G.R. No. 181826 - People vs. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua

The City Prosecutor of Manila charged three accused – Hong Yen E (also known as "Benjie Ong"), Tsien Tsien Chua, and Gun Jie Ang – before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violating Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 2(e), (f), (m), and (o), Article I in relation to Article 21 of R.A. 6425, as amended by Presidential Decree 7659.
The charges involved allegations arising from a planned buy-bust operation, aimed at curbing the illegal sale of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride).

A designated NBI Special Investigator (SI) Roy Rufino C. SuAega, under orders from the Chief of the Narcotics Division, was instructed to surveil and set up a possible buy-bust operation involving accused Yen E.
SI SuAega, along with SI Noel C. Bocaling, arranged and executed a prearranged meeting with Yen E at the Jollibee, Masangkay Branch, where Yen E agreed to sell two kilograms of shabu at a price of P600,000.00 per kilogram.

As part of the operation, SI SuAega prepared “boodle money” composed of 24 bundles of 100 ten-peso bills secured with four marked 500-peso bills (marked with aRS-1, aRS-2, aRS-3, and aRS-4) to serve as payment if the transaction proceeded.
On the scheduled day, after a confirmation of the transaction at Jollibee, Yen E requested that the meeting be shifted to Lai-Lai Restaurant. Before leaving, Yen E had a brief moment to inspect the money arranged by the NBI.

At the restaurant, Tsien Tsien Chua and Gun Jie Ang joined Yen E. Under Yen E’s instructions, Chua handed over plastic bags (which were presumed to contain the shabu) to SI SuAega.
SI SuAega’s action of lighting his cigarette served as a prearranged signal to his backup team to initiate the arrest.
The operation led to the immediate arrest of the accused before the payment could be effected, leaving the transaction unconsummated.

SI SuAega testified regarding the sequence of events, including the detailed arrangement for the buy-bust and the prearranged signaling via the lighting of a cigarette.
A forensic analysis by NBI forensic analyst Yvette Ylao confirmed that the contents of the plastic bags were indeed methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Accused Chua and Yen E denied the charges, alleging involvement in a hulidap (banditry) and extortion by the law enforcement agents, while accused Ang absconded, thereby waiving his right to adduce evidence.

The RTC found all three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charged crime and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua with a fine of P500,000.00 each, absent subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision in its entirety and denied the accused’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the appeal.

Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the illegal sale of prohibited drugs was consummated.

The key element under scrutiny was whether the transaction was complete, which requires both the delivery of the drugs and receipt of the payment.
Evaluation of SI SuAega’s testimony regarding the moment Yen E inspected the money and the lack of an actual payment exchange.

Whether the absence of consummation (i.e., the non-transfer of money in exchange for the drugs) should result in acquittal for the charge of illegal sale of drugs.

Consideration of the requirement that the sale must be consummated before a conviction for illegal sale of drugs can be sustained.

Whether the accused can still be held criminally liable for the illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of R.A. 6425, even if the sale was not consummated.

The doctrine that possession is an intrinsic element of and is necessarily included in the commission of the illegal sale of drugs.

The impact of alleged procedural lapses, such as the failure to immediately inventory and photograph the confiscated drugs on the chain of custody, on the overall integrity of the evidence.