Case Summary (G.R. No. 187047)
Key Dates and Procedural History
Alleged buy‑bust and seizure: 23 February 2005.
Informations filed (two counts): both dated 24 February 2005 (Criminal Case Nos. 05‑0254 and 05‑0255).
RTC Decision (conviction for sale; dismissal for possession): 22 September 2006.
Court of Appeals Decision (affirming RTC): 23 September 2008.
Supreme Court Decision (affirming CA): 15 June 2011.
Charges and Specific Allegations
Two Informations charged the accused: (1) illegal sale of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 1.53 grams, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 05‑0254); and (2) illegal possession of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 1.42 grams, in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (Criminal Case No. 05‑0255). Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Pre‑trial Stipulations and Exhibits
The parties stipulated to certain exhibits and sub‑markings and dispensed with the formal taking of the testimony of P/Insp. Abraham Verde Tecson on the condition that he had no personal knowledge of the recovery and performed only the qualitative laboratory examination. Stipulated items included: (A) Request for Laboratory Examination for two small heat‑sealed sachets marked “NG‑1‑230205” and “NG‑2‑230205”; (B) the small brown mailing envelope that contained the two sachets; and (C) Chemistry Report No. D‑143‑05 (PNP Crime Laboratory).
Prosecution Case — Buy‑bust Operation and Sequence of Events
The prosecution’s narrative, supported by testimony from PO2 Gallano and PO2 Boiser, was that on 23 February 2005 a male informant identified “Maning” as a local shabu seller. A DAID‑SOT buy‑bust team was organized: Gallano as poseur‑buyer, Boiser as immediate back‑up, and other operatives as perimeter support. Buy‑bust money of four P500 bills (totaling P2,000) was given to Gallano and marked “JG.” The operation used a missed‑call as the prearranged signal. At around 5:45 p.m. at the target area, the informant introduced Gallano to the accused, Gallano handed the marked money to the accused, and the accused handed one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to Gallano. Gallano gave the prearranged missed call; police intervened, identified themselves, and arrested the accused. A second sachet and the marked money were recovered from the accused at arrest. The operatives marked the sachets as NG‑1‑230205 and NG‑2‑230205.
Forensic Examination and Identification of Corpus Delicti
The two seized sachets were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory where Chemistry Report No. D‑143‑05 confirmed the white crystalline substance as methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). During trial Gallano identified the NG‑1‑230205 sachet as the one he received in the transaction and identified the marked money bearing the initials “JG.”
Defense Case and Alibi/Frame‑up Claim
The accused testified as the sole defense witness. He denied the sale and claimed he was at home (garage) and was arrested by four to five men in civilian clothes who allegedly coerced him and then forcibly transported him to Fort Bonifacio. He claimed the police planted the drugs and alleged attempted extortion. The accused did not present corroborating witnesses or documentary evidence to support his allegations of planting or extortion.
RTC Outcome on Guilt and Punishment
The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale (Section 5, RA 9165) and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine. The RTC dismissed the separate possession charge (Section 11, RA 9165), reasoning that the possession of a small quantity of shabu was part and parcel of the offender’s trade and thus the possession count was subsumed by the sale conviction.
Court of Appeals Rationale
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto. It concluded the prosecution established the essential elements of illegal sale: identity of parties, object, consideration, delivery, and payment. The CA accepted the buy‑bust as a valid entrapment operation performed with constitutional and legal safeguards and held that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto. The CA found the testimonies of Gallano and Boiser credible and mutually corroborative, supported by the marked money and the seized sachets. The CA rejected the accused’s frame‑up and extortion allegations as unsubstantiated and emphasized the presumption of regularity in official acts and the deference due to trial court credibility findings.
Supreme Court Review and Holding
The Supreme Court likewise found no cogent reason to overturn the factual findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that trial court determinations on witness credibility are entitled to great weight absent glaring errors. The Court reiterated jurisprudential elements required to prove illegal sale under RA 9165 — identity of buyer and seller, object and consideration, and consummation by delivery and payment — and concluded these elements were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court upheld the legality of the warrantless arrest because the accused was apprehended in a buy‑bust entrapment operation and was caught in the act (in flagrante delicto), rendering Rule 113, Section 5(a) applicable.
Evidentiary Issues: Marked Money, Blotter, and Corpus Delicti
The Supreme Court addressed the contention that the marked buy‑bust money was not recorded in the police blotter. The Court distinguished People v. Fulgarillas on the ground that, unlike that case, the poseur‑buye
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 187047)
Procedural Posture
- Appeal to the Supreme Court from the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02603, which affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 259, Decision dated 22 September 2006 in Criminal Case No. 05-0254.
