A.M. No. MTJ-24-023 - Uy vs. Lorredo

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-24-023)

Factual Background

The Information in Criminal Case No. 8616-69 charged that the appellant sold one heat-sealed sachet of shabu, marked “PALI-BBI,” to a police asset posing as a poseur buyer, in exchange for money consisting of a two hundred peso bill with serial number T300611 and a fifty peso bill with serial number GF888950, each marked with an underline at the last digit of the serial number. Upon arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

Prosecution Version: Buy-Bust Operation and Alleged Sale

The prosecution presented nine witnesses, including P/Inspector Hernand Donado y Gutierrez, PO2 Edwin Albarico y Tupaz, P/C Insp. Paul Jerome Puentespina y Sedigo, PO2 Christopher Panes y Padernilla, Barangay Captain Renato Palermo y De la Cruz, PO3 Joel Portus y Tumbale, PO2 Reynaldo Bernil, Jr. y Belmis (PQ2 Bernil), Kagawad Noel Rojo y Solatorio, and PO2 Ian Libo-on y Jurisprudencia (PO2 Libo-on). Based on the prosecution’s statement of facts, the police conducted a surveillance and then a test buy operation, through an asset, to confirm reports of drug pushing. The test buy allegedly yielded a small sachet of white crystalline substance that tested positive for shabu. Upon confirmation, the police arranged a buy-bust operation, coordinating with PDEA in Silay City.

The marked money was prepared and duly recorded prior to giving it to the poseur buyer. The buy-bust team positioned itself near the target location at Villa Hergon, Barangay Rizal, Silay City. The poseur buyer approached the appellant and gave him the marked money. The prosecution testified that the appellant placed the marked money in the right front pocket of his cargo shorts and then pulled out a small sachet of crystalline substance, which he allegedly handed to the poseur buyer. The poseur buyer then executed the pre-arranged signal by putting his right hand over his head to inform the operatives that the transaction was complete. The team rushed in and arrested the appellant. According to the prosecution, they informed him of his rights and brought him outside for a search. Barangay officials were called; Kagawad Rojo searched the appellant, though the prosecution stated that a commotion occurred when a resident carrying a bladed weapon caused disruption. The police and barangay authorities continued the search at the station in a separate room, after which additional sachets of shabu were allegedly found. The remaining specimens were marked, inventoried, and subjected to laboratory examination, and the chemistry report confirmed that the sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Defense Version: Denial of Sale and Dispute on the Search

The defense presented Veluz Conlu y Canson, Helen Francisco y Poblacion, Ladisla Libo-on y Flores, and the appellant. The defense insisted that the appellant was unlawfully arrested and that the search yielded nothing attributable to him. Veluz testified that armed men in civilian clothes arrested appellant while he was taking gravel, and that he asked that the body search be conducted by the Barangay Captain rather than the police. He stated that Kagawad Rojo searched appellant by pulling all six pockets upside down and that neighbors applauded because nothing was recovered. Helen Francisco similarly testified that she saw appellant being forcibly handcuffed, and that after the body search conducted by Kagawad Rojo, the crowd cheered because nothing was recovered. She also claimed that appellant was nonetheless brought to the station.

Ladisla Libo-on testified that police officers entered appellant’s father’s house and apprehended appellant while he was spading sand, and that the family asked that barangay officials conduct the body search. Appellant testified that he was inside his father’s compound when two armed men barged in, handcuffed him, and forced him outside. He stated that once barangay officials arrived, Kagawad Rojo conducted the search of his short pants pockets and recovered nothing. He further claimed that at the station, the continued search allegedly led to the appearance of cigarette paper and aluminum foil from which eight small plastic sachets were recovered, which he characterized as unexpected and connected to the police continuing the search inside the office where his family was not allowed.

Trial Court Proceedings and RTC Decision

In the RTC, the prosecution succeeded in proving illegal sale in Criminal Case No. 8616-69, while the RTC acquitted the appellant in Criminal Case No. 8615-69 for failure to establish possession and recovery regarding the other charge under Section 11.

