G.R. No. 128046 March 7, 2000
Facts: Accused-appellant Chua Uy was convicted of drug pushing and possession in three separate cases filed against him for violation of Sections 15 and 16 of Article III, R.A. No. 6425, as amended. Accused was arrested during a buy-bust operation for the illegal sale of 5.8564 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,” and possession of 401 grams of the same drug.
After obtaining a tip from an informant regarding the accused illegal activity a team from the Anti-Narcotics Division planned an entrapment operation where one of the police officers will act as a poseur-buyer. The sale was consummated and the police yielded more packets of shabu from the attaché case of the appellant. Appellant was arrested and brought to the police station. Subsequent search in his house yielded more packets of the illegal substance. The appellant’s version tells that on that same evening, he just got home from tending to his garments business and was carrying a large amount of money, P132,000 to be exact from his collections for the sales of the day. He said that he saw a white Toyota car outside his residence, the same being offered to him for sale. He allegedly refused but agreed to test-drive the said car. It was then that he was allegedly stopped by the police and was ordered to give up his attaché case and forcible taken to the police station. It was there that he was accused that said case contained the illegal substance.
The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s evidence and testimony of witnesses despite the non-presentation of the NBI forensics chemist who tested and confirmed that substance found in the accused possession is indeed shabu. The accused interposed the defense of frame-up and alleged that the evidence was merely ‘planted.’
Issue: Whether or not the evidence is hearsay and should not have been admitted?
(CLICK READ ME TO READ MORE)
Held: It may at once be noted that neither accused nor his counsel made express admission that the contents of the plastic bags to “be marked” as Exhibits contain methamphetamine hydrochloride. Based on the joint order, it is clear that accused and his counsel merely agreed to the marking of the exhibits, and the clause “thereby dispensing with the testimony of forensic Chemist Bravo. The admission cannot be used in evidence against him because the Joint Order was not signed. Nevertheless, RAMON cannot take advantage of the absence of his and his counsel’s signatures on the pre-trial order. When the prosecution formally offered in evidence what it had marked in evidence during the pre-trial, Chua Uy did not object to the admission of Bravo’s Preliminary Report.
In addition to the foregoing admission by the accused of the prosecution’s exhibits, he likewise never raised in issue before the trial court the non-presentation of Forensic Chemist Bravo. He cannot now raise it for the first time on appeal. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.
The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the inadmissibility of certain documents upon the ground of hearsay if not urged before the court below cannot, for the first time, be raised on appeal. Finally, as to the reports of Forensic Chemist Bravo, it must be stressed that as an NBI Forensic Chemist, Bravo is a public officer, and his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and duty.
In Criminal Case No. 16199-MN, the prosecution’s evidence more than proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money successfully consummated the “buy-bust” transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. There is also no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN was proven beyond reasonable doubt since accused knowingly carried with him more than 400 grams of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation. Decision of CA affirmed in toto.
On Validity of the Buy Bust
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan; it is a procedure or operation sanctioned by law and which has consistently proved itself to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, and unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimony on the operation deserved full faith and credit.18 As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be 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, unless there be evidence to the contrary; moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.
The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Moreover, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses yields no basis to overturn the trial court’s findings on their credibility. As correctly noted by the trial court, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. RAMON has not even tried to suggest any ulterior motive.
The court is convinced that an honest- to- goodness entrapment operation was conducted by the team composed of the local Anti-Narcotics Unit’s Chief himself who led it.
RAMON’s negative testimony must necessarily fail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially when it comes from the mouth of credible witness.