People of the Philippines vs. Mario Miguel y Bernabe, and Amalia Dizon y Regachelo

In prosecutions for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the elements of each crime beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation will not be disturbed on appeal absent overlooked facts of substance and value; minor inconsistencies in the officers’ testimonies do not destroy their credibility.

Mario Miguel y Bernabe and Amalia Dizon y Regachelo were charged by the People of the Philippines under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically Sections 5 and 11, Article II, which penalize illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The charges were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in two separate Informations. The case reached the Supreme Court after both the trial court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused-appellants.

On April 24, 2003, drug enforcement operatives of the Pasig City Police conducted a buy-bust operation after a confidential informant reported that one alias “Moluk” was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs in Floodway, Purok 4, Barangay Sta. Lucia, Pasig City. PO3 Amilassan Salisa, then detailed at the Pasig City Mayor’s Special Action Team, City Hall Detachment, Pasig City Police Station, received the report at about 5:00 p.m. and informed Chief Police Senior Inspector Rodrigo Villaruel, who formed a team composed of Salisa as poseur-buyer, PO1 Janet Sabo, PO2 Arturo San Andres, and PO1 Aldrin Mariano. Salisa was furnished two One Hundred Peso bills marked “AMS” for identification. After a briefing, the team and the informant proceeded to the target area, arriving at about 6:00 p.m. Salisa and the informant alighted first and walked to the house of alias “Moluk” while the other team members positioned themselves nearby. Upon seeing Moluk, they approached him; the informant introduced Salisa as one who wanted to buy shabu. After a brief conversation, Salisa handed the two ₱100.00 bills to Moluk, who in turn handed Salisa one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Salisa later marked the sachet “AMS-4/24/03” and gave the pre-arranged signal.

PO1 Sabo, the first to arrive at the scene, apprehended a female person to whom Moluk had also handed a sachet of suspected shabu earlier. Upon PO1 Sabo’s instruction, the woman opened her hand, and Sabo recovered the plastic sachet, later marked “JAS-4/24/03.” Salisa recovered the two ₱100.00 bills from Moluk right after the buy-bust operation. Both Moluk and the woman, later identified as Mario Miguel y Bernabe and Amalia Dizon y Regachelo, respectively, were brought to the Rizal Medical Center for medical examination and then to the Pasig Police Station for investigation. Salisa and Sabo executed a “Pinagsamang Salaysay” narrating the circumstances of the arrest. PO2 San Andres, the assigned back-up, delivered the request for laboratory examination and the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory, St. Francis Street, Mandaluyong City, on April 24, 2003. Chemistry Report No. D-745-03E issued by Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Joseph Perdido identified the white crystalline substance confiscated from accused-appellants as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Two separate Informations were filed on April 25, 2003. Criminal Case No. 12364-D charged Miguel with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, for selling to PO3 Salisa one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.16 gram of white crystalline substance found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Criminal Case No. 12365-D charged Dizon with illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II, of the same law, for possessing one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.26 gram of white crystalline substance found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Both accused-appellants, with the assistance of counsel, entered pleas of not guilty on separate dates. During pre-trial, the defense and prosecution stipulated to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Inspector Joseph Perdido.

The defense presented a different version. Dizon testified that on April 24, 2003, at about 2:00 p.m., while she was outside her house at 691 Purok 4, Floodway, Sta. Lucia, Pasig City, sweeping, a male person approached her asking for the whereabouts of one “Lyn.” She told him she did not know the person. After a while, three male persons in civilian clothes arrived in a vehicle and held the male person who was looking for Lyn. One of them also held her; when she asked why, she was told to go with them and that they were policemen. She and the handcuffed male person were forcibly brought to a vehicle. Inside the vehicle, one of the three male persons allegedly asked her for ₱5,000.00 so that she could be released, but she said she did not have that amount. She told them she did not know the male person taken with her; when asked why she was talking with him, she said he was just looking for somebody. She was brought to the Pasig City Hall and detained; after twelve days, she posted bail and was released.

Miguel testified that on April 23, 2003, at about 3:00 p.m., while he and his wife were on board a jeepney driven by his compadre, a lady named “Lyn,” who was also riding the same jeepney, asked him if he knew somebody who had a vehicle that could be rented. He answered in the affirmative and asked where she lived because he would see her the following day; she said she lived along Floodway. The following day, April 24, 2003, at about 3:00 p.m., he went to the place and met Amalia Dizon, whom he asked if she knew Lyn; Amalia told him she did not know Lyn. At that point, he was suddenly arrested by persons whom he concluded were policemen because they had guns. He was frisked, but nothing was recovered from him. He was brought to the vehicle used by the policemen, and after a while Amalia Dizon was likewise brought there. He said he did not know Amalia Dizon personally before the incident. They were brought to the Pasig Police Station and detained. Nida Miguel, his wife, corroborated that on April 23, 2003, a female passenger asked about renting a vehicle, said she was transferring residence, and told Mario to go to her house the next day and that her name was Lyn. The following day after lunch, Mario went to the place mentioned in front of the MMDA station to look for her; he never returned, and she later learned from his aunt that he had been detained at the Pasig Police Station.

The trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the police officers and found no clear showing of malice, bad faith, or ill-will on their part, applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. It found that the buy-bust transaction took place and that the substances recovered from accused-appellants tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, and the Supreme Court found PO3 Salisa’s testimony clear and straightforward and the alleged inconsistencies to pertain only to minor details.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Accused-appellants argued that inconsistencies in the statements of the police operatives during trial cast serious doubt as to their guilt and impugned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
• No Buy-Bust Operation and Denial: Accused-appellants maintained that there was no buy-bust operation and denied the offenses charged.
• Assignment of Error: Accused-appellants assigned as their lone error that the trial court gravely erred in finding Mario Miguel guilty of violating Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and Amalia Dizon guilty of violating Section 11, Article II, of the same law.

• Regular Performance of Official Duty: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, relied on the regularity in the performance of duty of the police officers who produced the evidence that proved the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, particularly shabu.

• Illegal Sale of Shabu (Miguel): Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 against accused-appellant Mario Miguel y Bernabe.
• Illegal Possession of Shabu (Dizon): Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 against accused-appellant Amalia Dizon y Regachelo.
• Credibility of Police Operatives: Whether the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police operatives during trial cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of accused-appellants.
• Defense of Denial and No Buy-Bust Operation: Whether accused-appellants’ denial and claim that no buy-bust operation occurred can overcome the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

• Illegal Sale of Shabu (Miguel): Yes. The elements were established: the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Miguel sold and delivered one sachet of shabu to PO3 Salisa for ₱200.00.
• Illegal Possession of Shabu (Dizon): Yes. The elements were established: possession of a prohibited drug, lack of authority to possess it, and free and conscious possession. Dizon was caught in possession of a sachet of shabu weighing 0.26 gram.
• Credibility of Police Operatives: No. The alleged inconsistencies pertained to minor details and collateral matters, not the central fact of the crime, and did not affect the witnesses’ veracity.
• Defense of Denial and No Buy-Bust Operation: No. The positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the buy-bust operation prevailed; Miguel was caught in flagrante delicto, and the unsubstantiated denial must fail.

• Illegal Sale of Shabu (Miguel): The requisites for illegal sale are (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The prosecution must also prove that the transaction or sale actually took place and present evidence of the corpus delicti, which means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The evidence showed that PO3 Salisa, the poseur-buyer, was furnished two ₱100.00 bills marked “AMS”; that after the buy-bust team proceeded to Purok 4, Sta. Lucia, Pasig City, Salisa and the informant approached alias “Moluk”; that Salisa handed the marked bills to Miguel, who in turn handed him one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance; that Salisa marked the sachet “AMS-4/24/03” and gave the pre-arranged signal; and that the two ₱100.00 bills were recovered from Miguel. Chemistry Report No. D-745-03E confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride. These facts established the identities of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, the delivery and payment, and the corpus delicti. People vs. Villanueva supplied the elements, while Valdez vs. People defined corpus delicti.
• Illegal Possession of Shabu (Dizon): The elements of illegal possession are (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The corpus delicti must likewise be established beyond doubt. PO3 Salisa testified that while he and the informant were approaching alias “Moluk,” he saw Moluk talking with a lady and personally handed her a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After Salisa gave the signal, PO1 Sabo arrived; Salisa pointed the woman to Sabo and told her that the woman had also been handed shabu. Sabo instructed the woman to open her hand, and a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered; Sabo marked it “JAS-4/24/03” and arrested her. The woman was later identified as Amalia Dizon. The sachet weighed 0.26 gram and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. These established possession of a prohibited drug, lack of authority, and free and conscious possession, as well as the corpus delicti.
• Credibility of Police Operatives: Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked that might affect the result, because the trial court personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. No such overlooked facts appeared. The alleged inconsistencies cited by accused-appellants pertained to minor details. Under People vs. Barriga, inconsistencies on minor details strengthen rather than weaken credibility because they give the impression of rehearsed testimony; under People vs. Fernando, discrepancies on minor or collateral matters, not the central fact of the crime, do not affect the witness’s veracity or essential culpability as long as the declarations are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole. PO3 Salisa’s testimony was clear and straightforward, and the prosecution witnesses were corroborated by the physical evidence.
• Defense of Denial and No Buy-Bust Operation: The defense that there was no buy-bust operation deserves scant consideration. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, Miguel’s identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellants’ plain denial of the offenses, unsubstantiated by credible and convincing evidence, must fail. The trial and appellate courts accorded the police officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and found no malice, bad faith, or ill-will on their part. Under People vs. Sariol, accused-appellants did not show that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by any improper motive other than accomplishing their mission. The denial therefore could not overcome the prosecution’s evidence.

