Ponente: Leonardo de Castro, J.
FACTS
On April 14, 2005, a buy-bust operation was hatched by members of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Taguig City Police Station following a reliable lead given by an informant stating that Rosemarie "Rose" Mangudayao was peddling shabu along M. L. Quezon Street, at the corner of Paso Street, Bagumbayan in Taguig City. The team was composed of team leader P/Chief Insp. Romeo Paat, PO3 Antonio Reyes, PO3 Danilo Arago, and PO3 Rey Memoracion who was designated as the poseur-buyer.
According to PO3 Arago and PO3 Memoracion, the operation went as follows: Arriving at the area at around 8:30 pm, PO2 Memoracion and the informant alighted from their vehicle and walked to Paso Street.
The pre-arranged signal was for PO2 Memoracion to remove his bull cap. When he saw PO2 Memoracion talking to Rose, PO3 Arago went out of the car and walked towards them. He situated himself at about 15 meters away from PO2 Memoracion and Rose. He saw them talking and, after a while, PO2 Memoracion handed the marked money (two P100 bills with RBM initialed at the upper right hand portion of the serial numbers) to Rose, who in turn took something from her short pants and handed it to PO2 Memoracion. The latter then removed his bull cap.
The buy-bust operation led to the arrest of Rose and yielded the following evidence: (a) a small plastic containing suspected shabu substance, which was the object of the buy-bust operation, later marked as RAM-1; (b) another plastic sachet containing suspected shabu substance confiscated from Rose, later marked as RAM-2; and (c) the marked money.
Two separate informations for illegal sale and possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, were filed against Rose before the RTC Br. 267 of Pasig City.
By way of defense, Rose claimed she was framed by the police. According to her, the police merely barged into her house, forcibly took her to the Tuktukan jail and tried to extort money from her. Her refusal to give in to the police officers demand allegedly brought about the filing of the drugs charges against her.
In a joint decision, the RTC found her guilty of both crimes.
Her appeal before the CA was dismissed for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition.
In the SC, Rose called for her conviction to be overturned on the following grounds: (a) members of the police team who conducted the buy-bust operation had inconsistent testimonies regarding the operation; and (b) the various procedural lapses committed by the same team during her arrest meant that the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' official functions cannot be invoked as a basis for her conviction.
RULING
Petition denied. CA order affirming the RTC ruling is affirmed.
Whether the conduct of the buy-bust operation was proper. – YES.
According to Rose, the buy-bust operation that led to her arrest was marred by the following procedural lapses: (a) the inventory of the items seized from her lacked the requisite signatures of a representative of the media, the Department of Justice or any elected public official; and (b) the police did not photograph the confiscated items in the presence of the above-enumerated individuals. These lapses show that the police failed to perform their duty properly. Accordingly, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot be invoked as a basis for her conviction given the presence of facts and circumstances tending to negate said presumption.
The SC, however, held that Rose's argument does not hold water because the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court, upheld by the CA, are fully supported by evidence. The findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.
The objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.
The testimony of PO2 Memoracion duly established that the members of the SAID-SOTF of the Taguig City Police Station properly performed their duties in the conduct of the buy-bust operation on April 14, 2005. The testimony of PO2 Memoracion, which was corroborated by the testimony of PO3 Arago, stated in great detail how his team carried out the buy-bust, starting with the initial contact between PO2 Memoracion and the accused-appellant; the said police officer's offer to purchase; the statement of the amount he was willing to pay; and the consummation of the sale by Rose's delivery of the shabu to PO2 Memoracion.
Following the SC's ruling in People v. Agulay, absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse Rose of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over that of Rose's.
Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation warrant the reversal of Rose's conviction. – NO.
According to Rose, statements in the testimonies of PO3 Arago and PO2 Memoracion as to how their team leader, P/Chief Insp. Paat, received the information disclosed by the informant were contradictory. Specifically, PO2 Memoracion testified that the informant himself talked to P/Chief Insp. Paat. However, PO3 Arago stated in his testimony that the information was first given to the other members of their team and the same was thereafter relayed to P/Chief Insp. Paat.
The SC found the alleged inconsistencies unpersuasive. For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing to do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused.
Whether the information regarding the identity and illegal drugs activities of Rose was relayed directly to P/Chief Insp. Paat, or the tip was otherwise given initially to some inferior police personnel at the station who thereafter informed their station chief, is a trivial and inconsequential matter.
What is of utmost importance was the undisputed fact that a trusted civilian informant volunteered a tip to the police authorities, and finding the information reliable, the tip became the basis for the police to plan an entrapment operation which, true enough, paved the way to the eventual apprehension of Rose who was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of selling a sachet of shabu, and subsequently, after further search, for possession of another sachet of the same prohibited drug.
Whether Rose was framed by the police. – NO.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; andWhat is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The above elements have been sufficiently established by the prosecution.
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements thereof 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.
That Rose knowingly carried the illegal drug shabu without authority was likewise proven in this case. PO3 Arago and PO2 Memoracion both testified to the fact that after the latter effected the Rose's arrest, she was ordered to empty her pocket. When she did so, she produced another plastic sachet, which PO2 Memoracion marked as RAM-2. The chemistry report of the forensic chemist confirmed that the said sachet contained ten decigrams (0.10 grams) of shabu.
DOCTRINE
The findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.