People vs. Lacbanes

The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is not fatal to the prosecution's case where the arresting officer personally witnessed the sale transaction and the prohibited drugs were presented in evidence. What is material and indispensable is proof that the sale of the illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer, and that the corpus delicti was identified before the court.

The accused-appellant, Cesar Lacbanes, was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, for allegedly selling marijuana cigarettes. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of PFC Ricardo Rosales, a member of the Narcotics Section of the Tacloban Police Station, who claimed to have witnessed the buy-bust operation. The accused-appellant denied the charge and asserted that he was a victim of a "frameup," claiming that he was a confidential agent of the Regional Security Unit and a barangay tanod. The case arose in the context of the government's intensified campaign against illegal drugs, with buy-bust operations being a standard police procedure for apprehending drug peddlers.

Accused-appellant Cesar Lacbanes was arrested on October 3, 1986 at around 4:15 p.m. at the corner of Burgos and Tarcela Streets, Tacloban City, after allegedly selling three sticks of marijuana cigarettes to a confidential informant during a buy-bust operation conducted by the Narcotics Section of the Tacloban Police Station. PFC Ricardo Rosales testified that his command received information that accused-appellant had been peddling marijuana cigarettes in Tacloban City, prompting them to set up a buy-bust operation after conducting surveillance. The team, composed of Patrolmen Arpon and Buena, Sgt. Madriaga, and Lt. Saranza, deployed themselves in the area to clearly see the transaction. According to PFC Rosales, after the confidential agent conversed with accused-appellant, the former handed the latter two P5.00 bills with serial numbers MU80883 and MU840129, and in return, the latter handed over sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes. The team then approached accused-appellant, introduced themselves as members of the Narcotics Section, and arrested him, recovering the two P5.00 bills and three sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes from his possession.

At the police station, accused-appellant allegedly admitted that the marijuana in his possession was for sale and that a friend named Francing was the source, but the police allegedly forgot to put down in writing this admission of guilt. Lt. Liza Madeja-Sabong, a forensic chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory, affirmed her findings in Chemistry Report No. NB-134-86 that the three suspected marijuana cigarettes were positive for marijuana, a prohibited drug.

Accused-appellant flatly denied selling the three sticks of marijuana cigarettes, testifying that he was asleep in his house from two o'clock until past four o'clock in the afternoon on the said date. He claimed that he was awakened by his father, who told him that Lt. Boy Saranza, together with Patrolmen Arpon and Buena, wanted to take him to the police station to answer some questions. He denied knowing PFC Rosales and stated that the latter was not with the arresting group. At the police station, he claimed that the investigators forced him to affix his signature on a piece of paper, the contents of which he did not know at the time but which turned out to be a receipt for property seized. He alleged that the policemen filed the case against him when he could not give any information about NPAs. Cpl. Felix Dacut corroborated accused-appellant's claim that he was a confidential agent or civilian informer of the Regional Security Unit, and Capt. Manuel Abuda of the INP testified that accused-appellant was of good moral character and had been used in the past as an agent in both buy-bust and sell-bust operations.

The trial court found the prosecution's evidence weightier, holding that the arresting officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their public functions, which was not rebutted by the defense, and that the defense's version of the incident was inherently incredible. The trial court found it hard to believe that accused-appellant, a barangay tanod and confidential agent of the military who reached second year high school, would readily sign a blank sheet of paper presented to him by the authorities without any protest or objection.

• Non-presentation of the poseur-buyer: Accused-appellant contended that the failure of the prosecution to present the confidential informant-turned poseur-buyer is a violation of his constitutional right to know the witnesses against him and meet them in court.
• Hearsay evidence: Accused-appellant argued that since the testimony of PFC Rosales revolves around the confidential informant who cannot corroborate the same, said testimony would be plain hearsay and unworthy of credence, and therefore the prosecution failed to establish clearly the fact of entrapment.
• Lack of direct testimony: The defense pointed out that although PFC Rosales, the prosecution's star witness, was within earshot, he did not testify as to the conversation between the confidential informant and the accused-appellant.
• Frameup defense: Accused-appellant implied that he was a victim of a "frameup," claiming conflicting motives of the police authorities — that he was framed up because he did not supply them with information regarding NPAs, and that the policemen were retaliating against him for working for the Regional Security Unit instead of for them.
• Lack of surveillance: Accused-appellant argued that no surveillance was conducted before the buy-bust operation.
• Marked money not presented: Accused-appellant alleged that the marked money was not presented as proof before the trial court.

• Positive identification: The prosecution relied on the testimony of PFC Ricardo Rosales, who testified that he saw the poseur-buyer and accused-appellant exchange the two P5.00 bills and the three marijuana sticks, and that the marked money and the marijuana cigarettes were presented as evidence before the trial court.
• Presumption of regularity: The prosecution invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of public functions by the arresting officers, which was not rebutted by the defense, and noted the lack of any proof of improper motives on their part.

