EN BANC

[G.R. No. 125025. January 23, 2002]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BALTAZAR

BONGALON y MATEOS, accused-appellant.

DECISION
PER CURIAM:

This case involves the unlawful sale of 250.70 grams of Methamphetamine

Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
The crime was allegedly committed as follows:i
That on or about the 8th day of December 1994, in the Municipality of Paraaque,
Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused (Baltazar Bongalon), not being lawfully authorized by law, and
by means of motor vehicle, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
deliver and give away to another, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag/sachet
containing brown crystalline substance weighing 250.70 grams, which was found
positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (emphases ours)
When arraigned, the accused pled not guilty. ii Trial ensued.
The prosecution presented the following witnesses, to wit: (1) PO3 Noel Castaeto,
the poseur-buyer; (2) PO3 Rogelio Galos, member of the buy-bust operation team; and
(3) Police Senior Inspector Julita de Villa, the forensic chemist. The presentation of PO2
Felipe Metrillo, member of the buy-bust team, was dispensed with after the prosecution
and the defense had stipulated at the trial that he would merely corroborate the testimony
of PO3 Galos.
The prosecution evidence reveals that in the morning of December 7, 1994, a
confidential informant reported to the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) in Camp Ricardo Papa, Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila, that a
certain Baldo (the accused) was engaged in selling shabu, a regulated drug. Police Senior
Inspector Franklin Moises Mabanag immediately formed a buy-bust operation team with
PO3 Noel Castaeto as the poseur-buyer and PO3 Rogelio Galos and PO2 Felipe Metrillo
as members.iii
That same day, the confidential informant contacted the accused through a mobile
phone and introduced PO3 Castaeto to him as a friend who wanted to buy shabu. The
accused and PO3 Castaeto negotiated the terms of the transaction over the mobile
phone. PO3 Castaeto told the accused that he needed 250 grams of shabu. The accused
pegged the cost at P1,000/gram of shabu, for a total sum of P250,000.00. The accused
then instructed PO3 Castaeto to call the following morning to confirm the sale.iv
P/Sr. Insp. Mabanag briefed the buy-bust operation team members on their
respective roles in the sting and gave to PO3 Castaeto two (2) P500.00 bills bearing serial
numbers BT423424 and BQ352570 and five (5) bundles of boodle money to be used as
buy-bust money. P03 Castaeto affixed his signature at the bottom right corner of each bill
for identification purposes.v They placed one genuine P500.00 bill on top, and another
one at the bottom, of the boodle money. The bundles were first secured with money straps
with markings P50,000.00, United Coconut Planters Bank and wrapped in a transparent
plastic then placed inside a brown envelope.vi
At 9:00 a.m., December 8, 1994, PO3 Castaeto talked again to the accused through
the mobile phone to confirm if their transaction would push through. The appellant told
him that they would meet at 3:30 p.m. that same day, near the Burger Machine stall along
Doa Soledad in Better Living, Paraaque.vii
PO3 Castaetos team and the confidential informant arrived at the designated place
at 3:00 p.m. using a private vehicle. He and the confidential informant parked their car
near the Burger Machine stall and waited for the accused to arrive. P03 Galos and P02
Metrillo, on the other hand, parked just a few meters behind the car used by PO3
Castaeto.viii
At 3:30 p.m., the red Nissan Sentra sedan driven by the accused, with plate No. TPL
488, parked in front of the car of PO3 Castaeto. The accused was alone. The confidential
informant and PO3 Castaeto approached the Nissan Sentra and talked to the accused.
After a brief conversation, the accused asked for the money. PO3 Castaeto showed him
the buy-bust money.ix Satisfied, the accused immediately handed over to PO3 Castaeto a
package wrapped in a newspaper. After PO3 Castaeto had checked out that the package
contained the suspected regulated substance, he gave the pre-arranged signal to his
team by waiving his hand. The back-up team members immediately announced that they
were NARCOM agents and arrested the accused.x They informed the accused of his
constitutional rights and brought him to Camp Papa for investigation.xi
On December 9, 1995, the confiscated substance was brought to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.xii P/Sr. Insp. Julita de Villa,
forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Services, conducted a physical, chemical
and chromatographic examination on the substance to determine the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The result is as follows:xiii
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
Exh. A- One (1) light blue China Station bag containing one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic bag marked as Exh. A-1 with 250.70 grams of brown
crystalline substance. xxx
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION:
To determine the presence of prohibited and/or regulated drug.
