People of the Philippines vs. Macabalang

For a successful prosecution of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, only two elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor; proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court, is what is material. Corollary thereto, the failure to use fluorescent powder, to subject the seized items to fingerprint examination, to conduct surveillance, to use official government vehicles, or to inventory the accused's personal effects does not invalidate a buy-bust operation, these being non-mandatory details that do not affect the accused's guilt.

Saidamin Macabalang y Malamama was charged with selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, in violation of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The offense was alleged to have been committed on July 21, 1999 in Quezon City, in the course of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Intelligence Division of the Narcotics Command. Under Section 20 of the same law, the quantity of the dangerous drug involved determines the applicable penalty, with 200 grams or more of shabu punishable by reclusion perpetua.

On July 21, 1999, at around 9:00 in the morning, Inspector Leonardo Suan, Deputy Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Narcotics Command, received a report from a confidential informant that a certain "Amin" was looking for a buyer of shabu. Suan instructed the informant to contract with Amin for two kilos of shabu. Two hours later, a fourteen-man buy-bust team was formed with PO1 Christopher Guste acting as poseur-buyer. After the briefing, Suan gave Guste two genuine ₱1,000.00 bills marked with the letters "CG" and boodle money amounting to ₱1,000,000.00.

At 6:00 in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded to the fourth level parking lot of SM City, North Avenue, Quezon City, the meeting place designated by appellant. They observed the area for two hours and positioned themselves within the vicinity, with PO1 Guste staying outside the car with the informant while the others remained inside their separate vehicles. Two hours thereafter, a Mitsubishi Lancer with Plate No. UTD 147 approached the parking lot and appellant alighted. PO1 Guste and the informant approached him and appropriate introductions were made. Appellant then went to a green Toyota Corolla bearing Plate No. WBH 491 parked next to his car, opened the rear compartment, took out a yellow box, and gave it to PO1 Guste. When appellant asked for the money, PO1 Guste invited him to his own car, parked about ten meters away. Upon reaching the car, PO1 Guste checked the contents of the box and found two plastic bags containing white crystalline substance. He immediately gave the money to appellant and stepped out of the car, removing his cap as a pre-arranged signal to his companions to close in. The rest of the team converged, introduced themselves as policemen, and apprehended appellant.

Appellant was brought to the Narcotics Command office at Camp Crame, Quezon City for investigation. PO1 Guste executed an affidavit narrating the incident, and the carton containing shabu and the boodle money were turned over to the investigator. On the following day, the confiscated carton containing the two plastic bags was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it was examined by Forensic Chemist Sonia S. Lodovico. The test results confirmed that the white crystalline substance sold by appellant was shabu, weighing a total of 1,972.6 grams.

The defense presented a different version. According to appellant, at around 8:00 in the evening of July 21, 1999, he and his companion Mamerto Duetes were at the parking lot of SM North Avenue, Quezon City to meet up with Mr. Lee Ong. Earlier that day, Ong had borrowed appellant's Mitsubishi Lancer and promised to provide him with a woman to date. Upon receiving a call from Ong, appellant and Duetes proceeded to the fourth floor level of the SM parking area on board a Toyota Corolla, and appellant parked beside the Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Ong. Appellant got out of his car and went inside the Mitsubishi Lancer while Duetes went to buy a cigarette. When appellant asked Ong about the women they were going to date, Ong replied that he was going to get them and hurriedly left. Soon thereafter, a white sedan sped toward appellant and suddenly stopped in front of his car. Five to six armed persons got out, followed by the occupants of three other cars. Guns were poked at appellant, who was forcibly taken out of his car and made to board one of the Narcom vehicles. He was blindfolded, handcuffed, and brought to Camp Crame, where his cellular phone, wedding ring, checkbook, and wallet containing ₱2,000.00 and $35.00 were taken from him. A certain Captain Mendoza then entered the room and offered him freedom in exchange for ₱2,000,000.00 and two signed deeds of absolute sale over the vehicles confiscated from him. When appellant failed to produce the amount the following day, he was presented to the press and photographed with the shabu displayed beside him.

Duetes corroborated the abduction, testifying that he had left appellant in the car to buy a cigarette and, upon returning to the parking lot, saw four or five armed men forcibly taking appellant from his car; he hid behind the staircase and, upon reaching home, reported the incident to the cashier of the store where he worked and asked the latter to inform appellant's sister. Jovito Abad Mostrales, a security guard assigned at the SM Carpark Building, likewise testified that he noticed a white car running against traffic and saw several armed men alighting from it and from three other cars, pointing their firearms at appellant and taking him into one of their vehicles.

