Sample Decision

Republic Of The PhilippinesCourt Of Appeals

Manila-------

NINTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus -

LOVINIA SANTERO YRONQUILLO a.k.a. MALOUPADILLA, Accused-Appellant.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363

MEMBERS:

BRAWNER, R., Chairman DEL CASTILLO, M., and DE LEON, M., JJ.

Promulgated:

_________________x ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x

D E C I S I O N

DEL CASTILLO, M., J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 9, 2002 of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-99-

87601 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo

a.k.a. Malou Padilla for Violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act

No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as “The Dangerous Drugs Act of

1972.”

The facts of this case are as follows:

1 Records, pp. 437-452

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363DECISION Page 2

On October 20, 1999, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon

City filed an Information2 against the accused Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo

for violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Sec. 2(e), (f), (m) and

(o) of Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No.

7659, allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about the 17th day of August, 1999, in Quezon City,Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell,dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then andthere willfully, unlawfully and knowingly give and deliver to poseurbuyer PO2 Margie P. Javier NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOURPOINT THREE (974.3) grams of white crystalline substance containing(sic) Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride which is a regulated drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”3

The case was originally filed before Branch 81 of the Regional Trial

Court of Quezon City where the accused was arraigned on December 7,

1999 and with the assitance of counsel of her own choice, entered a plea of

not guilty to the crime charged.

Thereafter, pre-trial ensued where the following

admissions/stipulations were made by the prosecution and the defense:

“1. That the person who appeared today as the accused is the sameperson who was arraigned on December 7, 1999;

2. That the accused was arrested in Quezon City on August 17,1999 by the elements of the PNP Narcotic Group, 3rd Regional NarcoticOffice, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;

3. That the accused was brought to the police station andthereafter referred for inquest;

2 Records, pp. 1--23 Records, p. 1


4. That the accused was gainfully employed at Maria’s LaundryStop, etc. at the time of her arrest;

5. That the marked money was never presented during the inquestproceedings.”4

The following evidence were likewise marked as exhibits:

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Exhibit “A” - One (1) selfsealed transparent plastic bag containingwhite crystalline substance commonly known asshabu weighing approximately 900 grams;

Exhibit “B” - Photograph of a Mercedes Benz Sedan color blue withPlate No. PPJ 371;

Exhibit “C” - Affidavit of poseur-buyer PO2 Margie Javier;

Exhibit “D” - Booking sheet and arrest report dated August 17,1999;

Exhibit “E” - Request for laboratory examination;

Exhibit “F” - Initial laboratory report dated August 18, 1999;

Exhibit “G” - Final laboratory report;

Exhibit “H” - Joint Affidavit of arrest of SPO4 VenustoJamisalamin and PO3 Ernesto Viray, Jr.

FOR THE DEFENSE

Exhibit “1” - DTI Certificate of Registration under the name ofMaria’s Laundry Stop, etc.;

Exhibit “2” - Mayor’s Permit;

4 Records, p. 63


Exhibit “3” - Certificate of Registration of one motor vehicle withPlate No. PPJ 371;

Exhibit “4” - Deed of Absolute Sale of thesaid motor vehicle.5

Prior to the arraignment of the accused, the latter filed an Omnibus

Motion 1. For Resetting of Time of Arraignment in the Afternoon; 2. For

Bail.6 Acting thereto, the court a quo issued an Order dated December 3,

1999 which stated, to wit:

“As prayed for by the accused in her Omnibus Motion filed thrucounsel the arraignment set on December 7, 1999 is hereby reset from8:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.

With respect to the prayer for bail, the Court hereby orders thatthe pre-trial be held on January 10, 2000 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoonduring which date the prosecution will proceed to present its evidence forpurposes of the motion for bail.

Accordingly, let a subpoena be issued directing the prosecutionwitnesses listed in the Information to appear during the hearing onJanuary 10, 2000 at 2:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”7

Accordingly, the prosecution and the accused presented evidence for

the purpose of resolving the Motion for Bail filed by the accused.

However, prior to the presentation of the evidence for the defense, the

accused, through counsel, on May 2, 2000, filed an Urgent Motion To

Inhibit praying for the inhibition/disqualification of the presiding judge of

Branch 81, RTC.

5 Records, pp. 63-646 Records, pp. 41-437 p. 44, Record.


In a Resolution dated May 16, 2000, the court a quo denied the

Motion for Bail filed by the accused.8 With regard, however, to the Urgent

Motion to Inhibit filed by the defense, the same was granted by the court a

quo per its Order dated May 19, 2000.9 Thus, the case was ordered re-

raffled and accordingly assigned to Branch 95 of the same court which

conducted the trial of the case.10

During the trial, the prosecution filed a Compliance11 which stated

that it will no longer present additional evidence as part of its evidence-in-

chief and that it is adopting the evidence it presented in the petition for bail.

