G.R. No. 170234 - People vs. Nicolas

The case involves accused-appellant Bernardo Felizardo Nicolas, a.k.a. Bernie, charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The charge stemmed from an alleged transaction on August 6, 2002 in Pasig City, where Nicolas was accused of selling a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.42 gram of a white crystalline substance (shabu) to police operatives acting as a poseur buyer.
An Information dated August 7, 2002 formally charged Nicolas, and the matter was raffled to Branch 164 of the RTC of Pasig City, later docketed as Criminal Case No. 11566-D.

A confidential informant reported that “alias Bernie” was selling shabu at his residence along Santiago Street, Barangay Bagong Ilog, Pasig City, prompting a surveillance and entrapment operation.
The police team, led by SPO2 Dante Zipagan with members including PO2 Danilo S. Damasco (designated poseur-buyer), PO2 Montefalcon, PO2 Orig, and the informant, proceeded to the scene where the informant identified the location of the accused.
Upon arrival, PO2 Damasco was introduced as a customer by the informant. Damasco then engaged with accused Bernardo Nicolas, negotiated a price of Php500.00 for the single sachet, and conducted the transaction whereby marked money was exchanged for the suspected shabu.
Immediately after the transaction, Damasco identified himself as a police officer, arrested Nicolas, and recovered the marked money, with the drug sample later sent and confirmed by the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory.

The prosecution’s evidence included testimonies from police officers—PO2 Danilo S. Damasco and SPO2 Dante Zipagan—detailing the sequence of the buy-bust operation, including the observation of the transaction and subsequent arrest.
The drug specimen, marked with identification and confirmed in Chemistry Report No. D-1501-02E, weighed 0.42 gram and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The procedures noted included the preparation of pre-marked money by Damasco and the absence of a prearranged signal, a detail explained as being within the discretion of the operatives.

Nicolas, on his own account, testified that he was outside his house conversing with his brother, Jose Nicolas, and a friend, Arnold Mendez, after coming out to close his billiard salon.
He claimed that two motor vehicles approached, and a police officer (later identified as PO2 Damasco) pointed a gun at him while displaying a plastic sachet alleged to have been bought from him.
The defense contended that there was no buy-bust operation and that the shabu was planted evidence, alleging that the charge was an act of vengeance linked to a previous administrative case filed against certain police officers.
Nicolas’s common-law wife, Susan dela Cruz Villasoto, and his brother provided testimonies that, while differing in details (for instance, the duration Nicolas was outside), were used to support his version of events.

At arraignment on September 30, 2002, the accused pleaded “Not Guilty,” and subsequent proceedings led to the trial where the prosecution presented its witnesses and evidence.
The trial court found Nicolas guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of P500,000.00.
The decision was subsequently affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals on August 23, 2005, after which Nicolas filed a Notice of Appeal before the Supreme Court.

The prosecution emphasized the essential elements of the illegal drug sale: identification of both buyer and seller, the object (shabu), the consideration (Php500.00), and the physical delivery of the drug.
Despite defense attempts to highlight inconsistencies—such as differences in testimonies regarding the lighting conditions in the area and the absence of a prearranged signal or prior surveillance—the court found these issues trivial and non-detrimental to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
The chain of evidence, including the marked money (prepared by PO2 Damasco) and the laboratory test confirming the drug substance, formed a coherent and complete narrative of the buy-bust operation.

The court reiterated that a buy-bust operation, as a form of entrapment, is a valid law enforcement tool and that there is no absolute textbook method for its conduct.
In applying Republic Act No. 9165, the court held that the Revised Penal Code provisions (specifically Article 63[2]) were not applicable except for minor offenders, based on Section 98 of the law.
Ultimately, the imposition of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 on accused Bernardo Nicolas was deemed proper and in accordance with the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the sale of a dangerous drug.
The reliability and consistency of the testimonies of the police witnesses, particularly in light of the defense’s claims of inconsistencies regarding the scene’s conditions.

Whether the absence of a prior surveillance or a prearranged signal invalidated the buy-bust operation conducted by the police.
Whether the methodology employed, including the preparation of marked money solely by the designated poseur buyer, fell within acceptable discretion of law enforcement.

Whether the accused’s claim that the charge was motivated by retaliation for a prior complaint against police officers sufficiently raised a reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the operation.
Whether there was any credible evidence that the police officers acted with malice or improper motive in fabricating or planting evidence against the accused.