G.R. No.

146309            July 18, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, 

vs.
ROBERTO MENDOZA PACIS, appellant.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Entrapment is a legally sanctioned method resorted to by the police for the purpose
of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plans. Bare
denials by the accused cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the
arresting officers' performance of official functions.

The Case

Roberto Mendoza Pacis appeals the August 18, 2000 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Pasig City (Branch 265) in Criminal Case No. 6292-D, in which he was
sentenced to reclusion perpetua after being found guilty of violating Section 15,
Article III of Republic Act 6425 (RA 6425), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (RA
7659).

The Information dated June 3, 1998, and signed by State Prosecutor Marilyn RO.
Campomanes, charged appellant as follows:

"That on the afternoon of April 07, 1998, inside Unit #375 Caimito Ville,
Caimito Street, Valle Verde II, Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above named accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and dispatch 497.2940 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "SHABU", a regulated
drug to undercover NBI agents who acted as poseur-buyer[s], without the
corresponding license, and/or prescription to sell, distribute and dispatch the
aforementioned regulated drug, to the damage and prejudice of the Republic
of the Philippines."2

During his arraignment on July 30, 1998, appellant refused to plead despite the
assistance of counsel.3 Hence, a plea of not guilty was entered for him.4 After due
trial, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the [a]ccused,

ROBERTO MENDOZA PACIS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Violation of Section 15, Article III [of] Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by
Republic Act No, 7650, and hereby SENTENCES him to RECLUSION PERPETUA
and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), plus the
cost of suit.

1
 "The 'Shabu', subject matter of the Information in this case, is hereby ordered
FORFEITED in favor of the [g]overnment and ordered TURNED OVER to the
Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal as provided by law."5

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's version of the facts is summarized by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) as follows:6

"On April 6, 1998, Atty. Jose Justo S. Yap, supervising agent of the Dangerous
Drugs Division-National Bureau of Investigation, received information that a
certain Roberto Mendoza Pacis was offering to sell one-half (1/2) kilogram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" for the amount of nine hundred
fifty pesos (P950.00) per gram or a total of four hundred seventy five
thousand pesos (P475,000.00). The NBI Chief of the Dangerous Drugs Division
approved the buy-bust operation. Atty. Yap and Senior Agent Midgonio S.
Congzon, Jr. were assigned to handle the case.

"In the afternoon of the same day, Atty. Yap, Senior Agent Congzon and the
informant went to the house of appellant at 375 Caimito Ville, Caimito Street,
Valle Verde II, Pasig City. The informant introduced Atty. Yap to appellant as
interested buyer. They negotiated the sale of one-half (1/2) kilogram of shabu.
The total price was reduced to four hundred fifty thousand pesos
(P450,000.00). It was agreed that payment and delivery of shabu would be
made on the following day, at the same place.

"On April 17, 1998, around 6:30 in the evening, the NBI agents and the
informant went to appellant's house. Appellant handed to Atty. Yap a paper
bag with markings "yellow cab". When he opened the bag, Atty. Yap found a
transparent plastic bag with white crystalline substance inside. While
examining it, appellant asked for the payment. Atty. Yap instructed Senior
Agent Congzon to get the money from the car. When Senior Agent Congzon
returned, he gave the "boodle money" to Atty. Yap who then handed the
money to the appellant. Upon appellant's receipt of the payment, the officers
identified themselves as NBI agents and arrested him.

"Per instruction of Atty. Yap, Senior Agent Congzon transmitted the shabu to
the Forensic Chemistry Laboratory for examination.

"NBI Forensic Chemist Emilia A. Rosales testified that on April 8, 1998, she
received the specimen from Senior Agent Congzon together with the letter
request. The specimen weighed 497.292940 grams. After examination, the

2
 specimen was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride." (Citations
omitted)