• Non-presentation of poseur-buyer: Whether the failure of the prosecution to present the confidential informant-turned poseur-buyer is fatal to the prosecution's case for illegal sale of marijuana.
• Admissibility of receipt for property seized: Whether the receipt for property seized purportedly signed by accused-appellant is admissible in evidence given that he was not assisted by counsel at the time.
• Imposable penalty: Whether the penalty of thirty years' imprisonment imposed by the trial court should be modified in light of the amendatory provisions of R.A. 7659.

• Non-presentation of poseur-buyer: No. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as PFC Rosales witnessed the whole transaction where the marked money was exchanged for three sticks of marijuana cigarettes, and the settled rule is that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from an improper motive, deserves full credit.
• Admissibility of receipt for property seized: No. The receipt for property seized purportedly signed by accused-appellant is inadmissible in evidence, as the prosecution failed to prove that he was assisted by counsel at the time, and such practice is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession for the commission of the offense obtained in violation of his constitutional right to remain silent.
• Imposable penalty: Yes, modified. Under Section 20 of R.A. 6425 as last amended by R.A. 7659, and as interpreted in People vs. Simon and People vs. De Lara, where the quantity of marijuana involved is less than 750 grams, the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision correccional to reclusion temporal, depending upon the quantity involved.

• Non-presentation of poseur-buyer: The Court held that in every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of the illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer. Citing People vs. Vocente, the Court stated that the commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction whereby the accused handed over the marijuana upon agreement with the poseur-buyer to exchange it for money. What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and that the contents were presented as evidence in court. The Court found that PFC Rosales did testify that he saw the poseur-buyer and accused-appellant exchange the two P5.00 bills and the three marijuana sticks, and that the P5.00 bills and the three sticks of marijuana cigarettes were presented as evidence before the trial court. The Court also ruled that non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court further held that accused-appellant's claim of a "frameup" is not credible, as he gave conflicting motives of the police authorities therefor, and that like alibi, frameup is a defense that has been invariably viewed with disfavor as it is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The Court also ruled that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant, and that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations.

• Admissibility of receipt for property seized: The Court held that the receipt for property seized purportedly signed by accused-appellant cannot be accepted as evidence, as the prosecution failed to prove that he was assisted by counsel at the time. Citing People vs. Ang Chun Kit, the Court stated that conforme to these documents are declarations against interest and tacit admissions of the crime charged, since merely unexplained possession of prohibited drugs is punished by law, and they have been obtained in violation of his right as a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense. The Court also cited People vs. De Las Marinas, declaring that it is the police officers who confiscated the same who should have signed such receipt, and that this is a violation of the constitutional right of appellant to remain silent. Nevertheless, the Court held that while said receipt is inadmissible in evidence, it was sufficiently established by the categorical and positive assertions of witnesses that indeed accused-appellant committed the offense of selling the three sticks of marijuana cigarettes.

• Imposable penalty: The Court held that under Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, the penalty should have been reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. However, with the passage of R.A. 7659, particularly Section 13 amending Section 4 of R.A. 6425, the penalty to be imposed shall now depend on the quantity. Since the offense was committed in 1986, the quantity of prohibited drugs involved was immaterial, but inasmuch as the amendatory provisions are favorable to accused-appellant, they should be given retroactive effect. Under Section 20 of R.A. 6425 as last amended by R.A. 7659, and as interpreted in People vs. Simon and People vs. De Lara, if the quantity of the marijuana involved is less than 750 grams, the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision correccional to reclusion temporal depending upon the quantity of marijuana involved. As in People vs. De Lara, there was no evidence of the weight of the three sticks of marijuana cigarettes seized, and adhering to the doctrine in the earlier case, the Court resolved the doubt in favor of accused-appellant and concluded that the quantity involved was below 750 grams and not less than 250 but not more than 499 grams. Hence, the maximum imposable penalty should be prision mayor and the minimum, prision correccional.

• Non-presentation of the poseur-buyer in drug cases — The non-presentation of the confidential informant-turned poseur-buyer is not fatal to the prosecution's case where the arresting officer personally witnessed the sale transaction and the prohibited drugs were presented in evidence. The testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from an improper motive to impute a serious offense to the accused, deserves full credit. Non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution's case.

• Corpus delicti in illegal sale of drugs — In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of the illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer. The commission of the offense requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction whereby the accused handed over the marijuana upon agreement with the poseur-buyer to exchange it for money. What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and that the contents were presented as evidence in court.

• Frameup defense — Like alibi, frameup is a defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor as it is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense of "frameup." In the absence of proof of any intent on the part of police authorities to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the doctrine that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, must prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of the appellant.

