Republic Of The Philippines

Court Of Appeals
Manila
-------

NINTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363

Plaintiff-Appellee,
MEMBERS:

- versus - BRAWNER, R., Chairman

DEL CASTILLO, M., and
DE LEON, M., JJ.
LOVINIA SANTERO Y
RONQUILLO a.k.a. MALOU Promulgated:
PADILLA,
Accused-Appellant. _________________
x ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x

DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, M., J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 9, 2002 of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 95, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-99-

87601 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo

a.k.a. Malou Padilla for Violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act

No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as “The Dangerous Drugs Act of

1972.”

The facts of this case are as follows:

1
Records, pp. 437-452
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 2

On October 20, 1999, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon

City filed an Information2 against the accused Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo
for violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Sec. 2(e), (f), (m) and
(o) of Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about the 17th day of August, 1999, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly give and deliver to poseur
buyer PO2 Margie P. Javier NINE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR
POINT THREE (974.3) grams of white crystalline substance containing
(sic) Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride which is a regulated drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”3

The case was originally filed before Branch 81 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City where the accused was arraigned on December 7,
1999 and with the assitance of counsel of her own choice, entered a plea of
not guilty to the crime charged.

Thereafter, pre-trial ensued where the following

admissions/stipulations were made by the prosecution and the defense:

“1. That the person who appeared today as the accused is the same
person who was arraigned on December 7, 1999;

2. That the accused was arrested in Quezon City on August 17,

1999 by the elements of the PNP Narcotic Group, 3rd Regional Narcotic
Office, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;

3. That the accused was brought to the police station and

thereafter referred for inquest;
2
Records, pp. 1--2
3
Records, p. 1
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 3

4. That the accused was gainfully employed at Maria’s Laundry

Stop, etc. at the time of her arrest;

5. That the marked money was never presented during the inquest
proceedings.”4

The following evidence were likewise marked as exhibits:

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Exhibit “A” - One (1) selfsealed transparent plastic bag containing

white crystalline substance commonly known as
shabu weighing approximately 900 grams;

Exhibit “B” - Photograph of a Mercedes Benz Sedan color blue with

Plate No. PPJ 371;

Exhibit “C” - Affidavit of poseur-buyer PO2 Margie Javier;

Exhibit “D” - Booking sheet and arrest report dated August 17,
1999;

Exhibit “E” - Request for laboratory examination;

Exhibit “F” - Initial laboratory report dated August 18, 1999;

Exhibit “G” - Final laboratory report;

Exhibit “H” - Joint Affidavit of arrest of SPO4 Venusto

Jamisalamin and PO3 Ernesto Viray, Jr.

FOR THE DEFENSE

Exhibit “1” - DTI Certificate of Registration under the name of

Maria’s Laundry Stop, etc.;

Exhibit “2” - Mayor’s Permit;

4
Records, p. 63
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 4

Exhibit “3” - Certificate of Registration of one motor vehicle with

Plate No. PPJ 371;

Exhibit “4” - Deed of Absolute Sale of the

said motor vehicle.5

Prior to the arraignment of the accused, the latter filed an Omnibus

Motion 1. For Resetting of Time of Arraignment in the Afternoon; 2. For
Bail.6 Acting thereto, the court a quo issued an Order dated December 3,
1999 which stated, to wit:

“As prayed for by the accused in her Omnibus Motion filed thru
counsel the arraignment set on December 7, 1999 is hereby reset from
8:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.

With respect to the prayer for bail, the Court hereby orders that
the pre-trial be held on January 10, 2000 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon
during which date the prosecution will proceed to present its evidence for
purposes of the motion for bail.

Accordingly, let a subpoena be issued directing the prosecution

witnesses listed in the Information to appear during the hearing on
January 10, 2000 at 2:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”7

Accordingly, the prosecution and the accused presented evidence for

the purpose of resolving the Motion for Bail filed by the accused.
However, prior to the presentation of the evidence for the defense, the
accused, through counsel, on May 2, 2000, filed an Urgent Motion To
Inhibit praying for the inhibition/disqualification of the presiding judge of
Branch 81, RTC.
5
Records, pp. 63-64
6
Records, pp. 41-43
7
p. 44, Record.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 5

In a Resolution dated May 16, 2000, the court a quo denied the
Motion for Bail filed by the accused.8 With regard, however, to the Urgent
Motion to Inhibit filed by the defense, the same was granted by the court a
quo per its Order dated May 19, 2000.9 Thus, the case was ordered re-
raffled and accordingly assigned to Branch 95 of the same court which
conducted the trial of the case.10

During the trial, the prosecution filed a Compliance11 which stated

that it will no longer present additional evidence as part of its evidence-in-
chief and that it is adopting the evidence it presented in the petition for bail.