The evidence for the prosecution showed that on or about the first

week of August 1999, P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, who was the Chief of

the 3rd Regional Narcotics Group in Camp Olivas, San Fernando,

Pampanga, received verbal instructions from PNP Narcom Director,

Reynold Gonzales, to conduct a buy-bust operation against one Lovinia

Santero a.k.a. Malou Padilla. To confirm the information on the illegal

activities of the subject, Col. Abastillas organized a team led by SPO4

Venusto Jamisolamin to conduct a casing and surveillance operation. The

team received word that Lovinia Santero a.k..a Malou Padilla, on board a

blue Mercedez Benz with Plate No. PPJ 371 could be seen in Sapa, Sto.

Niño, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga and in Balibago, Angeles City, drug dealing

with a certain `Eddie Boy’ and `Don’, respectively both notorious Drug

Traffickers. The team members posed themselves in the said area and in

8 Pp. 189-194, Record.9 Pp. 195-196, Record.10 P. 200, Record.11 P. 206, Record.


the course of their operation noted the presence of the car, without however,

seeing the driver. It was also learned that the accused was selling shabu

worth P650,000.00. All the data gathered were reported to Col. Abastillas,

who three (3) days prior to August 17, 1999 (the date the buy-bust

operation was conducted) started to mobilize his men to raise the amount

of P650,000.00. From friends and their assets, the money was produced.

Between 9:00 and 9:30 in the morning of August 17, 1999, the confidential

informant called Col. Abastillas and told the latter that she made contact

with the accused and placed an order for the delivery of one kilogram of

shabu at P650,000.00. Accused and informant agreed that the amount

would be brought at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City,

between 4:00 and 4:30 in the afternoon of that same day because the

accused wishes to first count the money.

Around 10:30 in the morning, Co. Abastillas summoned his men for

a conference during which a buy-bust team was formed composed of SPO4

Venusto Jamisolamin, PO3 Ernesto Viray, Jr. and PO2 Margie Javier who

was designated to act as the poseur-buyer, and the back-up team with PO2

Reyes, SPO1 Lopez and PO3 Gamit as members. At 12:45 in the

afternoon, Col. Abastillas gave the money to PO2 Javier which the latter

placed in a white handy shoulder bag. She was instructed that the money

would not be given to anyone no matter what and that same would only be

used as show money.

At 1:00 in the afternoon, the teams, on board three (3) vehicles

proceeded to Quezon City. In a Caltex gasoline station located at the

corner of Santolan Road and EDSA, the team members were given final


briefing by Col. Abastillas. At around 3:30 in the afternoon, upon

instruction of their superior, PO3 Viray brought PO2 Javier to the target

area while SPO4 Jamisolamin went to Camp Crame to coordinate with the

authorities therein.

When PO2 Javier and PO3 Viray reached house No. 45 12th Avenue,

Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City, the latter knocked on the door which the

informant promptly opened. After receiving the bag containing the money

from P02 Javier, the informant told the two police officers to sit down.

Thereafter, the informant, using her cellphone, called the accused. PO2

Javier overheard that the informant would be waiting for the accused who

still had to retrieve her car which was then being repaired in Kamuning,

Quezon City. PO3 Viray then left leaving PO2 Javier alone inside the

house.

At 4:00 in the afternoon, the accused arrived together with a man.

To avoid being noticed, PO2 Javier went to the lavatory and pretended to be

washing her hands. She saw the informant and the accused and the latter’s

companion went upstairs. As the three were ascending, the informant

pointed to PO2 Javier as the buyer. PO2 Javier listened to the conversation

by pretending to sweep the stairs with a broom. She heard the man

complaining that he had a hard time counting the money with small

denominations. After three minutes, she went downstairs and sat on the

sofa. Five minutes later, the three went down without the bag containing

the money. Accused then told the informant “We should go to the Tutuban

Center para magpalitan.” Informant did not agree and reasoned that the

police might arrest them. The male companion of the accused was in


agreement with the latter that the exchange of drugs and money be done

somewhere. However, the informant insisted that she would not bring out

the money. Eventually, the accused and her male companion acceded.

After they left, PO2 Javier and the informant watched TV and talked

about whether to proceed with the deal and if not, for the former to just get

the money and for them to arrange for another deal. Having agreed, PO2

Javier was about to go upstairs when the informant received a call from the

accused, who decided to return with the shabu between 10:00 P.M. to 11:00

P.M. that night. PO2 Javier then called Col. Abastillas and reported what

had so far transpired including the plan of the accused to return with the

shabu later in the evening. The team deployed in the area were instructed

by Col. Abastillas to wait for the accused.