The trial court rejected the defense version, finding Duetes' testimony fabricated and appellant's alibi incredible. It observed, among others, that Duetes made no attempt to seek help from the many security guards at the carpark or to report the alleged kidnapping to his employer, and that his demeanor and answers on the witness stand betrayed that he had been instructed to testify. The trial court likewise found it abnormal that Lee Ong, who was supposedly arranging the date, never appeared before the police, the Department of Justice, or the court, and rejected appellant's counter-accusation of kidnapping on the reasoning that the Narcom agents, had they merely wanted money, would have sold the two kilos of shabu for ₱2 million instead of kidnapping him. The Court of Appeals affirmed, giving more weight to the prosecution evidence and finding no material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the Narcom agents, which it held established the illegal sale and appellant's apprehension in flagrante delicto.

• Speculative Conviction: Appellant argued that the trial court's conclusion was purely conjectural and speculative.
• Illegality of the Buy-Bust Operation / Kidnapping: Appellant impugned the legality of the buy-bust operation and claimed that what instead took place was kidnapping, relying on the testimonies of Duetes and the security guard to prove that no buy-bust operation was conducted.
• Irregularities in the Operation: Appellant cited several irregularities attending the buy-bust operation: (a) the vehicles used by the police were not official government vehicles; (b) the buy-bust money was not personally produced by Inspector Suan and was not dusted with fluorescent powder; (c) the police failed to verify the information given by the informant although it was the first time they had heard of appellant, and no surveillance was conducted; (d) the police did not coordinate with the security detachment of the place where the operation was conducted; (e) the boxes allegedly containing the shabu and the plastic bags containing money were not subjected to fingerprint examination; and (f) no inventory of the personal effects seized from appellant was made.
• Insufficiency of the Forensic Examination: Appellant cast doubt on the examination conducted by the forensic chemist, asserting that the tests merely established the presence of shabu but did not determine its exact percentage, and that a quantitative examination should have been undertaken to determine the exact quantity; consequently, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, derived from the quantity of the regulated drugs involved, was without basis.
• Inadmissibility of the Receipt of Property Seized: Appellant averred that the evidence allegedly taken from him was inadmissible on the ground that he signed the receipt of the property seized without the assistance of counsel.

• Elements of Illegal Sale: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the illegal sale of shabu.
• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Whether the buy-bust operation was valid notwithstanding the alleged irregularities raised by appellant.
• Validity of the Warrantless Arrest: Whether appellant's arrest without a warrant was valid.
• Sufficiency of the Forensic Examination: Whether the qualitative examination conducted by the forensic chemist sufficed to support a penalty based on the quantity of the dangerous drug involved.
• Admissibility of the Receipt of Property Seized: Whether the receipt of property seized signed by appellant without the assistance of counsel rendered the evidence against him inadmissible.
• Proper Penalty: Whether reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000.00 were the proper penalties.

• Elements of Illegal Sale: Yes. Both elements were established — the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor — with the corpus delicti presented in court.
• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: Yes. The alleged irregularities pertained only to minor details which do not affect the guilt of appellant or taint the valid character of the buy-bust operation.
• Validity of the Warrantless Arrest: Yes. Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in selling shabu, which was proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
• Sufficiency of the Forensic Examination: Yes. A sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package unless proven otherwise by appellant.
• Admissibility of the Receipt of Property Seized: The receipt itself is inadmissible, but this does not benefit appellant; the receipt presented related to the seized vehicles, not the shabu, and ample evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Proper Penalty: Yes. Section 20 in relation to Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, imposes reclusion perpetua for the sale of 200 grams or more of shabu; the forensic chemist reported 1,972.6 grams.

• Elements of Illegal Sale: For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, two elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The testimony of PO1 Guste, the poseur-buyer, gave an unequivocal account of the sale that took place on July 21, 1999, and was substantially corroborated by PO1 Fabia, a member of the buy-bust team, and by Inspector Suan, who headed the operation, on the material points of the transaction. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. The positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, consisting primarily of police officers who bear the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, prevailed over appellant's defense; absent clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserved full faith and credit. The evidence was further reinforced by the Physical Science Report submitted by Forensic Chemist Sonia S. Lodovico, confirming that the contents of the two plastic bags delivered by appellant were shabu.

• Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation: A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. The alleged irregularities cited by appellant were addressed seriatim. On the use of private vehicles, the Court held that the type of vehicle used by the police officers does not taint the valid character of the buy-bust operation, citing People vs. De Guzman, where the conviction arising from a buy-bust operation was affirmed despite the use of private vehicles by NBI agents, and People vs. Bongalon, where the use of a private vehicle did not affect the outcome of the case; Inspector Suan explained that the government had no motor vehicle issued to the Narcom office and that a plate number of a previously recovered vehicle was used to avoid burning the operation. On the use of Inspector Suan's personal money, the Court noted that the team was formed on the same day the buy-bust operation was to take place, with the briefing held at 11:00 in the morning and lasting about an hour, leaving less than nine hours before the scheduled meeting, so that the team hardly had time to prepare or to ask for the production of genuine bills; at any rate, the use of Suan's money did not adversely affect the case. On the failure to dust the boodle money with fluorescent powder, the Court held that the use of fluorescent powder is not indispensable in buy-bust operations and that there is no requirement that the police apply fluorescent powder to the buy-bust money to prove the commission of the offense; what is material is the delivery of the prohibited drug to the buyer, which was sufficiently proved by the poseur-buyer's testimony and the presentation of the article itself before the court, the money having in any event been marked by the poseur-buyer with his initials "CG." Neither is fingerprinting a requirement, there being no law or rule of evidence requiring the use of fluorescent powder or the taking of the culprit's fingerprints from the bag containing the shabu. On the absence of surveillance, the Court held that no surveillance of the area or the subject of the entrapment is necessary where the police officers have reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given were reliable and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated; the buy-bust operation is formed precisely to test the veracity of the tip and to apprehend the perpetrator before he further endangers society. While the confidential nature of the operation might have prevented coordination with the security administration of the SM Carpark, the police were shown to be in close coordination with the Central Police District, as evidenced by the pre-operational coordination sheet dated July 21, 1999. On the absence of an inventory of personal effects, the Court held that appellant failed to substantiate his accusation that Captain Mendoza tore a check from his checkbook, forged his signature, and sought to encash it; he failed to establish that Noel Mendoza and Capt. Crisostomo Mendoza were one and the same person, initially admitted that the checkbook seized from him was intact only to retract it later, and the check was in any event drawn against an unclear deposit and returned, as reflected in Noel Mendoza's Statement of Account. These glaring inconsistent statements fueled suspicions of fabrication, rendering the absence of an inventory immaterial to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation, with the presumption of regularity on the part of the police officers prevailing over the bare assertions.

• Validity of the Warrantless Arrest: Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in selling shabu, leading to his valid arrest without warrant. This fact was proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the validity of the arrest despite the absence of a warrant on the account that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu.

• Sufficiency of the Forensic Examination: The Court held that a sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package unless proven otherwise by appellant. The forensic chemist testified that she conducted physical examination (ocular inspection of the specimen including weight and physical appearance), chemical examination (Simon reagent test, which turned blue indicating methylamphetamine hydrochloride), and confirmatory examination (thin layer chromatographic test), and that the standard methamphetamine and the specimen submitted were identical to each other. The report of the forensic chemist with respect to the quantity of shabu taken from appellant, amounting to 1,972.6 grams, was thus sufficient basis for the penalty imposed.

• Admissibility of the Receipt of Property Seized: It is settled that the signature of the accused in the "Receipt of Property Seized" is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel, such signature being a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged. However, while appellant signed the receipt of the property seized unassisted by counsel, this only renders inadmissible the receipt itself. The evidentiary value of the Receipt of Property Seized was irrelevant in light of the ample evidence proving appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, the prosecution did not present in evidence any receipt of property seized relating to the shabu confiscated from appellant; what was presented was a receipt attesting to the seizure from appellant of two vehicles he was in possession of at the time of his arrest, and not the shabu in question. Considering that appellant was charged with the sale of shabu and not of those vehicles, any irregularity attending the signing of the receipt would bear no relevance to the crime charged.

• Proper Penalty: Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, and that the penalties shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved consist of 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Following Section 20 in relation to Section 15, the sale of 200 grams or more of shabu is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Taking into consideration the report of the forensic chemist with respect to the quantity of shabu taken from appellant amounting to 1,972.6 grams, the penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed.

• Elements of the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — The prosecution must establish two elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The Court applied this test to the buy-bust transaction consummated between appellant and PO1 Guste.

• Buy-Bust Operation as Entrapment — A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. The Court used this formulation to characterize the operation and to measure the sufficiency of the evidence.

• Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties — Absent clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. The presumption prevails over bare assertions, such as appellant's unsubstantiated claim of a stolen check and his counter-accusation of kidnapping and extortion, which requires strong proof when offered as a defense.

