. The phone was taken from him, he was blindfolded, and they kept driving, making only a short stop for lunch, until they arrived at a destination in the dark.

Unknown to Sy, Mrs. Co Kim Eng (Kim Ying), upon receiving the call, raised ₱1.5 Million from relatives, business associates, and friends, and contacted Mrs. Andrea Co (“Aning” “Annie”) in the evening of 2 December 2003 to deliver the money to Sy’s abductors. Andrea Co, fearful but indebted to Sy as her supplier on credit of RTW clothing, agreed. She accepted the money and a cellular phone, which Co Kim Eng said was the phone being contacted by the kidnappers. While waiting for a taxi, the phone rang; the caller asked if she had the money, but she insisted on talking to Sy first. She was instructed to proceed to San Fernando City, Pampanga, to the Total Gas Station and wait for the next instruction; she hired a taxi. At about midnight of the same day of 2 December 2000, Sy was handed a mobile phone and spoke with Andrea Co, who confirmed his identity and safety; the phone was immediately taken after short exchanges, and he was left alone in a room without a window, guarded by two abductors. Andrea Co arrived at the Total Gas Station in San Fernando City and waited about thirty minutes; she received another call instructing her to proceed to the dark corner of the street fronting a McDonald’s Restaurant along McArthur Highway. Upon arrival, she was ordered to alight from the taxi and bring the money; she noticed an L-300 Mitsubishi van slowly parking behind them; several persons alighted and took the money; she saw several persons inside the van carrying Armalite rifles when its sliding door opened. She was instructed to go back to the Total Gas Station to wait for Sy. There, she received another call ordering them to leave; she complied, asked the taxi driver to wait at the San Fernando toll gate’s entrance to the expressway, tried to call the kidnappers but the line was dead, proceeded to Manila via the expressway, and received one last call assuring her that Sy was with them but they were taking the “San Simon” route to Manila. She never heard from them again until she arrived home at about 4:00 a.m. on 3 December 2003.

Before dawn the following day, 3 December 2000, Sy was taken from his holding cell and brought to an office he later learned was inside Camp Olivas in San Fernando, Pampanga. Unknown to him, a case of drug trafficking had been prepared by his abductors, now police officers, for filing before the prosecutor’s office that day. During trial, Sy recognized P/Inspector Julieto Culili as one of his abductors when Culili testified as the prosecution’s last witness. The arresting officers claimed that Sy was arrested in a buy-bust operation at the parking space of Chowking Restaurant at San Fernando City along Olongapo-Gapan Road at about 2:00 a.m. of “3 December 2003”; the defense argued that the police moved the date from 2 December to 3 December 2003 to prevent a charge of arbitrary detention exceeding thirty-six hours. The RTC gave full faith and credence to the prosecution witnesses, noting that they testified in a clear and straightforward manner, and found the defense witnesses’ testimonies had loose ends and were not as plausible; it also found evidence that police officers exacted money from Sy after his arrest to facilitate his immediate discharge, yet still convicted him based on the totality of prosecution evidence. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court’s factual findings and gave more weight to the prosecution’s claim that the entrapment operation took place at the Chowking parking area, and did not give credence to Sy’s allegations of extortion.

• Credibility of Defense Version: Petitioner maintained that the defense version was more worthy of credence and belief than that of the prosecution.
• Negative Testimony vs. Positive Assertion: Petitioner argued that the established doctrine that negative testimony cannot prevail over positive assertion is not an absolute rule and admits of exceptions.
• Non-presentation of Informant: Petitioner contended that the failure to present the confidential informant is fatal to the prosecution and demonstrates that the informant is fictitious, giving rise to the presumption that his testimony would be adverse if produced.
• Fluorescent Powder and Blotter: Petitioner asserted that the buy-bust money was not dusted with fluorescent powder and the police operation was not duly blottered, which are telltale signs of irregularities in the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation.
• Chain of Custody: Petitioner cast doubt on whether the prosecution was able to maintain the chain of custody of the shabu from the time of its alleged retrieval from him to the time it was presented in court.
• Extortion/Hulidap: Petitioner sought to establish a “hulidap” theory, claiming he was illegally abducted, ransom was extorted, and a drug case was fabricated; he also invoked the Go Lip Tse case and the pending planting-of-evidence case against police officers to impugn their credibility.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether the prosecution discharged its burden to prove accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal sale of shabu.
• Credibility of Witnesses: Whether the defense version is more worthy of credence and belief than the prosecution’s version.
• Negative Testimony vs. Positive Assertion: Whether the doctrine that negative testimony cannot prevail over positive assertion is absolute or admits of exceptions.
• Non-presentation of Informant: Whether the failure to present the confidential informant is fatal to the prosecution.
• Buy-bust Irregularities: Whether the failure to dust the buy-bust money with fluorescent powder and to record the operation in the police blotter indicates irregularities in the buy-bust operation.
• Chain of Custody: Whether the prosecution maintained the integrity of the chain of custody of the shabu.
• Effect of Police Extortion: Whether the alleged extortion committed by the police after arrest negates accused-appellant’s commission of the offense.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Yes. The prosecution established the elements of illegal sale: accused sold and delivered shabu to another and knew it was a dangerous drug; the drug was presented in court.
• Credibility of Witnesses: No. The defense version was not more credible; the trial court’s assessment of prosecution witnesses is accorded the highest respect, and the poseur-buyer’s positive identification prevails over denial.
• Negative Testimony vs. Positive Assertion: No exception applies. The positive testimony of Trambulo, the poseur-buyer, outweighs accused-appellant’s denial.
• Non-presentation of Informant: No. The informant’s testimony may be dispensed with where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses; none of the Doria exceptions are present.
• Buy-bust Irregularities: No. A prior blotter report is neither indispensable nor required, and there is no rule requiring fluorescent powder; marking by initials is accepted.
• Chain of Custody: No. The integrity of the chain of custody was not compromised; what matters is preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
• Effect of Police Extortion: No. Police extortion does not necessarily negate the commission of the offense, as held in People vs. So.

• Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Constitution presumes an accused innocent until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and this presumption prevails over the presumption of regularity of official duty. In illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The elements are (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) he knew that what he sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. The testimonies of PO3 Amontos, PO2 Trambulo, and Senior Inspector Culili, detailing the negotiation, delivery of shabu, receipt of marked and boodle money, and arrest, established these elements, and the physical evidence of shabu bolstered them. The trial court’s credibility assessment was respected. Thus, guilt beyond reasonable doubt was established.
• Credibility of Witnesses: The trial court had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses and was in a better position to discern truthfulness; its assessment is accorded the highest respect. The RTC gave full faith and credence to the prosecution witnesses, who testified in a clear and straightforward manner, and found the defense witnesses’ testimonies to have loose ends and to be less plausible. The Court of Appeals agreed with the factual findings and gave more weight to the prosecution’s claim that the entrapment operation took place at the Chowking parking area. No reason appeared to disturb these findings.
• Negative Testimony vs. Positive Assertion: The rule that negative testimony cannot prevail over positive assertion is not absolute and admits exceptions, but no exception applied. The positive identification by Trambulo, the poseur-buyer, and the corroborating testimonies of the other police officers outweighed accused-appellant’s denial. The defense’s denial and hulidap theory did not overcome the prosecution’s positive evidence.
• Non-presentation of Informant: Under People vs. Doria, the informant’s testimony may be dispensed with except when the appellant vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the arresting officers’ testimonies, or there are reasons to believe the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely, or only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction. None of these circumstances were present. The sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses, so the informant’s testimony would merely be corroborative. The claim that the informant was fictitious and that an adverse presumption should arise was rejected.
• Buy-bust Irregularities: A prior blotter report is neither indispensable nor required in buy-bust operations. There is no rule requiring the police to apply fluorescent powder to buy-bust money to prove the commission of the offense; failure to use fluorescent powder is not an indication that the buy-bust did not take place. The use of initials to mark the money used in the operation has been accepted. The prerogative to choose the manner of marking the money belongs exclusively to the prosecution. Thus, the alleged irregularities did not invalidate the operation.
• Chain of Custody: Under People vs. Del Monte, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as they will be used to determine guilt or innocence. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction. Trambulo testified that upon confiscation of the box with shabu, he affixed his initials CVT and the date of confiscation, placed the evidence in his car until they reached the CIDG office, showed it to P/Inspector Culili, and the evidence was inventoried; Culili then instructed him to bring it to the crime laboratory. The duty officer received the evidence, and Senior Inspector Gundran-David conducted the laboratory examination. The integrity of the chain was not compromised.
• Effect of Police Extortion: The RTC found evidence that police officers exacted money from accused-appellant after his arrest to facilitate his immediate discharge, but this did not negate the commission of the offense. In People vs. So, this Court ruled that police extortion does not necessarily negate the fact that the accused committed the offense. The Court examined the entirety of the prosecution evidence and found it sufficient to convict. The Court of Appeals did not give credence to the extortion allegations, and the conviction was affirmed. The Court nevertheless directed that the DILG and PNP be furnished a copy of the decision for appropriate action concerning the alleged extortion.