 FINDINGS:
Qualitative examinations conducted on the above-stated specimen gave
POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu).
P/Sr. Insp. De Villa testified that the package containing the shabu was completely
sealed when she received it and she was the one who opened it to examine its contents.xiv
For its part, the defense presented the accused himself, Baltazar Bongalon. He tried
to refute the claim of the prosecution witnesses that he was alone when the NARCOM
agents arrested him for the alleged unlawful sale of shabu. Allegedly, the buy-bust
operation was bogus and the NARCOM agents framed him for extortion.
The accused testified that in the morning of December 8, 1994, he was cleaning his
house in United Paraaque. Just before noon that same day, his brother, Melchor
Bongalon, arrived and told him that their friend, Boyet, rang him and asked to tell the
accused to return the Sega tapes he borrowed. Boyet, whose real name is Juancho
Tangsengco, lives in Syria Street, Better Living Subdivision, Paraaque. Melchor
Bongalon, on the other hand, lives in Tondo, Manila.xv
As the accused had previously planned to take his then 4-year old son, Mark Anthony,
to Star City, he decided to go to Better Living at 2:00 p.m. to return the Sega tapes first.
Melchor allegedly accompanied the accused and his son to Boyets house. They used the
red Nissan Sentra sedan owned by their sister.xvi The accused was at the drivers seat,
Melchor was at the passenger side in front and Mark Anthony was at the back. He passed
via Doa Soledad and Russia Streets. While cruising along Russia Street, he slowed down
a bit because he had to turn right to United Nations Street. Suddenly, about eight (8) men
in civilian clothes bearing armalite automatic rifles and .45 caliber firearms intercepted
him.xvii (He learned later that the armed men were NARCOM agents led by PO3 Castaeto).
The firearms were pointed at the car he was driving. He rolled down the cars window and
asked what his violation was and if they had a warrant of arrest against him. They ignored
him and instead, ordered them to get out of the car. He persisted in verifying what his
violation was but did not get any reply from them. Thereafter, they were ordered to board
the car again. Two (2) men boarded his carPO3 Galos sat at his left side, taking the
drivers seat, while the other sat at his right sideand sandwiched him. PO3 Castaeto and
PO2 Metrillo also boarded the car and sat at the back seats, beside Melchor and Mark
Anthony. The rest of the arresting team headed towards their vehicle.xviii
The accused and his alleged companions were taken to Camp Papa for investigation.
When told that he was carrying shabu in his car, he asked if he could see the substance.
Allegedly, the NARCOM agents refused. After the investigation, P/Sr. Insp. Mabanag
asked him if they could go to their house to check if he stashed any shabu in his house.
He agreed.xix They reached his house in United Paraaque by 7:00 p.m. that same night.