• Non-Indispensability of Fluorescent Powder — The use of fluorescent powder is not indispensable in buy-bust operations; there is no requirement that the police apply fluorescent powder to the buy-bust money to prove the commission of the offense. What is material is the delivery of the prohibited drug to the buyer, which was sufficiently proved by the poseur-buyer's testimony and the presentation of the article itself before the court.

• Non-Requirement of Fingerprinting — There is no law or rule of evidence requiring the taking of the culprit's fingerprints from the bag containing the shabu. The failure to subject the seized items to fingerprint examination does not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence.

• Non-Requirement of Surveillance — No surveillance of the area or the subject of the entrapment is necessary where the police officers have reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given were reliable and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated. The buy-bust operation is formed precisely to test the veracity of the tip and to apprehend the perpetrator before he further endangers society.

• Use of Private Vehicles in Buy-Bust Operations — The type of vehicle used by the police officers does not taint the valid character of the buy-bust operation; the use of private vehicles, as in the cited cases, does not affect the outcome of the case against the accused for the illegal sale of shabu.

• Representative Sample Rule — A sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package unless proven otherwise by the appellant. This rule defeated appellant's contention that a quantitative examination was necessary to determine the exact quantity of shabu.

• Inadmissibility of a Receipt of Property Seized Signed Without Counsel — The signature of the accused on a "Receipt of Property Seized" obtained without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence, being a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of the crime charged. However, this only renders inadmissible the receipt itself; it does not render inadmissible the other evidence of guilt, and where the receipt presented relates to property other than the drug subject of the charge, any irregularity in its signing bears no relevance to the crime charged.

• "For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence." — This is the Court's canonical statement of the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the ratio decidendi on the first issue and the formulation most frequently carried into subsequent jurisprudence.

• "A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction." — This passage defines the nature of a buy-bust operation and identifies the acts that consummate the transaction, anchoring the Court's rejection of appellant's claim that no buy-bust operation took place.

• "We have consistently held in numerous cases that a sample taken from one of the packages is logically presumed to be representative of the entire contents of the package unless proven otherwise by appellant." — This states the representative-sample rule that disposed of appellant's argument that a quantitative examination was indispensable to support the penalty based on the quantity of drugs.

• "However, while it is true that appellant signed receipt of the property seized unassisted by counsel, this only renders inadmissible the receipt itself." — This passage delimits the consequence of a counsel-less signature on a receipt of property seized: the taint reaches only the receipt, not the independent evidence establishing guilt.

• People vs. Razul, G.R. No. 146470, 22 November 2002, 392 SCRA 552 — Cited for the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the materiality of proving the transaction and presenting the corpus delicti; the controlling doctrinal anchor on the first issue.
• People vs. Valencia, 439 Phil. 561 (2002) — Cited for the definition of a buy-bust operation as a form of entrapment and for the proposition that delivery of the drug and receipt of the marked money consummate the transaction.
• People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 151205, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 516 — Followed for the ruling that a conviction arising from a buy-bust operation may be affirmed despite the use of private vehicles by the arresting agents.
• People vs. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96 (2002) — Followed for the holding that the buy-bust team's use of a private vehicle did not affect the outcome of the case against the accused for the illegal sale of shabu.
• People vs. Wu Tuan Yuan, G.R. No. 150663, 5 February 2004, 422 SCRA 182 — Cited for the rule that the use of fluorescent powder is not indispensable in buy-bust operations.
• People vs. So, 421 Phil. 929 (2001) — Cited for the rule that what is material is the delivery of the prohibited drug to the buyer, sufficiently proved by the poseur-buyer's testimony and the presentation of the article itself in court.
• People vs. Castiller, G.R. No. 87783, 6 August 1990, 188 SCRA 376 — Cited for the rule that no surveillance is necessary where the police officers have reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the information given were reliable.
• People vs. Medenilla, G.R. Nos. 131638-39, 26 March 2001, 355 SCRA 172 — Cited for the representative-sample rule: a sample taken from one of the packages is presumed representative of the entire contents unless proven otherwise.
• Juarez vs. People, G.R. No. 135406, 11 July 2000 — Cited for the rule that the signature of the accused on a receipt of property seized, obtained without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible in evidence.

• Section 15, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Provides that the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. This is the substantive offense charged and the source of the imposable penalty.
• Section 20, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Provides that the penalties for offenses under Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved consist of, among others, 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Applied to the forensic chemist's report of 1,972.6 grams, the provision fixed the penalty at reclusion perpetua.

• Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Associate Justice, Chairperson)
• Antonio T. Carpio (Associate Justice)
• Conchita Carpio Morales (Associate Justice)
• Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Associate Justice)