The evidence for the prosecution showed that on or about the first
week of August 1999, P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, who was the Chief of
the 3rd Regional Narcotics Group in Camp Olivas, San Fernando,
Pampanga, received verbal instructions from PNP Narcom Director,
Reynold Gonzales, to conduct a buy-bust operation against one Lovinia
Santero a.k.a. Malou Padilla. To confirm the information on the illegal
activities of the subject, Col. Abastillas organized a team led by SPO4
Venusto Jamisolamin to conduct a casing and surveillance operation. The
team received word that Lovinia Santero a.k..a Malou Padilla, on board a
blue Mercedez Benz with Plate No. PPJ 371 could be seen in Sapa, Sto.
Niño, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga and in Balibago, Angeles City, drug dealing
with a certain `Eddie Boy’ and `Don’, respectively both notorious Drug
Traffickers. The team members posed themselves in the said area and in

8
Pp. 189-194, Record.
9
Pp. 195-196, Record.
10
P. 200, Record.
11
P. 206, Record.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 6

the course of their operation noted the presence of the car, without however,
seeing the driver. It was also learned that the accused was selling shabu
worth P650,000.00. All the data gathered were reported to Col. Abastillas,
who three (3) days prior to August 17, 1999 (the date the buy-bust
operation was conducted) started to mobilize his men to raise the amount
of P650,000.00. From friends and their assets, the money was produced.
Between 9:00 and 9:30 in the morning of August 17, 1999, the confidential
informant called Col. Abastillas and told the latter that she made contact
with the accused and placed an order for the delivery of one kilogram of
shabu at P650,000.00. Accused and informant agreed that the amount
would be brought at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City,
between 4:00 and 4:30 in the afternoon of that same day because the
accused wishes to first count the money.

Around 10:30 in the morning, Co. Abastillas summoned his men for
a conference during which a buy-bust team was formed composed of SPO4
Venusto Jamisolamin, PO3 Ernesto Viray, Jr. and PO2 Margie Javier who
was designated to act as the poseur-buyer, and the back-up team with PO2
Reyes, SPO1 Lopez and PO3 Gamit as members. At 12:45 in the
afternoon, Col. Abastillas gave the money to PO2 Javier which the latter
placed in a white handy shoulder bag. She was instructed that the money
would not be given to anyone no matter what and that same would only be
used as show money.

At 1:00 in the afternoon, the teams, on board three (3) vehicles

proceeded to Quezon City. In a Caltex gasoline station located at the
corner of Santolan Road and EDSA, the team members were given final
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 7

briefing by Col. Abastillas. At around 3:30 in the afternoon, upon

instruction of their superior, PO3 Viray brought PO2 Javier to the target
area while SPO4 Jamisolamin went to Camp Crame to coordinate with the
authorities therein.

When PO2 Javier and PO3 Viray reached house No. 45 12th Avenue,
Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City, the latter knocked on the door which the
informant promptly opened. After receiving the bag containing the money
from P02 Javier, the informant told the two police officers to sit down.
Thereafter, the informant, using her cellphone, called the accused. PO2
Javier overheard that the informant would be waiting for the accused who
still had to retrieve her car which was then being repaired in Kamuning,
Quezon City. PO3 Viray then left leaving PO2 Javier alone inside the
house.

At 4:00 in the afternoon, the accused arrived together with a man.

To avoid being noticed, PO2 Javier went to the lavatory and pretended to be
washing her hands. She saw the informant and the accused and the latter’s
companion went upstairs. As the three were ascending, the informant
pointed to PO2 Javier as the buyer. PO2 Javier listened to the conversation
by pretending to sweep the stairs with a broom. She heard the man
complaining that he had a hard time counting the money with small
denominations. After three minutes, she went downstairs and sat on the
sofa. Five minutes later, the three went down without the bag containing
the money. Accused then told the informant “We should go to the Tutuban
Center para magpalitan.” Informant did not agree and reasoned that the
police might arrest them. The male companion of the accused was in
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 8

agreement with the latter that the exchange of drugs and money be done
somewhere. However, the informant insisted that she would not bring out
the money. Eventually, the accused and her male companion acceded.

After they left, PO2 Javier and the informant watched TV and talked
about whether to proceed with the deal and if not, for the former to just get
the money and for them to arrange for another deal. Having agreed, PO2
Javier was about to go upstairs when the informant received a call from the
accused, who decided to return with the shabu between 10:00 P.M. to 11:00
P.M. that night. PO2 Javier then called Col. Abastillas and reported what
had so far transpired including the plan of the accused to return with the
shabu later in the evening. The team deployed in the area were instructed
by Col. Abastillas to wait for the accused.