About seven (7) policemen entered his house. PO3 Galos was left in the car to guard him
and his son. His brother, Melchor, was left in the custody of NARCOM in Camp Papa.xx
Fifteen (15) minutes later, the police let the accused and his son enter their house as
the NARCOM agents continued searching his house. His wife and his son were seated
beside him in the living room. His wife asked for a search warrant which elicited a cold
reply from the NARCOM agents that it was not necessary (hindi na uso yon). The search
lasted for two (2) hours and yielded negative results. The NARCOM agents tried to take
the wife of the accused to Camp Papa, but she became hysterical. They left her behind
and instead brought the accused and his son back to the camp.xxi
At Camp Papa, the accuseds son was handed over to Melchor as the accused was
brought to another room. It was already late in the evening when his mother arrived at the
camp. His son and his brother were allowed to leave with his mother.xxii
The accused claimed that the NARCOM agents were trying to extort money from
them but he told his mother not to report the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation
because he feared for his life. He also alleged that several agents had threatened him
that P/Sr. Insp. Mabanag would kill if the latter could not get what he wanted. He accused
them of manhandling him. He allegedly sustained abrasions and contusions, but the
NARCOM agents denied his request for a medical treatment.xxiii
On December 13, 1995, he was brought to Camp Crame in Quezon City. Again, he
requested for medical treatment. His request was also denied because, according to the
police, he already had a medical certificate, referring to the one that was taken before he
was mauled.xxiv
The accused denied that he talked to the confidential informant and to PO3 Castaeto
at 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 1994. He claimed they could not have talked to him because
he did not own a mobile phone and he did not have a telephone in his house. Allegedly,
at that time, he was driving the red Nissan Sentra along MIA Road which he borrowed
from his sister. He also denied that he gave the shabu to or received any money from
PO3 Castaeto because he did not know the latter or any of the NARCOM agents prior to
his arrest. He insisted that he was intercepted at the corner of Russia and United Nations
Streets, and not along Doa Soledad. He could not, however, think of any reason why they
did so. Allegedly, except for Boyet, no one knew that he was going to Boyets house in
Syria Street. He claimed he would lodge a complaint against the arresting officers for his
unlawful arrest and the illegal search of his house once his case is finished.
Thereafter, with the courts approval, the defense and the prosecution stipulated that,
if called on the stand, the following witnesses, to wit: (1) Melchor Bongalon, brother of the
accused; (2) Nonoy Ducca, a construction worker who allegedly witnessed the arrest of
the accused; (3) Hilda Capuslanan, housemaid of the Bongalons; and (4) Marcela
Bongalon, wife of the accused, would testify as follows:
Melchor Bongalon would testify that, on December 8, 1994, he went to the house of
the accused and told the latter to return the Sega tapes that the accused borrowed from
their friend, Boyet; that he and the son of the accused accompanied the latter in going to
Boyets house in Better Living, Paraaque; that NARCOM agents intercepted their vehicle
at the corner of Ethi(o)pia Street and Doa Soledad Avenue; that there were no prohibited
drugs taken from the accused; that they were brought to the NARCOM office in Bicutan
and that in the evening of December 8, 1994, the NARCOM agents went to the house of
the accused.xxv
Nonoy Ducca would testify that at about 3:00 p.m., on December 8, 1994, he was
taking a snack along Russia Street in Better Living, Paraaque; that he was a worker at a
nearby construction site; that he noticed armed men pointing their firearms at a vehicle
and they forced its occupants to alight; that the occupants of the vehicle were asked again
to board the same and one (1) of the armed men took the wheel and sped away; that he
was twenty (20) meters away from the incident and that he recognized the driver of the
vehicle who was intercepted by the armed men.xxvi
Hilda Capuslanan would testify that on the night the accused was arrested, the
NARCOM agents went to the house of the accused and ransacked the same; that they
returned to the house of the accused on December 10, 1994 and did the same thing and
that a case was then filed against the NARCOM agents before the PLEB.xxvii
Marcela Bongalon, the wife of the accused, would testify that on December 8, 1994,
at about 7:00 p.m., she was in their house when her husband, the accused, and the
NARCOM agents arrived; that the NARCOM agents ransacked their house and took their
personal belongings; that said officers returned on December 10, 1994 and did the same
thing but she was not around at that time; that on December 8, 1994, Melchor Bongalon
came to inform the accused to return the Sega tapes and that her son, the accused and
Melchor Bongalon left their house after lunch.xxviii
Finally, the defense presented as documentary exhibits the sketches of the scene of
the incident prepared by PO3 Castaeto, PO3 Galos and the accused, marked as Exhibits
1, 2 and 3, respectively. Thereafter, the defense rested its case.
After the trial, the trial court found the accused guilty as charged. He was sentenced
to suffer the death penalty and ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. The dispositive
portion of its decisionxxix reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding the
accused BALTAZAR BONGALON y MATEOS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of Violation of Section 15, Article III, of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659,
Section 15 in relation to number 3 Section 20 thereof, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
the supreme penalty of DEATH and to pay a fine of ONE MILLION (P1,000,000.00)
PESOS and to pay the costs.
The Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) confiscated from the accused is
ordered forfeited in favor of the Government and the Clerk of Court is directed without
delay to turn over said item to the Dangerous Drug Board.
SO ORDERED.
The accused filed a Notice of Appeal.xxx Thereafter, he filed a Motion for
Reconsideration/New Trial to present additional witnesses that included his 4-year old
son, Mark Anthony.xxxi The motion was denied by the trial court on the ground that the
additional witnesses he offered to present were available during the trial proper of the
case.xxxii Subsequently, the accused filed several motions,xxxiii including a motion to inhibit,xxxiv
but they were all denied. The trial court ordered the transmittal of the records of the case
to this Court for automatic review.xxxv
In the meantime, the accused filed a MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL with this Court. xxxvi
Pursuant to our directive, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment.xxxvii After
considering their pleadings, we denied the motion for new trial for lack of merit.xxxviii The
accuseds motion for reconsideration was also denied.xxxix Finally, the appellant and the
Solicitor General filed their respective briefs.xl
The appellant contends that:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
IN RULING THAT THERE WAS A BUY-BUST OPERATION CONDUCTED BY THE
NARCOM AGENTS AGAINST BONGALON AND THAT IT WAS A VALID ONE.
A. THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES NOEL
CASTAETO AND ROGELIO GALOS ON THE BUY-BUST OPERATION
AGAINST BONGALON ARE NOT CREDIBLE.
B. THE EVENTS AS BORNE OUT BY THE RECORDS OF THE CASE
BELIE THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID BUY-BUST OPERATION.
C. THERE WAS NO SHABU CONFISCATED FROM BONGALON AT THE
TIME OF HIS UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST.
D. THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF BONGALON IS (sic) UNLAWFUL
AND THE TWO SEARCHES MADE ON HIS HOUSE ARE (sic) ALSO
UNLAWFUL.
E. THERE WAS NO BUY-BUST OPERATION BUT ONLY A PLAN TO
EXTORT MONEY FROM BONGALON AND HIS FAMILY AND ROB THEM OF
THEIR VALUABLES.
F. THE PRESENCE OF MELCHOR BONGALON AND MARK ANTHONY
BONGALON AT THE TIME OF THE WARRANTLESS ARREST OF
BONGALON BELIE THE CLAIM OF THE NARCOM AGENTS THAT
BONGALON WAS DEALING SHABU AT THE TIME OF SUCH ARREST.
G. THE TESTIMONY OF BONGALON IS CREDIBLE BECAUSE IT WAS
GIVEN IN A STRAIGHTFORWARD MANNER.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING BONGALON OF THE VIOLATION OF
SECTION 15, ARTICLE III, R.A. 6425, AS AMENDED BY R.A. 7659.
A. THE SHABU ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED FROM BONGALON AT THE
TIME OF HIS UNLAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST IS INADMISSIBLE AS
EVIDENCE.
B. THE ACTS OF THE NARCOM AGENTS CONSTITUTE INSTIGATION
RATHER THAN AN ENTRAPMENT.
C. THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III. THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE
INHIBITED HIMSELF FROM FURTHER HANDLING THE CASE IN ORDER THAT
BONGALONS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION/NEW TRIAL SHOULD HAVE
BEEN RESOLVED BY A NEUTRAL AND IMPARTIAL JUDGE.
IV.THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE APPROVED THE CONDUCT OF A NEW
TRIAL IN ORDER THAT THE FACTS EVIDENCING THE EXTORTION AND ROBBERY
PLAN OF MABANAG AND HIS MEN COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE GUILT OF BONGALON.
V. THE PENALTY OF DEATH AND FINE OF P1 MILLION IMPOSED BY THE
HONORABLE COURT ON BONGALON ARE NOT THE PROPER PENALTIES TO BE
 IMPOSED.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court, with modification as to the fine imposed.