• Elements of Illegal Sale of Regulated Drugs — In a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence. The elements are: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; and (2) he knew that what he sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. The Court applied this doctrine because the buy-bust team’s testimonies and the physical evidence established both elements.
• Presumption of Innocence and Presumption of Regularity — An accused is presumed innocent until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. This constitutional guarantee cannot be overthrown unless the prosecution establishes sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption and prove the crime and the accused’s guilt. The presumption of regularity of official duty does not by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and cannot support a conviction; the prosecution must stand or fall on its evidence. The Court applied this by reviewing the totality of prosecution evidence and finding it sufficient.
• Non-presentation of the Informant in Buy-bust Operations — The testimony of the informant may be dispensed with as merely corroborative where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses. Under People vs. Doria, the informant should be presented except when: (a) the appellant vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers; (b) there are reasons to believe the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely; or (c) only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction. None of these circumstances were present.
• Blotter Report and Fluorescent Powder Not Indispensable — A prior blotter report is neither indispensable nor required in buy-bust operations. There is no rule requiring the police to apply fluorescent powder to buy-bust money to prove the commission of the offense. The use of initials to mark the money used in the buy-bust operation has been accepted. The prerogative to choose the manner of marking the money belongs exclusively to the prosecution. The Court applied this in rejecting accused-appellant’s claim of irregularities.
• Chain of Custody of Seized Drugs — What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as they will be utilized in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Court found the chain unbroken: Trambulo affixed his initials and date on the box, kept it in his car, showed it to Culili, inventoried it, and brought it to the crime laboratory where Gundran-David examined it.
• Police Extortion Does Not Necessarily Negate the Offense — Police extortion does not necessarily negate the fact that the accused committed the offense. The Court applied this doctrine in People vs. So, holding that even if the RTC found evidence that police officers exacted money from accused-appellant after his arrest, the prosecution evidence as a whole remained sufficient to convict.
• Penalty Based on Quantity of Regulated Drug — Under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, sale of regulated drugs without authority is penalized with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00. Section 20 provides that the penalty in Section 15 shall be applied if the dangerous drug involved is 200 grams or more of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride. The exception for minors or proximate cause of death is absent. Since accused-appellant sold 987.32265 grams of shabu and there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, reclusion perpetua was proper, with a fine of ₱500,000.00.

• "In dealing with prosecutions for the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence." — This passage states the core evidentiary requirement for illegal sale of drugs and was applied to uphold the conviction based on the buy-bust team’s testimony and the presentation of the shabu.
• "Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug." — This is the canonical formulation of the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, which the Court found established in this case.
• "There is no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses." — This passage defines when the confidential informant may be dispensed with, a key ruling rejecting accused-appellant’s claim that non-presentation was fatal.
• "This Court has explained in People v. Del Monte that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." — This passage states the chain-of-custody standard applied to reject the defense’s challenge to the integrity of the shabu evidence.

• People vs. Caparas, 391 Phil. 271, 280 (2000) — Cited for the rule that in illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.
• People vs. Lacerna, 344 Phil. 100, 121 (1997); People vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 86555, 16 November 1993, 227 SCRA 780, 785 — Cited for the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and he knew that what he sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.
• People vs. Pacis, 434 Phil. 148, 158 (2002), citing People vs. Ruedas, G.R. No. 83372, 27 February 1991, 194 SCRA 553, 561 — Cited for the rule that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses must be accorded the highest respect because it had the advantage of observing their demeanor.
• People vs. So, 421 Phil. 929, 942 (2001) — Cited for the rule that police extortion does not necessarily negate the fact that the accused committed the offense.
• People vs. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 622 (1999) — Cited for the exceptions to the rule requiring presentation of the informant in buy-bust operations; the Court found none of the exceptions present.
• People vs. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 135 (2000) — Cited for the rules that a prior blotter report is neither indispensable nor required in buy-bust operations and that the use of initials to mark buy-bust money is accepted.
• People vs. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, 23 April 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636-637 — Cited for the chain-of-custody rule that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
• People vs. Mendiola, G.R. No. 110778, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 116, 120 — Cited for the rule that the existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

• Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Penalizes the sale, administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation, and distribution of regulated drugs without authority with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00. Applied because accused-appellant sold shabu without authority.
• Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — Provides that the penalties under Sections 14, 14-A, 15, and 16 of Article III shall be applied if the dangerous drug involved is 200 grams or more of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride; otherwise, the penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending on quantity. Applied because the shabu weighed 987.32265 grams, exceeding 200 grams.
• Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Applied because the Court required proof beyond reasonable doubt and held that the presumption of regularity cannot by itself support conviction.
• Revised Penal Code rules on penalties — Applied suppletorily to Republic Act No. 6425 after its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659. Because there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, reclusion perpetua was the proper penalty.
• Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Cited as the mode of review of the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. Applied in the Supreme Court’s review.
• Section 13, Rule 124, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC — Cited as basis for the Notice of Appeal filed with the Court of Appeals. Applied to perfect the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Diosdado M. Peralta. Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio was designated as additional member replacing Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura per Raffle dated 11 May 2009.