Meantime, PO2 Javier just watched TV until the accused and her two

(2) female companions (who turned out to be the maids of the accused)

holding an empty bag arrived at around 10:30 P.M. Accused then invited

the informant and PO2 Javier to see the shabu kept inside the Mercedes

Benz with Plate No. PPJ 371, parked in front and seated herself on the

driver seat. She then opened the right front door for PO2 Javier and the

informant to get in. The maids sat at the back. When all of them were

aboard, the accused showed to PO2 Javier the shabu placed in a handy

leather dark brown bag kept beneath the driver’s seat. Thereafter, accused

asked where the money was and PO2 Javier replied that she would just get

the money inside the house.


As soon as PO2 Javier alighted from the car, she flashed her penlight

from downward up to signal her companions that the deal had been made.

At that precise moment, other members of the team who had been deployed

at a distance in the area, rushed towards the scene and apprehended the

accused. On the other hand, PO2 Javier embraced the two (2) female

companions of the accused when they alighted from the car to run away.

The NARCOM Agents then took the accused and her two

companions to the Narcotics Command Headquarters at Camp Crame for

investigation. The seized evidence and the vehicle were likewise brought

to Narcom for disposition. A booking sheet and arrest report were then

prepared. PO2 Javier, placed her signature outside the plastic bag

containing the white crystalline substance.

The companions of the accused were later released after a couple of

hours.

The following day, a request for chemical analysis of the white

crystalline substance found inside the car of the accused was sent to PNP

Crime Laboratory. The specimen were examined by Forensic Chemist

Benjamin Cruto, Jr. who made two written reports indicating that the

specimen weighing 974.3 grams was found positive for methylamphetamine

hydrochloride otherwise known as “shabu”, a regulated drug.

SPO3 Ernesto Viray corroborated the testimony of PO2 Margie

Javier and testified that sometime in August 1999, while assigned at the 3rd

Regional narcotics Group, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, he was


instructed by his chief, P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, to conduct surveillance

operations against a certain Malou Padilla who was said to be frequenting

the area and was engaged in illicit trafficking at Sapa Sto. Niño, Sto.

Tomas, Pampanga. He and another police officer then posted themselves

near the area and found that the said Malou Padilla was indeed frequenting

the place on board a blue Mercedes Benz car. He reported the matter to

P/Supt. Abastillas who then talked to a civilian informant over the phone to

arrange a drug deal with Malou Padilla. When the informant told P/Supt.

Abastillas that a drug deal had been arranged for P650,000.00, P/Supt.

Abastillas then told SPO3 Viray to produce that amount. P/Supt. Abastillas

then formed a but-bust team composed of himself, SPO4 Jamisolamin, PO2

Javier and others who would serve as back up men. They then proceeded to

the area at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City in three (3)

separate vehicles. SPO3 Viray dropped off PO2 Javier at 12th Avenue and

then proceeded to the gasoline station located at the corner of Santolan

Road and EDSA, Quezon City for a briefing with P/Supt. Abastillas. They

were instructed by P/Supt. Abastillas to position themselves at 12th Avenue,

Cubao, Quezon City near the house where the drug deal would take place

between PO2 Javier and the accused. He and the police officers waited

inside their respective cars and when PO2 Javier gave the pre-arranged

signal indicating that the drug deal had been consummated, he and the other

police officers rushed to the area and arrested the accused. The accused and

her two (2) companions were then brought to Camp Crame, Quezon City.

The two (2) companions of the accused were later released as they turned

out to be simply the maids of the accused. Thereafter, SPO3 Viray and the

rest of the team executed their sworn statement in regard to the arrest of the

accused.


P/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, Jr., a forensic chemical officer of the

Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, who was first qualified to be

an expert witness by the prosecution, testified that on August 18, 1999, he

received a request for laboratory examination on a white crystalline

substance/

specimen contained in a transparent plastic bag with markings “B-3897-

99”. He conducted three (3) types of examination on the specimen,

specifically the physical examination, the chemical examination and the

confirmatory examination. In the physical examination, he saw that the

specimen contained white crystalline substance which weighed 974.3

grams. In the chemical examination, he took a random sample from the

specimen and treated it with Simon’s reagent and Mark’s reagent. The

result was that the specimen proved positive to the test of

methamphetamine. In the confirmatory examination, he also took a

random sample from the specimen which he found to contain

methamphetamine hydrocholoride. Thereafter, he reduced his findings into

writing as Physical Science Report No. D-3897-99.

