G.R. No. 141699 - People vs. Lim

The accused-appellants – Wilson D. Lim, Danilo S. Sy, Jackilyn O. Santos, and Antonio U. Sio – were charged with violating Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by RA 7659, relating to the sale, distribution, and delivery of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”).
The Information, dated April 21, 1999, alleged that on or about March 27, 1999, in Caloocan City, the accused, acting in concert, conspired, confederated, and mutually assisted in selling approximately 1,994.60 grams of shabu to a buyer without lawful authority.
During the arraignment on May 13, 1999, Wilson Lim, Jackilyn Santos, and Antonio Sio pleaded not guilty while Danilo Sy, having refused to plead, had a plea of not guilty entered on his behalf pursuant to the rules on criminal procedure.

The operation was allegedly designed as a “buy-bust” initiative carried out by the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF).
PO2 Nening Villarosa, an intelligence operative designated as the poseur buyer, was briefed by Superintendent John Lopez and given a leather portfolio containing P1,220,000.00 to be used in the transaction.
Villarosa, accompanied by an informer and a female companion, proceeded to the Apollo Motel where the operation was to take place.
Inside Room 3 at the motel, Villarosa presented the money to the accused in stages. Initially, she showed the money to Danilo Sy, subsequently to Wilson Lim, and later to Antonio Sio when the shabu was eventually delivered.

PO2 Villarosa testified regarding her role as the poseur buyer, her instructions from Supt. Lopez, and the manner in which she received the purchase money and the shabu.
Other evidentiary support was provided by several police officers including PO Inspector Edwin Zata, SPO3 Armando Ballon, SPO3 Rolando Sayson, and Superintendent John Lopez; as well as by the joint affidavit of PO3 Ybanez and SPO1 ParreAo.

The money involved was partly genuine (only P6,000.00) with the balance being “boodle money.”
A marked delay in the delivery of the drug was noted, with the shabu allegedly being carried in a “Giordanoa paper bag” arriving about four hours after the initial meeting.

The physical evidence later included the seized shabu, inconsistently documented money, and additional seized items such as vehicles and personal belongings that did not directly pertain to the drug sale.

Sy contended that on the day of the incident, he had attended his daughter’s elementary graduation and spent the morning with his family.
He denied any involvement in a drug transaction and claimed that the encounter at the motel was not part of a prior arrangement for selling shabu.
Sy maintained that the absence of direct evidence – such as the shabu being seized from his person or him receiving the money – supported his innocence.

As the manager of Apollo Motel, Lim testified that he was inside his office during the supposed transaction, handling administrative matters when the commotion started.
He denied seeing PO2 Villarosa in the designated transaction area and denied any knowledge of the alleged confrontation.

Antonio Sio recounted having checked in at the motel with his girlfriend and described a forcible raid in which he was arrested from Room 4, disputing the narrative of a planned drug sale.
Jackilyn Santos corroborated a version where she and Danilo Sy were merely present at the motel for personal reasons (including a romantic involvement and discussion about future plans) when a sudden raid occurred.

The trial court gave full faith and credit to the prosecution’s version of the facts, notably Villarosa’s testimony, despite inconsistencies highlighted by the defense.
The court found that the accused acted in concert to execute a sale of shabu and determined that they were caught in flagrant delicto during a buy-bust operation.
Based on these findings, the trial court convicted all four accused, sentencing them to suffer the death penalty and imposing a fine of P500,000.00 on each.
The court’s decision emphasized that any inconsistencies pointed only to minor details which did not affect the overall substance of the prosecution’s evidence.

The accused and their counsels raised several issues regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly noting glaring inconsistencies in PO2 Villarosa’s account.
The defense argued that there was no proper introduction between certain key parties at the scene, questioning the authenticity of the supposed prearranged meeting for a drug transaction.
The defense further contended that the operation bore the hallmarks of an illegal raid rather than a bona fide buy-bust, citing the large number of police operatives, multiple arrests of persons unrelated to the sale, and the absence of proper search and arrest warrants.
Additional doubts arose from irregularities on the handling and documentation of the seized money and shabu, as well as discrepancies in the timing and sequence of the events as narratively presented by the prosecution.

Whether the prosecution, through its testimonial and documentary evidence, established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the sale and distribution of shabu.
Whether the incident on March 27, 1999 constituted a lawful buy-bust operation or an unlawful, warrantless raid.
Whether the significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, particularly that of PO2 Villarosa, undermined the reliability and credibility of the prosecution’s evidence.
Whether the failure to secure a valid search warrant or arrest warrant invalidated the arrest and subsequent search, thereby rendering the seized evidence inadmissible.