Meantime, PO2 Javier just watched TV until the accused and her two
(2) female companions (who turned out to be the maids of the accused)
holding an empty bag arrived at around 10:30 P.M. Accused then invited
the informant and PO2 Javier to see the shabu kept inside the Mercedes
Benz with Plate No. PPJ 371, parked in front and seated herself on the
driver seat. She then opened the right front door for PO2 Javier and the
informant to get in. The maids sat at the back. When all of them were
aboard, the accused showed to PO2 Javier the shabu placed in a handy
leather dark brown bag kept beneath the driver’s seat. Thereafter, accused
asked where the money was and PO2 Javier replied that she would just get
the money inside the house.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 9

As soon as PO2 Javier alighted from the car, she flashed her penlight
from downward up to signal her companions that the deal had been made.
At that precise moment, other members of the team who had been deployed
at a distance in the area, rushed towards the scene and apprehended the
accused. On the other hand, PO2 Javier embraced the two (2) female
companions of the accused when they alighted from the car to run away.

The NARCOM Agents then took the accused and her two
companions to the Narcotics Command Headquarters at Camp Crame for
investigation. The seized evidence and the vehicle were likewise brought
to Narcom for disposition. A booking sheet and arrest report were then
prepared. PO2 Javier, placed her signature outside the plastic bag
containing the white crystalline substance.

The companions of the accused were later released after a couple of

hours.

The following day, a request for chemical analysis of the white

crystalline substance found inside the car of the accused was sent to PNP
Crime Laboratory. The specimen were examined by Forensic Chemist
Benjamin Cruto, Jr. who made two written reports indicating that the
specimen weighing 974.3 grams was found positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride otherwise known as “shabu”, a regulated drug.

SPO3 Ernesto Viray corroborated the testimony of PO2 Margie

Javier and testified that sometime in August 1999, while assigned at the 3rd
Regional narcotics Group, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, he was
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 10

instructed by his chief, P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, to conduct surveillance

operations against a certain Malou Padilla who was said to be frequenting
the area and was engaged in illicit trafficking at Sapa Sto. Niño, Sto.
Tomas, Pampanga. He and another police officer then posted themselves
near the area and found that the said Malou Padilla was indeed frequenting
the place on board a blue Mercedes Benz car. He reported the matter to
P/Supt. Abastillas who then talked to a civilian informant over the phone to
arrange a drug deal with Malou Padilla. When the informant told P/Supt.
Abastillas that a drug deal had been arranged for P650,000.00, P/Supt.
Abastillas then told SPO3 Viray to produce that amount. P/Supt. Abastillas
then formed a but-bust team composed of himself, SPO4 Jamisolamin, PO2
Javier and others who would serve as back up men. They then proceeded to
the area at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City in three (3)
separate vehicles. SPO3 Viray dropped off PO2 Javier at 12th Avenue and
then proceeded to the gasoline station located at the corner of Santolan
Road and EDSA, Quezon City for a briefing with P/Supt. Abastillas. They
were instructed by P/Supt. Abastillas to position themselves at 12th Avenue,
Cubao, Quezon City near the house where the drug deal would take place
between PO2 Javier and the accused. He and the police officers waited
inside their respective cars and when PO2 Javier gave the pre-arranged
signal indicating that the drug deal had been consummated, he and the other
police officers rushed to the area and arrested the accused. The accused and
her two (2) companions were then brought to Camp Crame, Quezon City.
The two (2) companions of the accused were later released as they turned
out to be simply the maids of the accused. Thereafter, SPO3 Viray and the
rest of the team executed their sworn statement in regard to the arrest of the
accused.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 11

P/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, Jr., a forensic chemical officer of the

Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, who was first qualified to be
an expert witness by the prosecution, testified that on August 18, 1999, he
received a request for laboratory examination on a white crystalline
substance/
specimen contained in a transparent plastic bag with markings “B-3897-
99”. He conducted three (3) types of examination on the specimen,
specifically the physical examination, the chemical examination and the
confirmatory examination. In the physical examination, he saw that the
specimen contained white crystalline substance which weighed 974.3
grams. In the chemical examination, he took a random sample from the
specimen and treated it with Simon’s reagent and Mark’s reagent. The
result was that the specimen proved positive to the test of
methamphetamine. In the confirmatory examination, he also took a
random sample from the specimen which he found to contain
methamphetamine hydrocholoride. Thereafter, he reduced his findings into
writing as Physical Science Report No. D-3897-99.