With respect to Criminal Case No. 8616-69, the RTC found that the prosecution had “more than amply complied” with the requisites for a successful buy-bust operation. The RTC characterized the operation as planned and coordinated with PDEA, and it held that the material incidents were well documented through prosecution evidence. It rejected the defenses of denial and alibi. It found the appellant’s witnesses less credible, especially noting that the father’s testimony was viewed with skepticism due to close relationship. The RTC also held that bare denials could not outweigh the positive testimony of the arresting officers absent proof of improper motive to testify falsely. The RTC thus convicted the appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, with credit for pre-trial detention. It also ordered the remittance of the sachets evidencing the buy-bust items to PDEA for disposition.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in full. The appellate court held that the elements of illegal sale were positively and clearly established by credible testimony of the arresting officers. It relied on the testimony of PO2 Libo-on, together with the pre-arranged signal shown by the poseur buyer, and the delivery of the shabu by the appellant to the poseur buyer and thereafter from the poseur buyer to PO2 Bernil. It ruled that the non-presentation of the poseur buyer did not weaken the prosecution’s case. It reasoned that although the police officers allegedly only presumed the substance handed by the appellant was shabu until laboratory testing, their testimonies still sufficed to establish that the appellant sold a dangerous drug. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the conviction.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appeal required the Court to determine whether the prosecution proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in view of the non-presentation of the poseur buyer, the witnesses’ ability to perceive the transaction given their distance from the accused and the poseur buyer, and whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drug from seizure to presentation in court.

The Court’s Ruling: Acquittal

The Court acquitted the appellant. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal sale beyond reasonable doubt and also failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drug.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court recalled that conviction for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 requires the concurrence of: (1) the transaction or sale between the accused and the poseur buyer; and (2) the presentation in court of the dangerous drug as evidence of the corpus delicti.

On the first element, the Court found serious doubt whether the sale of 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu between the appellant and the poseur buyer ever took place. It emphasized that the poseur buyer—who could have directly established the occurrence of the transaction—was not presented in court. The Court rejected the prosecution’s position that other eyewitnesses sufficed. It reasoned that the distance between the arresting officers and the target area made it difficult to see and hear the actual exchanges. In particular, the Court analyzed PO2 Libo-on’s testimony, including his admissions that he was positioned about fifty (50) meters away at one stage and then about ten (10) meters, with the poseur buyer approaching and the officers positioned approximately seven (7) meters away from the target position when the transaction occurred.

The Court found that PO2 Libo-on’s testimony was insufficiently specific to qualify as a genuine eyewitness account of the sale. While PO2 Libo-on testified that he saw the suspect and the poseur buyer and that the suspect “took something from his right side” and “believed that [the something] was shabu,” he did not clearly describe what the “something” actually was or provide a concrete description of the alleged exchange. The Court likewise found PO2 Bernil’s statements lacking in specificity. Although Bernil testified that the appellant handed the suspected shabu to the poseur buyer after the poseur buyer gave marked money to the appellant, his testimony did not describe what exactly was exchanged or the condition and appearance of the suspected shabu. The Court concluded that the lack of detailed perception was attributable to the officers’ positioning at distance during the supposed exchange, and it found persuasive line of cases where acquittal followed similar circumstances.

The Court compared the situation to Sindac v. People, where the arresting officer’s considerable distance and the atomity and small quantity of the object prevented a reasonable attribution of a criminal overt act, thus undermining the prosecution’s version. It similarly cited People v. Guzon, where the Court ruled that the prosecution must convincingly prove that the transaction actually transpired and held that the non-presentation of the poseur buyer was fatal. It also relied on People v. Andaya, stressing that when members of the buy-bust team did not directly witness the transaction because they were positioned at a distance, the State’s failure to present the poseur buyer to d

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-24-023)