P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, chief of the 3rd Regional Narcotics

Group in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, corroborated the

testimonies of PO2 Margie Javier and SPO3 Ernesto Viray that they

conducted a buy-bust operation at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao,

Quezon City after having a pre-operational coordination. He coordinated

with his men through cellular phone and were successful in apprehending

the accused.


A joint affidavit of arrest and affidavit of poseur-buyer were also

executed by SPO4 Venusto T. Jamisolamin and PO3 Ernesto Viray Jr., and

PO Margie Javier, respectively.

For her part, the accused presented her own testimony and those of

her sister, Ma. Theresa Blardony, the testimony of SPO4 Venusto

Jamisolamin, as hostile witness and that of Socorro Manahan.

Ma. Theresa Blardony testified that on August 17, 1999, at around 1

to 1:30 p.m., she arrived at Maria’s Laundry in Makati, a laundry shop she

jointly owned with the accused. At the shop were the accused, employees

Heidi Vicente and Nina Barredo, and a former employee with the latter’s

daughter.

At around 8 p.m., accused Santero left the shop with Vicente and

Barredo to deliver the laundry of their client Mrs. Manahan in Kamuning.

The duplicate original of the sales invoice was presented in court to prove

the delivery. The accused used the Mercedez Benz of Blardony.

On August 18, 1999, at around 2 a.m., accused Santero called

Blardony informing the latter that she was arrested by a team composed of

Pampanga policemen along Murphy Avenue, Quezon City and that she was

being charged for illegal possession of shabu together with employees

Vicente and Barredo, and a certain Tintin Lacap. Thereafter, at 3 A.M.,

Blardony went to the office of Col. Gonzales at the Narcotics Division in

Camp Crame where she again saw the accused, who then told Blardony that

an unidentified man got her watch and belongings. The same unidentified


man approached them and offered to release the accused for P200,000.

Blardony was able to give the man $2,000 and P20,000 in cash. When the

accused was not released despite payment, Blardony went to the office of

Col. Gonzales who instructed her to file a formal complaint with Col.

Abastillas. A line-up was first conducted where she was able to identify

two of the four men who demanded money from her. She saw the man who

actually took the money but was not included in the line-up. When she

informed Col. Abastillas of this fact, she was told that there would be a

second line-up but none was ever conducted. She then prepared her formal

complaint and gave the same to policeman Jamisolamin.

SPO4 Venusto Jamisolamin as hostile witness testified that about two

weeks prior to August 17, 1999, he and PO3 Viray, both police officers

assigned at the 3rd Regional Narcotics Office at San Fernando, Pampanga as

members of the National Support Unit, conducted a casing and surveillance

operation, upon information received from a confidential informant. It was

during said surveillance operation that they were able to positively identify

accused Lovinia Santero.

The confidential informant then made arrangements with the accused

for the purchase of at least one (1) kilo of shabu on August 17, 1999. SPO4

Jamisolamin, a back-up member of the buy-bust team, saw the accused for

the first time when the latter arrived at the agreed place of the sale at around

4:30 p.m. of the said date. The accused was first shown the P650,000.00

cash which she counted and five hours thereafter, the accused delivered the

shabu to the poseur-buyer inside the Mercedes Benz owned by Blardony,

the sister of the accused. Thereupon, PO2 Javier flashed her pen light, the


pre-arranged signal indicating that delivery was effected, and PO3 Viray

apprehended the accused inside the car in front of #45 12th Avenue,

Murphy, Quezon City at 10:30 p.m.

The money used in the buy-bust operation was not presented in court

since it was returned the following day to the 5 civilian assets from whom it

was borrowed. The money was likewise not receipted.

Accused Lovinia Santero @ Malou Padilla testified that on August

17, 1999, from about 10:00 in the morning until 8:00 in the evening, she

received separate calls from Tintin Lacap, the daughter of a good friend of

her ex-husband. During the first call, she was looking for the boyfriend of

the accused, Pablo Ramos @ Ambo, and asking for a rediscount of a check

worth P200,000.00. During the second call, she got the assurance that

accused will go to her house to visit her and to rediscount the check.

Thereafter, accused, together with two maids, Heidi Vicente and Nina

Barredo, delivered dry-cleaned pants using the blue Mercedes Benz of her

sister to Socorro Manahan at Kamuning, Quezon City. She stayed there for

about an hour waiting for a call from Ambo and discussing about the

opening of a laundry shop station. At around 10:00 in the evening, she

received the third call from Tintin Lacap who insisted that she go to her

house.

She and the two maids proceeded to the place of Tintin Lacap at 12th

Avenue, Murphy Cubao, Quezon City. She stayed there for about twenty

minutes. They agreed that they would talk about the check the next day


because accused had not yet talked to Ambo. When she left and upon

stepping out of the gate, three men accosted her. She was dragged to a car

and her bag was grabbed. She was then brought directly to the NARCOM

Office in Camp Crame. On their way, she asked the persons who accosted

her what was happening. They told her to just keep quiet and that she has a

warrant.