P/Supt. Telesforo Abastillas, chief of the 3rd Regional Narcotics

Group in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, corroborated the
testimonies of PO2 Margie Javier and SPO3 Ernesto Viray that they
conducted a buy-bust operation at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao,
Quezon City after having a pre-operational coordination. He coordinated
with his men through cellular phone and were successful in apprehending
the accused.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 12

A joint affidavit of arrest and affidavit of poseur-buyer were also

executed by SPO4 Venusto T. Jamisolamin and PO3 Ernesto Viray Jr., and
PO Margie Javier, respectively.

For her part, the accused presented her own testimony and those of
her sister, Ma. Theresa Blardony, the testimony of SPO4 Venusto
Jamisolamin, as hostile witness and that of Socorro Manahan.

Ma. Theresa Blardony testified that on August 17, 1999, at around 1

to 1:30 p.m., she arrived at Maria’s Laundry in Makati, a laundry shop she
jointly owned with the accused. At the shop were the accused, employees
Heidi Vicente and Nina Barredo, and a former employee with the latter’s
daughter.

At around 8 p.m., accused Santero left the shop with Vicente and
Barredo to deliver the laundry of their client Mrs. Manahan in Kamuning.
The duplicate original of the sales invoice was presented in court to prove
the delivery. The accused used the Mercedez Benz of Blardony.

On August 18, 1999, at around 2 a.m., accused Santero called

Blardony informing the latter that she was arrested by a team composed of
Pampanga policemen along Murphy Avenue, Quezon City and that she was
being charged for illegal possession of shabu together with employees
Vicente and Barredo, and a certain Tintin Lacap. Thereafter, at 3 A.M.,
Blardony went to the office of Col. Gonzales at the Narcotics Division in
Camp Crame where she again saw the accused, who then told Blardony that
an unidentified man got her watch and belongings. The same unidentified
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 13

man approached them and offered to release the accused for P200,000.
Blardony was able to give the man $2,000 and P20,000 in cash. When the
accused was not released despite payment, Blardony went to the office of
Col. Gonzales who instructed her to file a formal complaint with Col.
Abastillas. A line-up was first conducted where she was able to identify
two of the four men who demanded money from her. She saw the man who
actually took the money but was not included in the line-up. When she
informed Col. Abastillas of this fact, she was told that there would be a
second line-up but none was ever conducted. She then prepared her formal
complaint and gave the same to policeman Jamisolamin.

SPO4 Venusto Jamisolamin as hostile witness testified that about two

weeks prior to August 17, 1999, he and PO3 Viray, both police officers
assigned at the 3rd Regional Narcotics Office at San Fernando, Pampanga as
members of the National Support Unit, conducted a casing and surveillance
operation, upon information received from a confidential informant. It was
during said surveillance operation that they were able to positively identify
accused Lovinia Santero.

The confidential informant then made arrangements with the accused

for the purchase of at least one (1) kilo of shabu on August 17, 1999. SPO4
Jamisolamin, a back-up member of the buy-bust team, saw the accused for
the first time when the latter arrived at the agreed place of the sale at around
4:30 p.m. of the said date. The accused was first shown the P650,000.00
cash which she counted and five hours thereafter, the accused delivered the
shabu to the poseur-buyer inside the Mercedes Benz owned by Blardony,
the sister of the accused. Thereupon, PO2 Javier flashed her pen light, the
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 14

pre-arranged signal indicating that delivery was effected, and PO3 Viray
apprehended the accused inside the car in front of #45 12th Avenue,
Murphy, Quezon City at 10:30 p.m.

The money used in the buy-bust operation was not presented in court
since it was returned the following day to the 5 civilian assets from whom it
was borrowed. The money was likewise not receipted.

Accused Lovinia Santero @ Malou Padilla testified that on August

17, 1999, from about 10:00 in the morning until 8:00 in the evening, she
received separate calls from Tintin Lacap, the daughter of a good friend of
her ex-husband. During the first call, she was looking for the boyfriend of
the accused, Pablo Ramos @ Ambo, and asking for a rediscount of a check
worth P200,000.00. During the second call, she got the assurance that
accused will go to her house to visit her and to rediscount the check.

Thereafter, accused, together with two maids, Heidi Vicente and Nina
Barredo, delivered dry-cleaned pants using the blue Mercedes Benz of her
sister to Socorro Manahan at Kamuning, Quezon City. She stayed there for
about an hour waiting for a call from Ambo and discussing about the
opening of a laundry shop station. At around 10:00 in the evening, she
received the third call from Tintin Lacap who insisted that she go to her
house.

She and the two maids proceeded to the place of Tintin Lacap at 12th
Avenue, Murphy Cubao, Quezon City. She stayed there for about twenty
minutes. They agreed that they would talk about the check the next day
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 15

because accused had not yet talked to Ambo. When she left and upon
stepping out of the gate, three men accosted her. She was dragged to a car
and her bag was grabbed. She was then brought directly to the NARCOM
Office in Camp Crame. On their way, she asked the persons who accosted
her what was happening. They told her to just keep quiet and that she has a
warrant.