The appeal hangs mainly on the alleged lack of credibility of the prosecution
witnesses and the frame-up-for-extortion theory.
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary.xli
To discredit the NARCOM agents involved in the buy-bust operation, the appellant
points to certain facts that would allegedly prove that the operation was bogus, to wit:
(1) There was no prior transaction between him and the poseur-buyer for him to
immediately trust and do business with the latter, particularly when it involved a huge
quantity of shabu.
(2) The meeting place chosen, Doa Soledad Street, was very risky for a drug-dealer
because it is a very busy street where people could easily observe and report to the police
the exchange of shabu for money and the counting of money.
(3) The NARCOM agents did not take certain measures in the conduct of the buy-
bust operation, namely: (a) the buy-bust operation was not entered in NARCOMs blotter
to prove that such plan exists; (b) there was no documentary proof that the informant and
the poseur-buyer transacted with him through his mobile phone; (c) and despite the fact
that the NARCOM agents had ample time to prepare for the operation, the buy-bust
money was not treated with ultra-violet powder, thus, there was no fool-proof evidence of
his receipt of the money.
(4) The NARCOM agents who conducted the buy-bust operation committed material
inconsistencies in their testimonies, particularly on the following: (a) the respective
positions of their cars during the operation and how many vehicles were actually used;
and (b) the buy-bust money used.
(5) It was inconsistent with human behavior for him (the appellant) not to count the
money at the time of the exchange since he had no prior transaction with the poseur-
buyer and, conversely, for the poseur-buyer to just touch the package and conclude that
it was shabu.
(6) In his Affidavit, PO3 Castaeto stated that the operation in Doa Soledad was
planned on December 7, 1994, however, in his testimony in court, he claimed that the
meeting place and time was only set on December 8, 1994.
(7) He was not alone during the arrest, thus negating the NARCOM agents claim that
he was dealing drugs at that time.
The factual issues raised by the appellant would not exculpate him.
At the outset, bare denials cannot prevail over the positive identification by the
prosecution witnesses of the appellant as the person who was in possession of, and who
delivered the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to the poseur-buyer.xlii The
prosecution witnesses, namely, PO3 Castaeto and PO3 Galos, testified that the Narcotics
Command in Camp Ricardo Papa in Taguig received a report from an informant that the
appellant was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu. Acting on the said tip, PO3 Castaeto
was designated by P/Sr. Insp. Mabanag to lead the buy-bust operation team against the
appellant. With the informants help, PO3 Castaeto negotiated with the appellant the
possible purchase of 250 grams of shabu for P250,000.00. The next day, PO3 Castaeto
called the appellant to confirm if their transaction would push through and the latter agreed
to deliver the subject 250 grams of shabu. The appellant set their meeting place and time.
As PO3 Castaeto did not know the appellant before the buy-bust operation, the informant
accompanied him to the meeting place. The informant identified the red Nissan Sentra
sedan driven by the appellant. It parked right in front of their car. The informant and PO3
Castaeto approached the appellant, had a brief conversation with the latter and, upon his
request, showed him the money. The appellant gave the package containing the shabu
to PO3 Castaeto upon receiving the boodle money. The sale of the shabu was
consummated. PO3 Castaeto then gave the pre-arranged signal by waiving his left hand
to the other members of the buy-bust team who immediately apprehended the appellant.
Clearly, the appellant was arrested by virtue of a valid buy-bust operation.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and
capturing felons in the execution of their criminal plan. The operation is sanctioned by law
and has consistently proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers.