At the NARCOM Office, she saw the mother of Tintin Lacap talking

to Col. Abastillas and handing a package containing money to a certain guy

with a mustache. That guy then went to her and took her pieces of jewelry.

Maria Theresa Blardony, her sister, also arrived and talked to Col.

Abastillas and Jamisolamin about money and her supposed warrant. The

NARCOM men allegedly demanded from her sister P20,000.00 and

$2,000.00 cash to facilitate her release from custody. She was inquested

only after 24 hours after her arrest because her sister filed a complaint

against the NARCOM men.

In addition, she controverted the claim of the prosecution witness that

she was seen counting the buy-bust money at the residence of the

confidential agent in the afternoon of August 17, 1999 and also the

allegation that she was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of one (1)

kilogram of shabu inside the blue Mercedes Benz which she drove. She

likewise controverted the claim that there was a pending criminal case and

an outstanding warrant against her.

The last witness for the defense was Socorro Manahan. She testified

that at around 9:00 in the evening of August 17, 1999, Lovinia Santero


along with two maids went to her house at No. 109 Scout Rallos St.,

Diliman, Quezon City to deliver finished laundry. She stayed there for

about an hour. Socorro Manahan identified the logbook kept by the

security personnel in her house confirming the fact that the accused actually

went to her place on the said occasion. She further testified that the

discrepancy in the logbook as to the time the accused arrived is attributed to

a possible error on the part of the security guard.

The defense did not present the two maids who were supposedly with

the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation and who executed a Joint

Affidavit to support the defense of the accused.

On May 7, 2002, the accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion (A) to

Reopen Case for Presentation of Additional Evidence; and (B) To Defer the

Promulgation scheduled on May 9, 2004.12 On May 8, 2002, the court a

quo issued an Order the dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to

wit:

“Wherefore, the Urgent Omnibus Motion – A) To Reopen Casefor Presentation of Additional Evidence; and B) To Defer thePromulgation scheduled on 9 May 2002 is hereby DENIED.Accordingly, the promulgation of the decision shall proceed as scheduled,the original schedule of promulgation having been postponed upon theinstance of the accused.

SO ORDERED.”13

On May 9, 2002, the court a quo promulgated the assailed Decision,

the dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to wit:

12 Records, pp. 408-41413 Records, p. 435


“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding theaccused, Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo a.k.a. Malou Padilla, GUILTYbeyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 15, RA 6425, as amendedby RA 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusionperpetua and to pay a FINE of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).

The period within which the accused was detained at the City Jailof Quezon City shall be credited to her in full as long as she agrees inwriting to abide by and follow strictly the rules and regulations of the saidinstitution.

The Court cannot order the forfeiture of the “shabu” because asearlier stated in the decision, the same was lost due to robbery when thecase was about to be submitted for decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”14

Aggrieved by the said Decision, accused interposed the present

appeal ascribing upon the court a quo the following errors, viz:

A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S MOTION TO REFER THE DRUG SPECIMENTO THE NBI FOR A QUANTITATIVE EXAMINATIONTHEREOF, AS WELL AS IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THECASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTALTOGETHER AFTER THE LOSS OF THE SAID SPECIMEN– ALL IN BLATANT AND CALLOUS DISREGARD OF THEACCUSED-APPELLANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TODUE PROCESS OF LAW.

B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THEPROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THEACCUSED WITH MORAL CERTAINTY OR BY PROOFBEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, CONSIDERING THATTHE PROSECUTION WITNESSES DID NOT ONLY GIVE

14 Records, pp. 451-452


PATENTLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, BUT ALSOCONTRADICTED EACH OTHER.15

On the first assigned error, accused-appellant argues that he was

denied due process of law and basic fairness because the court a quo did

not give her an opportunity to disprove that the prosecution’s Exhibit “A”

actually contained methamphetamine hydrochloride and that the actual

content thereof exceeded the 200 gram threshold required under Republic

Act 7659 as would qualify the crime as a capital offense. Appellant

contends that the court a quo’s denial of her Motion to Refer Exhibit “A” to

the National Bureau of Investigation for a quantitative examination is a

denial of her right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of

witnesses and the production of evidence in her behalf. She also argued

that the only way that she could disprove the veracity and truthfulness of

the findings of the forensic expert who conducted a qualitative examination

of the substance taken from her on the day of the buy-bust operation, is for

her to have the same examined by an expert of her choice, particularly

through a quantitative process of examination.