At the NARCOM Office, she saw the mother of Tintin Lacap talking
to Col. Abastillas and handing a package containing money to a certain guy
with a mustache. That guy then went to her and took her pieces of jewelry.
Maria Theresa Blardony, her sister, also arrived and talked to Col.
Abastillas and Jamisolamin about money and her supposed warrant. The
NARCOM men allegedly demanded from her sister P20,000.00 and
$2,000.00 cash to facilitate her release from custody. She was inquested
only after 24 hours after her arrest because her sister filed a complaint
against the NARCOM men.

In addition, she controverted the claim of the prosecution witness that

she was seen counting the buy-bust money at the residence of the
confidential agent in the afternoon of August 17, 1999 and also the
allegation that she was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of one (1)
kilogram of shabu inside the blue Mercedes Benz which she drove. She
likewise controverted the claim that there was a pending criminal case and
an outstanding warrant against her.

The last witness for the defense was Socorro Manahan. She testified
that at around 9:00 in the evening of August 17, 1999, Lovinia Santero
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 16

along with two maids went to her house at No. 109 Scout Rallos St.,
Diliman, Quezon City to deliver finished laundry. She stayed there for
about an hour. Socorro Manahan identified the logbook kept by the
security personnel in her house confirming the fact that the accused actually
went to her place on the said occasion. She further testified that the
discrepancy in the logbook as to the time the accused arrived is attributed to
a possible error on the part of the security guard.

The defense did not present the two maids who were supposedly with
the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation and who executed a Joint
Affidavit to support the defense of the accused.

On May 7, 2002, the accused filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion (A) to

Reopen Case for Presentation of Additional Evidence; and (B) To Defer the
Promulgation scheduled on May 9, 2004.12 On May 8, 2002, the court a
quo issued an Order the dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to
wit:

“Wherefore, the Urgent Omnibus Motion – A) To Reopen Case

for Presentation of Additional Evidence; and B) To Defer the
Promulgation scheduled on 9 May 2002 is hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, the promulgation of the decision shall proceed as scheduled,
the original schedule of promulgation having been postponed upon the
instance of the accused.

SO ORDERED.”13

On May 9, 2002, the court a quo promulgated the assailed Decision,

the dispositive portion of which reads as follows, to wit:

12
Records, pp. 408-414
13
Records, p. 435
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 17

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the

accused, Lovinia Santero y Ronquillo a.k.a. Malou Padilla, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 15, RA 6425, as amended
by RA 7659, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay a FINE of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00).

The period within which the accused was detained at the City Jail
of Quezon City shall be credited to her in full as long as she agrees in
writing to abide by and follow strictly the rules and regulations of the said
institution.

The Court cannot order the forfeiture of the “shabu” because as

earlier stated in the decision, the same was lost due to robbery when the
case was about to be submitted for decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.”14

Aggrieved by the said Decision, accused interposed the present

appeal ascribing upon the court a quo the following errors, viz:

A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE ACCUSED-

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO REFER THE DRUG SPECIMEN
TO THE NBI FOR A QUANTITATIVE EXAMINATION
THEREOF, AS WELL AS IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE
CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
ALTOGETHER AFTER THE LOSS OF THE SAID SPECIMEN
– ALL IN BLATANT AND CALLOUS DISREGARD OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE

PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED WITH MORAL CERTAINTY OR BY PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, CONSIDERING THAT
THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES DID NOT ONLY GIVE

14
Records, pp. 451-452
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 18

PATENTLY CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, BUT ALSO

CONTRADICTED EACH OTHER.15

On the first assigned error, accused-appellant argues that he was

denied due process of law and basic fairness because the court a quo did
not give her an opportunity to disprove that the prosecution’s Exhibit “A”
actually contained methamphetamine hydrochloride and that the actual
content thereof exceeded the 200 gram threshold required under Republic
Act 7659 as would qualify the crime as a capital offense. Appellant
contends that the court a quo’s denial of her Motion to Refer Exhibit “A” to
the National Bureau of Investigation for a quantitative examination is a
denial of her right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in her behalf. She also argued
that the only way that she could disprove the veracity and truthfulness of
the findings of the forensic expert who conducted a qualitative examination
of the substance taken from her on the day of the buy-bust operation, is for
her to have the same examined by an expert of her choice, particularly
through a quantitative process of examination.