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
testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.xliii
We reject the frame-up theory of the appellant. It is incredible. The appellant did not
offer any satisfactory explanation on why the NARCOM agents would single him out from
among the many vehicles that passed via Doa Soledad and Russia Streets on that
particular day just to frame him up and extort money from him. The records show that
there was no prior surveillance conducted against the appellant. No evidence was
presented if the NARCOM agents knew before his arrest that he could give a huge sum
of money for the agents alleged extortion activity. What was established was that PO3
Castaeto became aware of the appellants illegal trade only a day before the buy-bust
operation. In fact, the informant had to introduce first PO3 Castaeto to the appellant before
the said poseur-buyer managed to negotiate the shabu deal with him. Even the appellant
admitted that he did not know the NARCOM agents prior to his arrest. There was,
therefore, no motive for them to frame him up. Without proof of motive to falsely impute
such a serious crime against an accused, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses
shall prevail over the appellants claim of having been framed.xliv
Even the claim that the appellant went to Better Living Subdivision in Paraaque to
return the Sega tapes to his friend, Boyet, is unbelievable. In these times of electronic
gizmos, the appellant would like us to believe that his brother, Melchor, came all the way
from his house in Tondo just to tell him that Boyet, whose house was just a few minutes
away from the appellants, would like to have his Sega tapes back. Although the appellant
denied that he owned a mobile phone or a phone landline in his house, he admitted he
has a pager. Inexplicably, Boyet opted to contact Melchor to relay the message to the
appellant instead of just relaying it straight to the latter. The same holds true for Melchor,
assuming that he did go to the appellants house.
We note, too, that despite the claim that Melchor was also in the car during the buy-
bust operation, Melchor was inexplicably not charged in court along with his brother, the
appellant. More perplexing is the allegation that the NARCOM agents would also take the
appellants 4-year old son in Camp Papa while the latter was under investigation and, after
they had searched his house, the NARCOM agents again took the child to Camp Papa
and not leave the child with his mother. To be sure, the appellants scenario was so
contrived that it goes against standard human behavior and experience.
As shown in the records, the prosecution has established with moral certainty all the
elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, namely, (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration, and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The use of dusted money is not indispensable
to prove the illegal sale of shabu. In fact, the absence of marked money does not create
a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided that the prosecution has adequately
proved the sale.xlv Moreover, the fact that the appellant did not count the money first when
he gave the shabu to PO3 Castaeto does not necessarily mean that the buy-bust
operation was a sham. The NARCOM agent explained that after showing the boodle
money with the genuine P500 bills to the appellant, the latter was satisfied that he readily
gave the package of shabu to the former. The trial court correctly believed the NARCOM
agent. We are convinced that what actually took place during the operation was, in street
parlance, a kaliwaan. There was nothing unusual about how the said transaction was
consummated. It was done hurriedlythe giving of the shabu upon receipt of the
moneyprecisely because the place of the exchange was a busy street and it would arouse
the suspicion of bystanders and passersby if the appellant would be seen counting a huge
sum of money.
For his exculpation, the appellant also points out that it was only in the morning of
December 8, 1994 when PO3 Castaeto got the information on the price of the shabu and
the place and time of the delivery. Thus, it was allegedly incredible that P/Sr. Insp.
Mabanag could already organize the buy-bust team on December 7, 1994 and give
details about the operation to be held in Doa Soledad on December 8, 1994. The
appellant also focuses on certain inconsistencies in the sketchesxlvi drawn by PO3
Castaeto and PO3 Galos as to where they parked their respective cars and how many
were used during the operation.
The appellant fails to persuade us. The records show that the December 8
conversation between the appellant and PO3 Castaeto was just a confirmation of their
agreement regarding the sale of the shabu. Prior to that, the confidential informant had
been talking to PO3 Castaetos superior officer, P/Sr. Insp. Mabanag, regarding the illegal
trade of the appellant and, on account of such report and the initial negotiations between
the appellant and PO3 Castaeto, the buy-bust team was formed and briefed accordingly.xlvii
As for the locations of the vehicles used by the NARCOM agents when it parked along
Doa Soledad Street, such is a trivial matter that would not affect the their credibility. Such
a minor inconsistency strengthens, rather than weakens, the credibility of the witnesses
as it erases any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.xlviii We deemed it more important that
the prosecution witnesses testimonies tallied on material points.
The appellant also cannot assail the validity of his arrest on account of the absence
of a warrant. He was caught in flagrante delictoxlix selling shabu.l There was, therefore, no
need for a warrant to effect his arrest pursuant to Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal procedure.li Said section provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest, without warrant; when lawfulA peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
xxx
xxx
xxx.