We are not in accord with the above contentions of the appellant for

the following reasons:

First. The substance offered as Exhibit “A” by the prosecution could

no longer be subjected to another examination for the reason that the same

was among the items stolen from the office of the court a quo on October

19, 2000. As per report of the court a quo to the Office of the Court

Administrator, the subject evidence was among those taken by the person/s15 Rollo, p. 148


who perpetuated the robbery. Thus, it would be difficult to conduct another

examination of the subject substance.

Accused-appellant merely insisted on another examination by the

NBI of the substance after it was stolen. A review of the records would

show that appellant filed the Motion to Refer the Prosecution’s Exhibit “A”

to NBI for Analysis and Examination only on November 15, 2002 or after

October 19, 2000 the day the robbery of several evidence in the custody of

the court a quo took place.

Second. If indeed appellant would like to disprove the findings of

the forensic expert who conducted the examination of the substance by

subjecting the same to another examination by the NBI, she could have

requested for said re-examination at the earliest opportunity, such as the

time the substance as well as the report on its examination were presented

in evidence, or even prior thereto. However, no such request was ever

made by the defense.

She could also have made a similar request during the presentation of

her evidence. However, no such request was ever made by the appellant

until the evidence was stolen and when the request would then be

impossible to grant.

Additionally, at the time the evidence was stolen, the defense has

already rested its case without any manifestation to the court a quo that

appellant would request for a re-examination of the substance.


Third. The result of the laboratory examination conducted by

P/Inspector Benjamin Cruto, Jr., a forensic chemist, on the sample taken

from the 974.3 grams of crystalline substance confiscated from appellant,

shows that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride

or “shabu”. Thus, if the prosecution was able to prove that the sample was

positive for methamphetamine hydrocloride or “shabu”, it can be presumed

that the entire substance was “shabu”. Hence, there is no need to examine

the whole specimen in order to determine the exact content of

methamphetamine hydrochloride in the entire substance as suggested by

appellant. If the prosecution proves that the sample is positive for

methamphetamine hydrochloride, it can be presumed that the entire

substance seized is shabu.16

Fourth. There was no evidence presented indicating that the

laboratory examination conducted on the specimen showing that it was

positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, was erroneous. This fact, in

conjunction with the undisputed presumption that official duty has been

regularly performed, adequately established that the white crystalline

substance confiscated from appellant during the buy-bust operation was

indeed “shabu”.

Appellant’s claim that the case should have been dismissed after the

loss of specimen, must likewise fail.

The loss of the subject drug was due to a robbery that took place in

the lower court when the case was about to be terminated. Nonetheless,

before the robbery took place, the “shabu” had already been identified and16 People vs. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420


marked in court as the same drug confiscated from appellant, and formally

offered by the prosecution when it rested its case. In short, the corpus

delicti had been ascertained and proven.

On the last assigned error, accused-appellant argues that the court a

quo erred in declaring that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant contends that the prosecution

witnesses did not only give conflicting statements but also contradicted each

other. Appellant, therefore, argues that by reason of the discrepancies and

inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the

prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt.

We do not agree.

Specifically, appellant points out to the alleged inconsistent

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PO3 Viray and SPO4 Jamisolamin

who both testified that they conducted a casing and surveillance operation

on the person of the appellant weeks prior to August 17, 1999, the day the

buy-bust operation took place. Appellant claims that said witnesses

testified that they only saw the accused-appellant for the first time on

August 17, 1999 which thus, renders the alleged surveillance operation

unbelievable. On this point, however, the witnesses clarified that while they

only saw for the first time accused-appellant on August 17, 1999, they were

already following her prior thereto driving the same vehicle that she used on

the night that she committed the crime and that they explained that they

never saw her face to face during the surveillance operation. This Court,


does not in any way find any inconsistencies in said testimonies of the

witnesses. Moreover, prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not

indispensable to the prosecution of drug cases.17

Accused-appellant also laments another alleged inconsistency on the

arrangement of the details of the buy-bust operation which was supposedly

planned on August 17, 1999 per the Affidavit of Arrest executed by the two

witnesses. Appellant contends that the witness for the prosecution, SPO4

Jamisolamin testified that the amount of the buy-bust money of P650,000.00

was prepared a few days before the buy-bust operation which, therefore,

cast doubt on the existence of the said buy-bust operation. This, according

to appellant, is inconsistent with the said affidavit of arrest.

We find no inconsistency or discrepancy on the said testimony of the

prosecution witness. The amount of P650,000.00 was raised by the police

authorities days prior to the buy-bust operation based on the prevailing

market value of the shabu at the time of the operation. Moreover, there is

nothing in the Affidavit of Arrest18 which would show that the details of the

buy-bust operation were only planned on August 17, 1999. Said affidavit of

arrest merely made mention of the details on who should act as poseur-

buyer and the events surrounding the buy-bust operation conducted on

August 17, 1999.

