People vs. Seraspe

A conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires proof of (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor; conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and once established, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. Police solicitation in a buy-bust operation is entrapment, not instigation, and does not invalidate the operation or exculpate the accused.

Appellant Simpresueta M. Seraspe was the daughter of co-accused Primitiva M. Seraspe and an employee of the husband of co-accused Melba L. Espiritu in a casino. The governing statute was the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, which penalizes unauthorized sale of shabu and, for 200 grams or more, fixes reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10 million.

The Amended Information charged appellant Simpresueta M. Seraspe, her mother Primitiva M. Seraspe, and Melba L. Espiritu with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, for conspiring to sell 983.5 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride to Criselda Manila, a PAOCTF liaison officer acting as poseur-buyer, on June 1, 1999 in Las Piñas City. On May 15, 1999, P/Chief Insp. Ricardo Dandan received a telephone call from a confidential informant about Espiritu's drug trafficking activities in Cainta and in Las Piñas, Muntinlupa, Taguig, and Parañaque. He reported the information to Senior Police Superintendent Cesar Mancao, who instructed him to create a police team; Dandan formed Team Golf, with Carla as poseur-buyer and PO3 Osmundo Cariño as her husband. That same day, Team Golf went to SM Southmall in Las Piñas City and met the confidential informant; Carla, PO3 Cariño, and the informant then went to Espiritu's house, where Carla ordered two kilos of shabu for a discounted price of ₱750,000, and Espiritu took Carla's cellphone number and promised to call once the shabu was available.

On May 27, 1999, Espiritu called Carla and asked her to wait; two days later, Espiritu arranged a meeting at noon of the next day at SM Bacoor. On May 30, 1999, Carla went to the agreed place, and Espiritu arrived with appellant; Espiritu directed appellant to give Carla a sample of the shabu inside the restroom, and appellant obliged. After they parted, Carla gave the sample to P/Chief Insp. Dandan, who recognized it as shabu from his familiarity with the drug. At around 7:00 p.m. that same day, Espiritu called Carla and said she already had two kilos of shabu but would deliver only one kilo, with the rest to follow after payment for the first; they agreed to meet at the food court of RFC Manuela in Las Piñas City for the delivery. Dandan gathered the buy-bust team, gave instructions, and prepared four marked ₱500 bills and boodle money; the team repaired to the meeting place on June 1, 1999.

At about 3:00 p.m. on June 1, 1999, Carla and PO3 Cariño occupied a table at the RFC Food Court while the rest of the team positioned themselves nearby. Espiritu and appellant arrived at around 5:00 p.m.; after ascertaining that Carla had the money, Espiritu ordered appellant to get the shabu. Appellant left and returned 30 minutes later with her mother, Primitiva, who was carrying a bag; appellant took the bag and handed it to Espiritu, who, together with Carla, proceeded to the restroom to examine its contents. When Carla emerged, she made the pre-arranged signal by scratching her head, and the buy-bust team arrested Espiritu, Primitiva, and appellant. The marked money was recovered from Espiritu, while PO3 Cariño marked the plastic bag containing the substance with the Visayan word "tigulang"; laboratory examination showed that the seized specimen weighed 983.5 grams and was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The defense presented a different account. Espiritu testified that she first met Carla in the second week of April 1999, when Carla went to her house with the civilian informant and sought her husband's help in purchasing shabu from his Chinese clients; when Espiritu said her husband did not want to get involved, Carla sought her help instead and promised ₱750,000 for a kilo of shabu, which Espiritu declined. After a couple of days, Carla returned with PO3 Cariño, introduced as her husband, and again sought her assistance, showing an attaché case containing ₱1.5 million; Espiritu again declined. According to Espiritu, Carla and PO3 Cariño returned four more times with the same request and showed her the money each time, and she finally told them she would see what she could do because she needed money for her grandchildren's tuition and her son's medicines; she then introduced Carla and PO3 Cariño to appellant, an employee of her husband in the casino.