We are not in accord with the above contentions of the appellant for
the following reasons:

First. The substance offered as Exhibit “A” by the prosecution could

no longer be subjected to another examination for the reason that the same
was among the items stolen from the office of the court a quo on October
19, 2000. As per report of the court a quo to the Office of the Court
Administrator, the subject evidence was among those taken by the person/s
15
Rollo, p. 148
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 19

who perpetuated the robbery. Thus, it would be difficult to conduct another

examination of the subject substance.

Accused-appellant merely insisted on another examination by the

NBI of the substance after it was stolen. A review of the records would
show that appellant filed the Motion to Refer the Prosecution’s Exhibit “A”
to NBI for Analysis and Examination only on November 15, 2002 or after
October 19, 2000 the day the robbery of several evidence in the custody of
the court a quo took place.
Second. If indeed appellant would like to disprove the findings of
the forensic expert who conducted the examination of the substance by
subjecting the same to another examination by the NBI, she could have
requested for said re-examination at the earliest opportunity, such as the
time the substance as well as the report on its examination were presented
in evidence, or even prior thereto. However, no such request was ever
made by the defense.

She could also have made a similar request during the presentation of
her evidence. However, no such request was ever made by the appellant
until the evidence was stolen and when the request would then be
impossible to grant.

Additionally, at the time the evidence was stolen, the defense has
already rested its case without any manifestation to the court a quo that
appellant would request for a re-examination of the substance.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 20

Third. The result of the laboratory examination conducted by

P/Inspector Benjamin Cruto, Jr., a forensic chemist, on the sample taken
from the 974.3 grams of crystalline substance confiscated from appellant,
shows that the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
or “shabu”. Thus, if the prosecution was able to prove that the sample was
positive for methamphetamine hydrocloride or “shabu”, it can be presumed
that the entire substance was “shabu”. Hence, there is no need to examine
the whole specimen in order to determine the exact content of
methamphetamine hydrochloride in the entire substance as suggested by
appellant. If the prosecution proves that the sample is positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, it can be presumed that the entire
substance seized is shabu.16

Fourth. There was no evidence presented indicating that the

laboratory examination conducted on the specimen showing that it was
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, was erroneous. This fact, in
conjunction with the undisputed presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed, adequately established that the white crystalline
substance confiscated from appellant during the buy-bust operation was
indeed “shabu”.

Appellant’s claim that the case should have been dismissed after the
loss of specimen, must likewise fail.

The loss of the subject drug was due to a robbery that took place in
the lower court when the case was about to be terminated. Nonetheless,
before the robbery took place, the “shabu” had already been identified and
16
People vs. Zheng Bai Hui, 338 SCRA 420
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 21

marked in court as the same drug confiscated from appellant, and formally
offered by the prosecution when it rested its case. In short, the corpus
delicti had been ascertained and proven.

On the last assigned error, accused-appellant argues that the court a

quo erred in declaring that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant contends that the prosecution
witnesses did not only give conflicting statements but also contradicted each
other. Appellant, therefore, argues that by reason of the discrepancies and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

We do not agree.

Specifically, appellant points out to the alleged inconsistent

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PO3 Viray and SPO4 Jamisolamin
who both testified that they conducted a casing and surveillance operation
on the person of the appellant weeks prior to August 17, 1999, the day the
buy-bust operation took place. Appellant claims that said witnesses
testified that they only saw the accused-appellant for the first time on
August 17, 1999 which thus, renders the alleged surveillance operation
unbelievable. On this point, however, the witnesses clarified that while they
only saw for the first time accused-appellant on August 17, 1999, they were
already following her prior thereto driving the same vehicle that she used on
the night that she committed the crime and that they explained that they
never saw her face to face during the surveillance operation. This Court,
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 22

does not in any way find any inconsistencies in said testimonies of the
witnesses. Moreover, prior surveillance of the suspected offender is not
indispensable to the prosecution of drug cases.17

Accused-appellant also laments another alleged inconsistency on the

arrangement of the details of the buy-bust operation which was supposedly
planned on August 17, 1999 per the Affidavit of Arrest executed by the two
witnesses. Appellant contends that the witness for the prosecution, SPO4
Jamisolamin testified that the amount of the buy-bust money of P650,000.00
was prepared a few days before the buy-bust operation which, therefore,
cast doubt on the existence of the said buy-bust operation. This, according
to appellant, is inconsistent with the said affidavit of arrest.

We find no inconsistency or discrepancy on the said testimony of the

prosecution witness. The amount of P650,000.00 was raised by the police
authorities days prior to the buy-bust operation based on the prevailing
market value of the shabu at the time of the operation. Moreover, there is
nothing in the Affidavit of Arrest18 which would show that the details of the
buy-bust operation were only planned on August 17, 1999. Said affidavit of
arrest merely made mention of the details on who should act as poseur-
buyer and the events surrounding the buy-bust operation conducted on
August 17, 1999.