• Prior surveillance in buy-bust operations — Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant. There is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations; flexibility is a trait of good police work, and the police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.

• Admissibility of receipt for property seized — A receipt for property seized purportedly signed by the accused during custodial investigation, without being assisted by counsel, is inadmissible in evidence, as it is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession for the commission of the offense. It is the police officers who confiscated the property who should have signed such receipt. Such a confession obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence.

• Retroactive application of penal provisions — Amendatory provisions of a penal law that are favorable to the accused should be given retroactive effect. Under Section 20 of R.A. 6425 as last amended by R.A. 7659, if the quantity of the marijuana involved is less than 750 grams, the imposable penalty shall be within the range of prision correccional to reclusion temporal depending upon the quantity of marijuana involved. Where there is no evidence of the weight of the marijuana seized, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.

• "The commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction whereby as in this case, the accused handed over the tea bag of marijuana upon the agreement with the poseur-buyer to exchange it for money. . . . What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and that the contents were presented as evidence in court. Proof of the transaction suffices." — This passage from People vs. Vocente, quoted by the Court, defines the elements of the illegal sale of marijuana and establishes that proof of the consummated transaction and presentation of the corpus delicti are sufficient for conviction.

• "In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer." — This statement articulates the controlling rule for prosecutions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, emphasizing the materiality of proving the sale transaction itself.

• "This Court cannot, however, accept as evidence the receipt for property seized purportedly signed by accused-appellant as proof that the three sticks of marijuana cigarettes, as well as the two P5.00 bills, were seized from him, for the prosecution failed to prove that he was assisted by counsel at the time. Neither does this Court condone such practice for this is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession for the commission of the offense." — This passage establishes the inadmissibility of the receipt for property seized obtained without assistance of counsel, characterizing it as a violation of the accused's constitutional right during custodial investigation.

• "In the absence of proof of any intent on the part of police authorities to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, as in this case, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the doctrine that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, must prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of appellant that she had been framed." — This passage from People vs. Velasco, quoted by the Court, articulates the standard for evaluating frameup defenses against the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

• People vs. Vocente, 188 SCRA 100 (1990) — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that the commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, and that proof of the transaction and presentation of the corpus delicti suffice.
• People vs. Ang Chun Kit, 251 SCRA 660 (1995) — Cited for the rule that documents signed during custodial investigation without assistance of counsel are declarations against interest and tacit admissions of the crime charged, obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights.
• People vs. De Las Marinas, 196 SCRA 5104 (1991) — Cited for the rule that it is the police officers who confiscated the property who should have signed the receipt, and that requiring the accused to sign such receipt is a violation of the constitutional right to remain silent.
• People vs. Velasco, 252 SCRA 135 (1996) — Cited for the rule that in the absence of proof of intent on the part of police authorities to falsely impute a serious crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails over the self-serving claim of frameup.
• People vs. Ganguso, 250 SCRA 268 (1995) — Cited for the rule that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant.
• People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 (1994) — Cited for the rule that there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations, and that flexibility is a trait of good police work.
• People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (1994) — Cited for the interpretation of Section 20 of R.A. 6425 as last amended by R.A. 7659, regarding the imposable penalty when the quantity of marijuana involved is less than 750 grams.
• People vs. De Lara, 236 SCRA 291 (1994) — Cited for the rule that where there is no evidence of the weight of the marijuana seized, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused, and the penalty should be prision mayor as maximum and prision correccional as minimum.
• People vs. Abelita, 210 SCRA (1992) — Cited for the rule that non-presentation of the informer, where his testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
• Garcia vs. CA, 254 SCRA 542 (1996) — Cited for the rule that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is positive and clear and not arising from an improper motive, deserves full credit.
• People vs. Lua, G.R. Nos. 114224-25, April 26, 1996 — Cited for the rule that findings of the lower court with regard to the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect since it had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act 6425 — The provision defining and penalizing the illegal sale of marijuana. The accused-appellant was convicted under this provision, which originally imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.
• Section 13, Republic Act 7659 — The amendatory provision amending Section 4 of R.A. 6425, making the penalty dependent on the quantity of prohibited drugs involved. Since the amendatory provisions are favorable to the accused-appellant, they were given retroactive effect.
• Section 20, Republic Act 6425, as last amended by R.A. 7659 — The provision governing the imposable penalty when the quantity of marijuana involved is less than 750 grams, which shall be within the range of prision correccional to reclusion temporal depending upon the quantity of marijuana involved.
• Constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation — The Court held that the receipt for property seized purportedly signed by the accused-appellant was inadmissible because the prosecution failed to prove that he was assisted by counsel at the time, and such practice is tantamount to an extra-judicial confession for the commission of the offense obtained in violation of his constitutional right to remain silent.

Regalado, Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concurred.