Appellant testified that during her first meeting with Carla and PO3 Cariño, the two asked her to help them look for shabu and showed her money in an attaché case; she initially refused but changed her mind when the couple kept returning to convince her, thinking she could pay her debts and provide for her children with the money offered, and she told them she would try to look for shabu. On May 30, 1999, appellant and Espiritu went to the house of Aida Go to get the shabu, and appellant kept it in her house as instructed by Espiritu. On June 1, 1999, appellant and Espiritu went to the RFC Food Court; appellant handed the shabu to Espiritu, who entered the restroom with Carla, and when they came out they were surrounded by policemen and arrested. Primitiva claimed she had no knowledge of the transaction and had just accompanied her daughter to the RFC Food Court. The trial court gave credence to Carla's testimony, and the CA upheld the trial court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in convicting her of violation of Section 15, Article II, in relation to Section 21, Article IV, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, when her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Conspiracy: Appellant argued that the CA gravely erred in convicting her despite the prosecution's lame evidence failing to warrant a finding of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt; she claimed she merely accompanied Espiritu to the RFC Food Court, had nothing to do with the transaction, and the shabu was not found in or recovered from her possession.
• Instigation: Appellant argued that the PAOCTF operatives induced her to commit the offense by repeatedly approaching and asking her to sell them shabu.

• Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the two essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established beyond reasonable doubt despite appellant's claim that she merely accompanied Espiritu and did not possess the shabu.
• Instigation: Whether appellant was induced by the PAOCTF operatives into committing the offense, such that she should be acquitted on the ground of instigation.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of ₱500,000 was proper for the sale of 983.5 grams of shabu.

• Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: Yes. The prosecution proved the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the shabu and payment, through Carla and P/Chief Insp. Dandan's positive identification and the laboratory examination.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Appellant's own testimony and the buy-bust account showed she acted in common concert with her co-accused; in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
• Instigation: No. The evidence established entrapment, not instigation, because the criminal intent originated from appellant and the police merely used ruses to capture her.
• Penalty: Yes. For 983.5 grams of shabu, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10 million; absent mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua and the ₱500,000 fine were proper.

• Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: The SC applied the rule that illegal sale requires (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor, both proved beyond reasonable doubt. Carla and P/Chief Insp. Dandan positively identified appellant and her co-accused as the sellers of the contraband in exchange for the marked money; the item was seized, marked, examined, and identified as shabu, and was presented in evidence. Carla's detailed testimony traced the delivery and sale, and the SC found no reason to doubt it, especially since the trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and appellant herself corroborated the prosecution's account by testifying that she handed the shabu to Espiritu before Espiritu entered the restroom with Carla. The SC concluded that both elements were established.
• Conspiracy: The SC applied Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, which defines conspiracy as two or more persons agreeing to commit a felony and deciding to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven by the same quantum of evidence as the felony and may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence of acts, words, or conduct before, during, and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design. The SC found conspiracy established by the prosecution evidence and by appellant's own testimony: she decided to go with Espiritu to get shabu from Aida Go to earn money; her participation was to carry the shabu from the source to the buyer; the shabu was on consignment and would be paid after the deal; she kept the shabu in her house as instructed by Espiritu; and she voluntarily and knowingly carried it for Espiritu. These acts showed a common object and concerted action, and appellant could not isolate her act of accompanying Espiritu or carrying the shabu because in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all; a conspirator need not participate in every detail of the execution.
• Instigation: The SC distinguished instigation from entrapment: instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he otherwise had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him, and the criminal intent originates from the inducer; entrapment is the employment of ways and means to trap or capture a criminal, and the criminal intent originates from the accused. Instigation results in acquittal, while entrapment may lead to prosecution and conviction. The SC found that the police employed entrapment, not instigation: the buy-bust team was formed only after the confidential informant reported Espiritu's drug trafficking activities, and appellant testified that she agreed to the transaction of her own free will when she saw it as an opportunity to earn money; she was able to quickly produce a sample, confirming a ready supply. She was not forced, coerced, or induced through incessant entreaties. The SC also held that decoy solicitation during a buy-bust operation is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the operation; under People vs. Legaspi, facilities intentionally placed in the accused's way, solicitation by the decoy, or police feigning complicity do not exculpate the accused. Even assuming repeated requests, the defense of instigation would not prosper, especially for offenses habitually committed where solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct.
• Penalty: The SC applied the penalty provision for unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu under Section 15, Article III, in relation to Section 20, Article IV, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659: reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000 to ₱10 million. The confiscated shabu weighed 983.5 grams, so the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua to death. Because the penalty consists of two indivisible penalties and there were no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code required the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. The SC also found the ₱500,000 fine reasonable considering the quantity of shabu sold.

• Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs — The crime requires proof of (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The SC applied this to appellant because Carla and P/Chief Insp. Dandan identified the sellers, the shabu was seized, marked, examined, and presented, and appellant herself testified that she handed the shabu to Espiritu before the restroom transaction.
• Conspiracy — Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. It must be proved by the same quantum of evidence as the felony and may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence of acts, words, or conduct before, during, and after the felony to achieve a common design; the act of one is the act of all, and a conspirator need not participate in every detail. An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative. The SC applied it because appellant knowingly carried the shabu from Aida Go, kept it in her house, and delivered it to Espiritu for the sale, all to earn money.
• Entrapment vs. Instigation — Instigation means luring the accused into a crime he otherwise had no intention to commit, with the criminal intent originating from the inducer; entrapment is the employment of ways and means to trap or capture a criminal, with the criminal intent originating from the accused. Instigation results in acquittal, while entrapment may lead to conviction. The SC applied this by finding that appellant agreed to the transaction of her own free will and quickly produced a sample, so the police employed entrapment, not instigation.
• Decoy Solicitation — A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the operation. The SC applied this by holding that even if the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked appellant to sell shabu, such solicitation did not exculpate her.
• Penalty for Sale of 200 Grams or More of Shabu — Unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10 million. When there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed under Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The SC applied this because the shabu weighed 983.5 grams and imposed reclusion perpetua and a ₱500,000 fine.

• "In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the two essential elements are: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor."" — This passage states the elements the SC applied to affirm the conviction.
• "Conspiracy must be proven on the same quantum of evidence as the felony subject of the agreement of the parties. Conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence consisting of acts, words, or conduct of the alleged conspirators before, during and after the commission of the felony to achieve a common design or purpose." — The SC used this standard to find conspiracy from appellant's own testimony and conduct.
• "Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him." — The SC used this definition to reject appellant's defense because the criminal intent originated from her.
• "In entrapment, the criminal intent or design originates from the accused and the law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by using ruses and schemes." — The SC characterized the buy-bust as entrapment, not instigation.

• People vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 173485, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 171 — Followed for the two elements of illegal sale and for the rule that decoy solicitation and police ruses do not exculpate the accused.
• Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (Seventh Div.), 514 Phil. 574 (2005) — Followed for the rule that conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence of acts, words, or conduct before, during, and after the felony.
• People vs. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 327 — Followed for the accepted badge of conspiracy: acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another, showing concerted action.
• People vs. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 689 — Followed for the rule that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all and a conspirator need not participate in every detail.
• People vs. Dansico, G.R. No. 178060, February 23, 2011, 644 SCRA 151 — Followed for the definitions and consequences of instigation and entrapment.
• People vs. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 202 — Followed for the rule that decoy solicitation in a buy-bust operation is not prohibited by law.
• Ching vs. People, G.R. No. 177237, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 711 — Followed for the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and fine for sale of 200 grams or more of shabu.
• People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 191266, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 689 — Followed for according respect to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility.

• Section 15, Article II, R.A. No. 6425, as amended — The Amended Information charged violation of this provision for illegal sale of dangerous drugs; the SC affirmed appellant's conviction under the charge.
• Section 15, Article III, in relation to Section 20, Article IV, R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 — The SC applied this penalty provision: unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death and a fine of ₱500,000 to ₱10 million; with 983.5 grams, the lesser penalty was proper.
• Article 8, Revised Penal Code — Defines conspiracy as two or more persons agreeing to commit a felony and deciding to commit it; the SC applied it to appellant and her co-accused.
• Article 63(2), Revised Penal Code — When there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied; the SC used it to impose reclusion perpetua instead of death.