Finally, accused-appellant finds discrepancy in the testimony of the

poseur-buyer who testified that she was immediately introduced to the
appellant as the interested buyer of the shabu upon the latter’s arrival at the
17
People vs. Chen Tin Cheng, 375 SCRA 776
18
Exhibit “H”, prosecution, Record, p. 133.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 23

informant’s house. Appellant claims that PO2 Javier, the poseur-buyer

allegedly testified that she had to act as a helper in the house in order to
listen to the conversation between the appellant, the latter’s boyfriend and
the informant which took place in the room upstairs earlier in the afternoon
prior to the buy-bust operation. Such testimony, according to appellant,
contradicts her earlier statement that she was introduced as the buyer.
Again, there is nothing in the testimony of said witness which would show
that she acted as a helper. What she said was that she pretended to be
sweeping the stairs in order to eavesdrop on the conversation between the
accused and her boyfriend without creating any suspicion.

The above alleged inconsistencies are all collateral matters which do

not affect the prosecution witnesses’ credibility. Inconsistencies as to minor
details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses or
the veracity or weight of their testimonies.

Accused-appellant likewise questions the act of the court a quo in not

exerting efforts to use court processes in order for the civilian informant to
testify in court. On this point, We rule that there is no need to present the
informant in court because the prosecution witness who acted as poseur-
buyer has actually witnessed and adequately proved the crime committed by
the appellant. This was the ruling enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
case of People vs. Doria,19 that “there is no need to present the informant in
court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by
prosecution witnesses.” The presentation of an informant is not a requisite
in the prosecution of drug cases.20
19
301 SCRA 668
20
People vs. Cheng Ho Chua, 305 SCRA 28
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 24

Appellant also argues that the non-presentation of the amount of

P650,000.00 as the supposed payment for the shabu would show that the
police authorities merely fabricated the buy-bust operation. This Court,
however, rules that the failure to present the marked money is of no great
consequence – the Dangerous Drugs Law punishes the mere act of
delivering prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer
has been accepted by the prohibited drug seller.21 Moreover, the
presentation of the informant and the buy bust money are not indispensable
to the prosecution of drug cases.22

During the trial, the prosecution witnesses, who were members of the
buy-bust team that entrapped appellant on August 17, 1999, testified on the
material events that transpired in the buy-bust operation.

PO2 Margie Javier, the poseur-buyer, testified that before appellant

was entrapped in the evening of August 17, 1999, she and a male
companion first counted the show money of P650,000.00 in the house of the
confidential informant. Appellant returned in the evening to deliver the
“shabu” and was arrested. PO2 Javier testified on the full details of the buy-
bust operation:

Q: Now, when you arrived at 12th Avenue, Quezon City, what did
you do?

A: We alighted from the car and SPO3 Viray knocked at the door of
our confidential informant, sir.

21
People vs. Fabro, 325 SCRA 285
22
People vs. Chen Tin Cheng, 325 SCRA 776
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 25

Q: And what happened when you alighted from the car and SPO3
Viray knocked at the door of your confidential informant?
A: Our informant alighted to enter the house and SPO3 Viray told
our informant that the money was already with me.

Q: So, after SPO3 Viray told your confidential informant that the
money was already with you, what happened next?

A: We were asked to sit down by our confidential informant and he

made a call thru his cellphone and I heard from that phone call
that our CI will be waiting for the subject because the subject had
still to have her car fixed or repaired in Kamuning.

XXX XXX XXX

Q: After staying for 1 hour, what happened next?

A: Malou Padilla arrived at the house as she had promised.

Q: How do you know that it was Malou Padilla who arrived at 4:00
o’clock in the afternoon?

A: Because she was the person that we were waiting for and the CI
told me that she was the person.

Q: When she arrived at the house, what did you do?

A: When she arrived at the house, I pretended that I was washing my

hands at the lavatory and then I saw them walking proceeding
upstairs.

Q: When you saw the CI and Malou Padilla were going upstairs,
what did you do?

A: I got a broom and went upstairs and pretended to be sweeping the

stairs so that I could hear what were they talking about.

Q: And what did you hear about?

A: I heard someone said, “What is this kind of money, they are P50
bills and P100 bills, they are hard to count.”

XXX XXX XXX

Q: How long did you stay upstairs?

A: For 3 minutes because they might see me going downstairs, sir.

CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 26

Q: So, after 3 minutes, what did you do?

A: I sat and waited at the sofa and I waited for them to go

downstairs.

XXX XXX XXX

Q: So, when these three persons, the confidential informant, Malou

Padilla and the man went downstairs, what did you do?