Finally, accused-appellant finds discrepancy in the testimony of the

poseur-buyer who testified that she was immediately introduced to the

appellant as the interested buyer of the shabu upon the latter’s arrival at the

17 People vs. Chen Tin Cheng, 375 SCRA 77618 Exhibit “H”, prosecution, Record, p. 133.


informant’s house. Appellant claims that PO2 Javier, the poseur-buyer

allegedly testified that she had to act as a helper in the house in order to

listen to the conversation between the appellant, the latter’s boyfriend and

the informant which took place in the room upstairs earlier in the afternoon

prior to the buy-bust operation. Such testimony, according to appellant,

contradicts her earlier statement that she was introduced as the buyer.

Again, there is nothing in the testimony of said witness which would show

that she acted as a helper. What she said was that she pretended to be

sweeping the stairs in order to eavesdrop on the conversation between the

accused and her boyfriend without creating any suspicion.

The above alleged inconsistencies are all collateral matters which do

not affect the prosecution witnesses’ credibility. Inconsistencies as to minor

details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses or

the veracity or weight of their testimonies.

Accused-appellant likewise questions the act of the court a quo in not

exerting efforts to use court processes in order for the civilian informant to

testify in court. On this point, We rule that there is no need to present the

informant in court because the prosecution witness who acted as poseur-

buyer has actually witnessed and adequately proved the crime committed by

the appellant. This was the ruling enunciated by the Supreme Court in the

case of People vs. Doria,19 that “there is no need to present the informant in

court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by

prosecution witnesses.” The presentation of an informant is not a requisite

in the prosecution of drug cases.20

19 301 SCRA 66820 People vs. Cheng Ho Chua, 305 SCRA 28


Appellant also argues that the non-presentation of the amount of

P650,000.00 as the supposed payment for the shabu would show that the

police authorities merely fabricated the buy-bust operation. This Court,

however, rules that the failure to present the marked money is of no great

consequence – the Dangerous Drugs Law punishes the mere act of

delivering prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer

has been accepted by the prohibited drug seller.21 Moreover, the

presentation of the informant and the buy bust money are not indispensable

to the prosecution of drug cases.22

During the trial, the prosecution witnesses, who were members of the

buy-bust team that entrapped appellant on August 17, 1999, testified on the

material events that transpired in the buy-bust operation.

PO2 Margie Javier, the poseur-buyer, testified that before appellant

was entrapped in the evening of August 17, 1999, she and a male

companion first counted the show money of P650,000.00 in the house of the

confidential informant. Appellant returned in the evening to deliver the

“shabu” and was arrested. PO2 Javier testified on the full details of the buy-

bust operation:

Q: Now, when you arrived at 12th Avenue, Quezon City, what didyou do?

A: We alighted from the car and SPO3 Viray knocked at the door ofour confidential informant, sir.

21 People vs. Fabro, 325 SCRA 28522 People vs. Chen Tin Cheng, 325 SCRA 776


Q: And what happened when you alighted from the car and SPO3Viray knocked at the door of your confidential informant?

A: Our informant alighted to enter the house and SPO3 Viray toldour informant that the money was already with me.

Q: So, after SPO3 Viray told your confidential informant that themoney was already with you, what happened next?

A: We were asked to sit down by our confidential informant and hemade a call thru his cellphone and I heard from that phone callthat our CI will be waiting for the subject because the subject hadstill to have her car fixed or repaired in Kamuning.

XXX XXX XXX

Q: After staying for 1 hour, what happened next?

A: Malou Padilla arrived at the house as she had promised.

Q: How do you know that it was Malou Padilla who arrived at 4:00o’clock in the afternoon?

A: Because she was the person that we were waiting for and the CItold me that she was the person.

Q: When she arrived at the house, what did you do?

A: When she arrived at the house, I pretended that I was washing myhands at the lavatory and then I saw them walking proceedingupstairs.

Q: When you saw the CI and Malou Padilla were going upstairs,what did you do?

A: I got a broom and went upstairs and pretended to be sweeping thestairs so that I could hear what were they talking about.

Q: And what did you hear about?

A: I heard someone said, “What is this kind of money, they are P50bills and P100 bills, they are hard to count.”

XXX XXX XXX

Q: How long did you stay upstairs?

A: For 3 minutes because they might see me going downstairs, sir.


Q: So, after 3 minutes, what did you do?

A: I sat and waited at the sofa and I waited for them to godownstairs.