• Credibility of police officers in buy-bust operations — In prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the outcome depends largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. The trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked that might affect the result. This doctrine was applied because the trial court had personally observed the witnesses and no reason appeared to deviate from its findings.
• Elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs — The prosecution must prove: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. It must also prove that the transaction or sale actually took place and present evidence of the corpus delicti. These requisites were applied to Miguel, whose sale and delivery of one sachet of shabu to PO3 Salisa for ₱200.00 were established.
• Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs — The elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The corpus delicti must be established beyond doubt. These requisites were applied to Dizon, who was found in possession of a sachet of shabu weighing 0.26 gram.
• Corpus delicti — The term means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. In illegal drug cases, proof that the transaction or sale actually took place must be coupled with presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The corpus delicti was established through the seized sachets and Chemistry Report No. D-745-03E identifying the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty — Police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties, and the presumption may be relied upon absent evidence of malice, bad faith, or ill-will. The lower courts’ reliance on this presumption was upheld because accused-appellants failed to show any improper motive on the part of the police witnesses.
• Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony — Inconsistencies referring to minor details strengthen rather than weaken a witness’s credibility because they give the impression of rehearsed testimony; discrepancies on minor or collateral matters, not the central fact of the crime, do not affect the witness’s veracity or the essential culpability of the accused. This doctrine was applied in rejecting accused-appellants’ attack on the police officers’ credibility.
• Denial as a defense — A plain denial of the offense, unsubstantiated by credible and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses. This is especially so where the accused was caught in flagrante delicto. This doctrine was applied in rejecting Miguel’s and Dizon’s defenses.

• "It is a well-settled rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation." — States the controlling standard for evaluating drug prosecutions and explains why the trial court’s credibility findings were given deference.
• "In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." — Sets out the elements of illegal sale applied to Miguel’s conviction.
• "On the other hand, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug." — Sets out the elements of illegal possession applied to Dizon’s conviction.
• "Inconsistencies referring to minor details strengthen rather than weaken the witness’ credibility for they give the impression of rehearsed testimony." — States the rule used to reject the defense’s attack on the police officers’ allegedly inconsistent testimonies.

• People vs. Almendras, 449 Phil. 587, 604 (2003) — Cited for the rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.
• People vs. Sy, 438 Phil. 383, 397-398 (2002) — Cited for the rule that the trial court’s evaluation of witness credibility is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked.
• People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 280, 287 — Cited for the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Valdez vs. People, G.R. No. 170180, 23 November 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 629 — Cited for the definition of corpus delicti as the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
• People vs. Sariol, G.R. No. 83809, 22 June 1989, 174 SCRA 237, 243 — Cited for the principle that accused-appellants failed to show that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by improper motive other than accomplishing their mission.
• People vs. Barriga, G.R. No. 178545, 29 September 2008, 567 SCRA 65, 78 — Cited for the rule that inconsistencies on minor details strengthen rather than weaken the witness’s credibility.
• People vs. Fernando, G.R. No. 170836, 4 April 2007, 520 SCRA 675, 683-684 — Cited for the rule that discrepancies on minor details and collateral matters, not the central fact of the crime, do not affect the witness’s veracity or essential culpability.

• Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes illegal sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs, with penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 regardless of quantity and purity. Applied to Miguel for selling 0.16 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to PO3 Salisa.
• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Penalizes illegal possession of dangerous drugs. For less than five grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, the penalty is imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00. Applied to Dizon for possessing 0.26 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Section 20, Republic Act No. 9165 — Pursuant to this provision, the Regional Trial Court ordered forfeiture in favor of the government of the ₱200.00 recovered from Miguel as proceeds of the illegal sale. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and penalties.
• Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 — Pursuant to this provision, the Regional Trial Court ordered PDEA representatives to take charge and have custody over the sachets of shabu for proper disposition. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and penalties.

Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, and Mariano C. Del Castillo.