Moreover, the rule is that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his
arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment.
Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of
jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.lii Even in the instances not allowed by law, a
warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto is waived where the
person arrested submits to arraignment without objection. The subsequent filing of the
charges and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest against a person illegally
detained will cure the defect of that detention.liii
Next, the appellant claims that the search conducted in his house was unlawful. He
also laments that the NARCOM agents robbed him of his personal properties during the
search and they received money from his relatives after his arrest. This Court need not
tarry on the validity of the said search for the appellant consented to the search. He
admitted that he voluntarily accompanied the policemen to his house. liv As for the charges
of robbery and extortion, as in the alleged unlawful search made in his house, those
incidents transpired after his arrest. Whether true or not, his liability for the unlawful sale
of shabu remains.
As we have earlier stated, the appellants denial cannot prevail over the positive
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception that, in
some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract
information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has
been viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be concocted, hence, commonly
used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of
law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis
of the policemens alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense
which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption
that official duty has been regularly performed exists.lv
The third and fourth issues need not be discussed at length as the same were already
passed upon by this Court when it denied the appellants Motion for New Trial for lack of
merit.lvi We reiterate that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.
Section 14, Rule 124 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:
Sec. 14. Motion for new trial.At any time after the appeal from the lower court has
been perfected and before the judgment of the appellate court convicting the accused
becomes final, the latter may move for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence material to his defense, the motion to conform to the provisions of Section 4,
Rule 121.
A motion for new trial must be based on newly discovered evidence, lvii that is, the
following must concur: (a) the evidence is discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could
not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable
diligence; and (c) the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching and of such weight that, if admitted, could probably change the judgment. As
aptly stated by the trial court, the testimony of the witness sought to be presented would
serve only as impeaching and corroborative evidence. A new trial is justifiably denied
where only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already
passed upon the issue of credibility at the trial and where only corroborative evidence is
to be offered as it would not change the result of the case.lviii
The fifth issue refers to the correctness of the death penalty imposed against the
appellant. To avoid any injustice, we re-read the voluminous records of the case. We find
that the records support the findings of the trial court.
Section 15 of Republic Act No. 7659 provides:
Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and
Distribution of Regulated Drugs.The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute any regulated drug.
xxx
xxx
xxx.
Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No. 6425 was amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659.
It now provides as follows:
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of Proceeds or
Instrument of the Crime.The penalties for offenses under xxx Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and
16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the
following quantities:
xxx
xxx
xxx
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
xxx
xxx
xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty
 shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.
It was established that the appellant sold 250.70 grams of shabu. The crime,
according to the Information, was committed with the aggravating circumstance of use of
motor vehicle.lix It has been established that the appellant used a car in going to their
meeting place and to transport the subject substance thus facilitating the commission of
the crime.lx There was no mitigating circumstance. Applying Section 15 in relation to
Section 20 of R.A. No. 7659 and Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of
death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 should be imposed upon
the appellant. Considering the quantity of the shabu involved in the case at bar, the fine
of P1,000,000.00 is reduced to P500,000.00.lxi
Four (4) members of the Court maintain their position that R.A. No. 7659, insofar as
it prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling
of the Court, by a majority vote, that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty
should be imposed accordingly.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque (Branch
258) in Criminal Case No. 95-0973, sentencing appellant Baltazar Bongalon y Mateos to
death for violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, is AFFIRMED,
with modification that the fine imposed shall be reduced to P500,000.00. Costs against
the appellant.
Pursuant to Section 25 of R.A. No. 7659, amending Section 83 of the Revised Penal
Code, upon finality of this Decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to
the Office of the President for possible exercise of pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and
Carpio, JJ., concur.