XXX XXX XXX

Q: So, when these three persons, the confidential informant, MalouPadilla and the man went downstairs, what did you do?

A: I remained seated on the sofa and then I heard Malou Padillasaying “we should go to Tutuban Center para magpalitan” but ourCI told us that that is not possible because a policeman mightarrest us.

Q: What was the reaction of your confidential informant whenMalou told her that?

A: The man was the first one to react and our CI refused and told usthat we will not bring out the money.

Q: What did Malou Padilla and her companion say when your CItold them about not bringing out the money?

A: The man uttered: “Ma, huwag na,” then Malou Padilla said:“Okey, we will be leaving.”

XXX XXX XXX

Q: For how long did you seat (sic) and watched TV?

A: We watched TV for around five (5) hours, from 6:00 until shearrived at 10:30 in the evening.

Q: When you say they arrived at 10:30 P.M., to whom are youreferring to, this (sic) persons who arrived?

A: They were three (3) women, two of which were addressing Malou“ate”.

Q: After these three women arrived at the house, what happenednext?

A: She invited us to her car to inspect the shabu which was inside thecar.


Q: And did you accede to her information?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And where was this located?

A: In front of the house at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao,Quezon City.

XXX XXX XXX

Q: When you arrived at the place where her car was parked, what didyou do?

A: She showed to me the bag where the shabu was placed, sir.

XXX XXX XXX23

PO2 Margie Javier’s exhaustive testimony was corroborated on all

material points by the testimony of SPO3 Ernesto Viray who was a member

of the buy-bust team. On the other hand, the testimony of P/Supt. Telesforo

Abastillas corroborated the testimonies of PO2 Javier and SPO4 Viray that

a buy-bust operation was conducted and that he coordinated with his men

during said operation.

Credence is given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution

witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to

have performed their duties in a regular manner. There was no evidence

presented by the defense to prove that the prosecution witnesses were

inspired by improper motives or that they were not properly performing

their duties.

23 TSN, February 7, 2000 Prosecution Evidence


Against the positive declarations of the police officers who

conducted the buy-bust operation, appellant could only interpose the

defense of denial and alibi which can be easily concocted and is a common

and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the

Dangerous Drugs Act. It is a weak defense and cannot overcome the

positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. For the defense of alibi

to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place

at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically

impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.

In the present case, appellant failed to prove that it was physically

impossible for her to be at the crime scene at the time the crime was

committed. The trial court noted that Kamuning, Quezon City was near to

Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City. Hence, the trial court’s ruling:

“To the charge against her, the accused interposed the defense ofdenial and alibi and invoked that she was a victim of `hulidap’. Thesedefenses are generally looked with disfavor because they are easy toconcoct and are considered standard defense ploy in most prosecution forviolation of the dangerous drugs law. Furthermore, the defense of denialis a weak defense and cannot overcome the positive and credibletestimony of the prosecution witness/poseur-buyer. Denials, ifunsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be givenevidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who testifyon affirmative matters. That the accused claimed that she went to deliverfinished dry cleaned laundry to a customer in Kamuning, Quezon Citycannot disprove the fact that she was at the informant’s house about anhour after the delivery. Thus, she cannot claim that it was physicallyimpossible for her to have been at Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City at thetime the drug deal took place because the two places are near to eachother. Besides, the accused testified that she was at the customer’s placeat 9:00 o’clock in the evening while the poseur-buyer testified that theaccused arrived at 10:00 o’clock in the evening, hence, it is but logical toconclude that the accused first went to Kamuning and then proceeded toCubao, Quezon City. For alibi to prosper, the accused must not onlyprove that he was not at the crime scene but it was also physicallyimpossible for him to have been present there at the time the offense was


committed. Basic is the rule that alibi which is easy to concoct, cannotprevail over the positive identification by the witnesses who were notshown to have been ill-motivated to testify against the accused. Neithercould the defense of frame-up or `hulidap’ by the police officers becountenanced in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that thepolice officers had other motives behind the arrest of the accused. Frame-up, often imputed to police officers, requires strong proof when offered asa defense, because of the presumption that public officers acted in theregular performance of their official duties.”24

The courts are not unaware of the observation that in drug-related

cases, the defense of frame-up coupled with “hulidap” operation is often

raised. Without any proof shown, the defense’s allegation of extortion

allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully

interposed.25

Foregoing discussed, We find no error on the part of the court a quo

in convicting the accused of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Accordingly, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOAssociate Justice

24 Records, pp. 449-45025 People vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 562


WE CONCUR:

ROMEO A. BRAWNER MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON Associate Justice Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is herebycertified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached inconsultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt.

ROMEO A. BRAWNERAssociate Justice

Chairman, Ninth Division

Documents

Sample Decision