The appeal assailed the 30 September 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01755, which affirmed the 14 October 2013 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, Silay City (RTC).
The RTC had convicted appellant Ceasar Conlu y Benetua for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Supreme Court treated the case as an appeal on Criminal Case No. 8616-69 only, because appellant had been acquitted in Criminal Case No. 8615-69.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Appellee was People of the Philippines, represented by the State through the prosecution.
Appellant was Ceasar Conlu y Benetua, convicted by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The RTC had rendered a mixed result across two charges, acquitting appellant in Criminal Case No. 8615-69 but convicting him in Criminal Case No. 8616-69.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC conviction in Criminal Case No. 8616-69, and appellant pursued review before the Supreme Court.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information in Criminal Case No. 8616-69 alleged that on April 18, 2012, in Silay City, Negros Occidental, appellant sold one heat-sealed sachet of shabu identified as “PALI-BBI” to a poseur buyer.
The alleged sale involved marked money consisting of one two hundred peso bill with serial number T300611 and one fifty peso bill with serial number GF888950, each marked with an underline at the last digit.
The Information charged the act as “CONTRARY TO LAW,” under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

Prosecution’s Version of Events

The police acted on reports of rampant drug pushing in Silay City and conducted surveillance and monitoring to confirm the reports.
The Chief of Police ordered a test buy operation, which was intended to verify that appellant and his brother were drug pushers.
The test buy operation was conducted through the police asset, and the bought substance tested positive for shabu.
After confirmation, the Chief of Police ordered a buy-bust operation with coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Silay City.
The police prepared marked money worth P250.00, recorded before it was given to the police asset.
The target was Villa Hergon, Barangay Rizal, Silay City, where the poseur-buyer went ahead.
Police operatives followed after about fifteen (15) minutes and positioned themselves about fifty (50) meters away from where the asset and appellant were to transact.
When the poseur buyer called up the operatives, they approached and positioned themselves about ten (10) meters from the place where appellant and the asset were about to meet, and witnesses later described the poseur buyer and target positions at around seven (7) to ten (10) meters.
The poseur buyer approached appellant, gave the marked money, and appellant allegedly put the money in the right front pocket of his cargo shorts.
Appellant allegedly pulled out a small sachet containing a crystalline substance and handed it to the poseur buyer.
The asset allegedly gave a pre-arranged signal by putting his right hand over his head, after which the buy-bust team arrested appellant and recited his rights under the law.
Barangay officials were summoned, and Kagawad Rojo conducted the initial body search, which the prosecution narrated yielded more sachets of shabu.
After the remaining sachet specimens were marked, the prosecution prepared a Certificate of Inventory for the witnesses and police to sign.
PO2 Libo-on prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination, and the crime laboratory’s chemistry report dated 19 April 2012 confirmed positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Defense’s Version of Events

Appellant presented witnesses to challenge the occurrence of the sale and the handling of evidence.
Veluz Conlu y Canson testified that on April 18, 2012, police officers arrested his son while he was taking gravel from the bakery, and he requested that the body search be conducted by barangay officials rather than the police.
Veluz claimed that Kagawad Rojo searched appellant by pulling all six pockets upside down and that nothing was recovered.
Helen Francisco y Poblacion testified that she saw appellant being forcibly handcuffed and that barangay officials arrived and conducted the search, after which the crowd applauded that nothing was recovered.
Helen asked why appellant was being brought to the police station despite the lack of recovered items, and police allegedly replied that appellant would be investigated at the station.
Ladisla Libo-on testified that police officers entered the house compound, apprehended appellant, and that family members requested barangay officials conduct the body search.
Appellant testified that armed men barged into the compound, handcuffed him, forced him outside, waited for barangay officials, and that Kagawad Rojo recovered nothing after searching appellant’s six pockets.
Appellant further testified that the police continued the search at the police station with barangay officials, that his family was allegedly not allowed into the office, and that a cigarette paper and aluminum foil later fell to the ground and contained eight small plastic sachets.
The defense thus presented a narrative of forceful apprehension and searches not reliably connected to the alleged buy-bust transaction.

Trial Court’s Ruling

The RTC found the requisites of a successful buy-bust operation to be “more than amply” complied with concerning Criminal Case No. 8616-69.
The RTC characterized the buy-bust as well-planned and duly coordinated with PDEA, and it credited the material incidents as “well-documented” by the prosecution.
The RTC rejected appellant’s defenses of denial and alibi, and it treated the testimonies of police officers as outweighing appellant’s witnesses.
The RTC expressed skepticism over Veluz’s testimony due to his close relationship to