i
Information, dated December 20, 1994, Original Records, vol. 1, p. 2.
ii
Original Records, vol. 1, pp. 25-26.
iii
TSN, PO3 Noel Castaeto, April 4, 1995, pp. 7-9.
iv
Id., pp. 9-11; Exhibit H, Original Records, vol. 3, p. 1231.
v
TSN, PO3 Noel Castaeto, April 4, 1995, p. 39; Exhibits E, F, F-1 and F-3, id., pp. 1229-1230.
vi
Exhibits G and G-1, id., vol. 2, p. 417; Exhibit H, id., vol. 3, p. 1231.
vii
TSN, PO3 Noel Castaeto, April 4, 1995, pp. 12-14.
viii
Id., pp. 18-19.
ix
Id., April 18, 1995, pp. 66-68.
x
Id., April 4, 1995, pp. 18-25, 33-38.
xi
TSN, PO3 Rogelio Galos, May 18, 1995, p. 24.
xii
Exhibit A, Original Records, vol. 3, p. 1226.
xiii
Exhibit B, id., p. 1227.
xiv
TSN, Julita de Villa, March 16, 1995, p. 21.
xv
TSN, Baltazar Bongalon, June 20, 1995, pp. 10-19.
xvi
Id., pp. 19-23.
xvii
Id., pp. 24-33.
xviii
Id., pp. 35-40.
xix
Id., pp. 45-51.
xx
Id., pp. 51-55.
xxi
Id., pp. 56-62.
xxii
Id., pp. 63-67.
xxiii
Id., pp. 72-75.
xxiv
Id., pp. 76-77.
xxv
Order, dated August 3, 1995, Original Records, vol. 5, pp. 2052-2053.
xxvi
Ibid.
xxvii
Peoples Law Enforcement Board Order, dated August 10, 1995, Original Records, vol. 5, pp. 2097-2098.
xxviii
Ibid.
xxix
Rollo, pp. 201-213.
xxx
Original Records, vol. 5, p. 2277.
xxxi
Id., pp. 2282-2300.
xxxii
Id., p. 2360.
xxxiii
MOTION FOR RECALL/SETTING ASIDE OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, id., pp. 2362-
2367, 2375-2377; MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION, id., pp. 2423-2425; MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION, Id., pp. 2423-2425.
xxxiv
Id., pp. 2405-2407.
xxxv
Id., pp. 2412, 2418, 2434-2435, 2438.
xxxvi
Rollo, pp. 38-50.
xxxvii
Id., pp. 109, 122-140.
xxxviii
Resolution dated December 9, 1997, id., p. 142.
xxxix
Id., pp. 142-151.
xl
Id., pp. 163-198, 222-252.
xli
People vs. Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, December 18, 2000; People vs. Uy, 327 SCRA 335 (2000).
xlii
People vs. Uy, 338 SCRA 232 (2000).
xliii
People vs. Uy, supra note 41.
xliv
Supra note 41.
xlv
People vs. Gireng, 241 SCRA 11, 16 (1995), citing People vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393 (1992) and People
vs. Hoble, 211 SCRA 675 (1992).
xlvi
Exhibits 1 and 2.
xlvii
TSN, PO3 Castaeto, April 4, 1995, pp. 8, 10-13; TSN, PO3 Galos, May 18, 1995, pp. 40-41.
xlviii
People vs. Montano, 337 SCRA 608 (2000).
xlix
It means in the very act of committing the crime.
l
People vs. Uy, supra note 42.
li
People vs. Montano, supra.
lii
People vs. Khor, 307 SCRA 295, 326-327 (1999); People vs. Hernandez, 282 SCRA 387 (1997); People
vs. Mahusay, 282 SCRA 80 (1997).
liii
Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume II, 7th Revised Edition (1995), p. 323.
liv
TSN, Baltazar Bongalon, June 20, 1995, pp. 45-51. See People vs. Escao, G.R. Nos. 129756-58, January
28, 2001.
lv
People vs. Johnson, supra note 41; People vs. Uy, supra note 42.
lvi
Rollo, p. 142.
lvii
Ditche vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 327 SCRA 301 (2000).
lviii
People vs. Villanueva, 339 SCRA 482 (2000).
lix
Article 14, No. 20, Revised Penal Code, as amended.
lx
People vs. Faco, 314 SCRA 505, 523 (1999).
lxi
People vs. Uy, supra.