A: I remained seated on the sofa and then I heard Malou Padilla

saying “we should go to Tutuban Center para magpalitan” but our
CI told us that that is not possible because a policeman might
arrest us.

Q: What was the reaction of your confidential informant when

Malou told her that?

A: The man was the first one to react and our CI refused and told us
that we will not bring out the money.

Q: What did Malou Padilla and her companion say when your CI
told them about not bringing out the money?

A: The man uttered: “Ma, huwag na,” then Malou Padilla said:
“Okey, we will be leaving.”

XXX XXX XXX

Q: For how long did you seat (sic) and watched TV?

A: We watched TV for around five (5) hours, from 6:00 until she
arrived at 10:30 in the evening.

Q: When you say they arrived at 10:30 P.M., to whom are you
referring to, this (sic) persons who arrived?

A: They were three (3) women, two of which were addressing Malou
“ate”.

Q: After these three women arrived at the house, what happened

next?

A: She invited us to her car to inspect the shabu which was inside the
car.
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 27

Q: And did you accede to her information?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And where was this located?

A: In front of the house at No. 45 12th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao,

Quezon City.

XXX XXX XXX

Q: When you arrived at the place where her car was parked, what did
you do?

A: She showed to me the bag where the shabu was placed, sir.

XXX XXX XXX23

PO2 Margie Javier’s exhaustive testimony was corroborated on all

material points by the testimony of SPO3 Ernesto Viray who was a member
of the buy-bust team. On the other hand, the testimony of P/Supt. Telesforo
Abastillas corroborated the testimonies of PO2 Javier and SPO4 Viray that
a buy-bust operation was conducted and that he coordinated with his men
during said operation.

Credence is given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution

witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner. There was no evidence
presented by the defense to prove that the prosecution witnesses were
inspired by improper motives or that they were not properly performing
their duties.

23
TSN, February 7, 2000 Prosecution Evidence
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 28

Against the positive declarations of the police officers who

conducted the buy-bust operation, appellant could only interpose the
defense of denial and alibi which can be easily concocted and is a common
and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. It is a weak defense and cannot overcome the
positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. For the defense of alibi
to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place
at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity.
In the present case, appellant failed to prove that it was physically
impossible for her to be at the crime scene at the time the crime was
committed. The trial court noted that Kamuning, Quezon City was near to
Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City. Hence, the trial court’s ruling:

“To the charge against her, the accused interposed the defense of
denial and alibi and invoked that she was a victim of `hulidap’. These
defenses are generally looked with disfavor because they are easy to
concoct and are considered standard defense ploy in most prosecution for
violation of the dangerous drugs law. Furthermore, the defense of denial
is a weak defense and cannot overcome the positive and credible
testimony of the prosecution witness/poseur-buyer. Denials, if
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative self-
serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given
evidentiary weight over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify
on affirmative matters. That the accused claimed that she went to deliver
finished dry cleaned laundry to a customer in Kamuning, Quezon City
cannot disprove the fact that she was at the informant’s house about an
hour after the delivery. Thus, she cannot claim that it was physically
impossible for her to have been at Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City at the
time the drug deal took place because the two places are near to each
other. Besides, the accused testified that she was at the customer’s place
at 9:00 o’clock in the evening while the poseur-buyer testified that the
accused arrived at 10:00 o’clock in the evening, hence, it is but logical to
conclude that the accused first went to Kamuning and then proceeded to
Cubao, Quezon City. For alibi to prosper, the accused must not only
prove that he was not at the crime scene but it was also physically
impossible for him to have been present there at the time the offense was
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 29

committed. Basic is the rule that alibi which is easy to concoct, cannot
prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses who were not
shown to have been ill-motivated to testify against the accused. Neither
could the defense of frame-up or `hulidap’ by the police officers be
countenanced in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the
police officers had other motives behind the arrest of the accused. Frame-
up, often imputed to police officers, requires strong proof when offered as
a defense, because of the presumption that public officers acted in the
regular performance of their official duties.”24

The courts are not unaware of the observation that in drug-related

cases, the defense of frame-up coupled with “hulidap” operation is often
raised. Without any proof shown, the defense’s allegation of extortion
allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully
interposed.25

Foregoing discussed, We find no error on the part of the court a quo

in convicting the accused of the crime charged.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Accordingly, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

24
Records, pp. 449-450
25
People vs. Chua, 363 SCRA 562
CA-G.R. CR NO. 00363
DECISION Page 30

WE CONCUR:

ROMEO A. BRAWNER MAGDANGAL M. DE LEON

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.

ROMEO A. BRAWNER
Associate Justice
Chairman, Ninth Division