- RTC convicted Manuel Cruz y Cruz of illegal sale of shabu (1.53 grams) in violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00; RTC dismissed Criminal Case No. 05-0255 (possession) as the small quantity was considered part and parcel of the nefarious trade.
- Appellant filed Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 187047, decided June 15, 2011).
- Assigned errors on appeal to the Court of Appeals (and carried forward): (1) illegal search and arrest; and (2) conviction despite failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Caption and Panel
- Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
- Accused-Appellant: Manuel Cruz y Cruz (alias Maning).
- Decision below penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. (Court of Appeals); RTC decision penned by Judge Zosimo V. Escano.
- Supreme Court disposition authored by Justice Perez; concurred in by Acting Chairperson Velasco, Jr., Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin (designated), and Del Castillo.
Formal Charges / Informations
- Two Informations dated 24 February 2005:
- Criminal Case No. 05-0254 — Charge under Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 (sale): On or about 23 February 2005, in Parañaque City, accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sold Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 1.53 gram.
- Criminal Case No. 05-0255 — Charge under Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 (possession): On or about 23 February 2005, in Parañaque City, accused not being authorized by law did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 1.42 gram.
- Statutory context: Section 5 (sale) prescribes penalty of life imprisonment to death and fine P500,000.00–P10,000,000.00; Section 11 (possession) prescribes graduated penalties depending on quantity.
Arraignment, Plea, Pre-trial and Trial Initiation
- Upon arraignment with counsel de oficio, appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY to both charges (per Order dated 4 April 2005).
- Parties agreed to terminate the pre-trial conference (per Order dated 2 June 2005).
- Formal trial on the merits followed.
Prosecution Team, Roles and Investigative Acts
- Police operatives from DAID-SOT, Southern Police District (now Taguig City):
- PO2 Nemesio Gallano — designated poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation.
- PO2 Darwin Boiser — immediate back-up to the poseur-buyer.
- Senior PO2 Rey Millari — received informant’s tip; relayed to P/Chief Insp. Oraya.
- Police Chief Inspector Tito M. Oraya — Chief of DAID-SOT who directed verification and the operation.
- Other operatives: PO3 Sergio Delima, PO2 Gerald Marion Lagos, PO2 Cerilo Zamora — perimeter back-up.
- Male informant supplied information that a certain alias “Maning” sold illegal drugs at Sitio de Asis, Barangay San Martin de Porres, Parañaque City; informant participated in the operation and personally introduced the poseur-buyer to alias Maning.
- Buy-bust plan and tactical details:
- Verification calls by PO2 Gallano to persons in Sitio de Asis confirmed alias Maning’s involvement in illegal sale of drugs.
- P/Chief Insp. Oraya provided four P500 bills (total P2,000.00) marked “JG” as buy-bust money; “JG” represented initials of Jose Gentiles.
- Pre-arranged signal for consummation: a missed call from PO2 Gallano to PO2 Boiser.
- Time sequence: initial information around 1:30 p.m.; buy-bust planned and executed around 5:00 p.m.; arrival at target area around 5:45 p.m.
Facts as Found by Prosecution Witnesses (Narrative of the Buy-Bust Operation)
- Arrival at target area: team parked along Tanyag Street; PO2 Gallano and the male informant approached alias Maning’s house while the rest of the team deployed 10–15 meters away in civilian clothes.
- Introduction and overture: male informant introduced PO2 Gallano (as a security guard in need of shabu); appellant (alias Maning) asked how much and where PO2 Gallano bought shabu.
- Transaction: appellant asked for the money; PO2 Gallano handed four marked P500 bills (P2,000.00); in exchange appellant gave one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
- Signal and arrest: PO2 Gallano gave missed call to PO2 Boiser; back-up and perimeter operatives approached, identified themselves as police, and effected the arrest of appellant; another sachet with white crystalline substance was recovered from appellant upon his arrest; the marked money was recovered.
- Markings and preliminary identification: the sachet given in the transaction was marked “NG-1-230205”; the sachet found on appellant at arrest was marked “NG-2-230205.”
Stipulations and Exhibits Admitted by Agreement
- Parties stipulated to dispense with formal testimony of Police Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson and admitted the following exhibits subject to conditions:
- Exhibit A: Request for Laboratory Examination of the two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, marked NG-1-230205 and NG-2-230205.
- Exhibit B: Small brown mailing envelope that contained the two sachets.
- Exhibit C: Chemistry Report No. D-143-05 (Physical Science Report No. D-143-05).
- Condition of stipulation: P/Insp. Tecson had no personal knowledge of facts surrounding recovery; he performed a qualitative examination only; and the Physical Science Report No. D-143-05 was not made under oath.
- Notation in the record: a careful perusal of Chemistry Report No. D-143-05 revealed it was subscribed and sworn to before Administering Officer, Police Inspector Alejandro C. De Guzman (footnote reference in the record).