Version of the Defense

Appellant, on the other hand, presents the following version of the facts:7

"Accused-appellant, ROBERTO MENDOZA PACIS is a legitimate businessman

having been engaged in the sale of imported automotive for quite a long time.
On April 6, 1998, he was in his house at 375 Caimito Street, Caimito Ville, Valle
Verde II, Pasig City. In the afternoon of April 6, 1998, he was in Caloocan City
in Dome Street, in the house of defense witness Ramon Ty. He was there to
pick-up witness Ty because they had an agreement that he was to bring him
to far away Urdaneta, Pangasinan. They left right after lunch at about 2:00
o'clock in the afternoon. Witness Ty mentioned to him that they were to meet
Mr. Andrada and Dr. Lachica. They reached Pangasinan at about 5:30 o'clock
in the afternoon. They saw the persons they were supposed to meet in
Urdaneta, Pangasinan and after seeing those persons, they stayed overnight.
In his address at Valle Verde II, accused-appellant had a live-in partner named
ANNIE GONZALES. He was a car owner and had a former driver named Rey,
who drove for him for less than a year. He had to dismiss his driver Rey
because he was always late or would be absent for work without informing
him ahead of time. After staying overnight in far away Urdaneta, Pangasinan,
they left for Manila on April 7, 1998 at 7:00 o'clock in the morning. When they
reached Manila proper, he dropped off witness Ramon Ty in his house at
Caloocan. Then, he went straight home to Valle Verde to take a nap. At more
or less 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 7, 1998, he was at home at Valle
Verde, together with his live-in partner, ANNIE GONZALES. Later that
afternoon, three (3)-armed persons entered his condominium unit. There was
a commotion downstairs and his live-in partner Annie Gonzales opened the
door and he was awakened. Annie told him that there were three (3) people
with guns looking for him and they went up to the room right away. The
three-armed men told him that they were NBI agents but did not show any
identification. Agent Justo Yap, Jr. was one of them. Agent Congzon Jr. was
also one of them, but NBI Special Investigator Larosa was not one of them.
When they entered the room, the gun of NBI Agent Yap was already pointed
at him while the two (2) other agents were holding the butts of their guns.
They were in civilian clothes. They told him to step-out and that they were
looking for [s]habu. They were not able to find any in his room or downstairs.
When they were looking for the [s]habu, the accused appellant responded
"WHAT SHABU?" "What [s]habu are you looking for?" When he stepped out of
the room to go down to the living room, he saw his former driver Rey together
with his father. Rey[,] as stated before was his former driver and he had seen
the father of Rey once or twice before. Rey and his father were also in the

3
living room. A paper bag with the lettering "CAB" was presented to the
accused appellant in his house. He noticed that the bag came from Rey and
was hiding it behind him when he gave it to agent Yap. Agent Yap got it from
the cabinet near the kitchen. Agent Yap wanted him to admit that it belongs
to him and that it came from his condominium. Agent Yap also showed him
the bag with white powder and what was shown to him was a white
substance in powdery form. After it was shown to him and he was asked to
admit that it was taken from his place, he and his live-in partner ANNIE
GONZALES were brought to the NBI at Taft Avenue. He did not see Rey and his
father anymore at the NBI Office. When they were at the NBI, the Agents
asked the accused-appellant to admit that the shabu was taken from his
apartment. He told them that it was not from his apartment. Agent Yap told
him that if he will not admit he will stay in jail longer or will be put behind
bars. The accused appellant was brought to the NBI Headquarters on April 7,
1998. When he was taken from his house by the three NBI Agents, he was not
informed or appraised of his constitutional rights such as the right to counsel
and to remain silent. The same thing is true when he was brought to the NBI
Headquarters, where he was not appraised of these basic rights. When he was
asked to admit that the shabu was taken from his place, he told them that it
was not from him and asked why [they were] doing [this] to him. The NBI
Agents insisted that he is hard-headed and if he would just follow them he will
be free if he will tell the source of the shabu. There were no statements taken
from the accused-appellant in the afternoon of April 7, 1998; no statements
were also taken from him in the morning of April 8, 1998. The agents were
trying to negotiate with him. The negotiation was such that if he cannot
produce the source of the contraband, then he had to produce P200,000.00 in
order to get himself free. The NBI Agents agreed to let Annie Gonzales go and
look for money. Annie Gonzales was able to produce only P40,000.00. It was
brought back by Annie Gonzales to the NBI on April 8, 1998 and gave the sum
to Agent Yap. Agent Yap looked very disappointed when he received the
money. He said that it was not the agreement that was made. That, the
agreed price of P200,000.00 was short of P160,000.00. The accused-appellant
requested again if he could use the phone to call up his cousin J-C Mendoza.
He got in touch with his cousin, who said that he will try to get the amount. He
again requested Agent Yap if he could allow Annie Gonzales [to] go to his
cousin and see if there was cash that she can get. Annie Gonzales was allowed
to leave again but the P160,000.00 was not produced. Annie Gonzales did not
come back anymore because she was not able to produce the money. She did
not show up anymore at the NBI Headquarters because she will be detained
together with him (accused-appellant).

"Defense witness Ramon V. Ty corroborated, on all material points, the

testimony of the accused-appellant. He was the driver of Joey Albert, the
singer, for three (3) years more or less. He knows accused-appellant because

4
 he is the brother-in-law of Joey Albert. He first met Roberto Mendoza Pacis at
his house, when he together with Vicente Pacis, husband of Joey Albert, went
there. In the morning of April 6, 1998, he was at home. In the afternoon, they
left his house at around 2:00 o'clock. They were bound [for] far away
Urdaneta, Pangasinan, because his physical therapist, Dr. Lachica who resided
in Pangasinan, was supposed to buy some instruments from him. He needed
the instruments to help him exercise his body even without therapy because
he had a stroke in 1993. When they reached Urdaneta, Pangasinan, he did not
see his therapist because the latter was at his cousin's house. After being told
where Dr. Lachica was, they went to see him. They were able to get the
gadget from him. They went to Manila the following morning. They left at
about 7:00 o'clock in the morning of April 7, 1998 and reached his house in
Caloocan City at around 10:30 o'clock in the morning. Whe[n] they reached
Caloocan, he went home and Roberto Mendoza Pacis said that he will also go
home."

Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, noting that they testified in a clear and straightforward manner. It
debunked appellant's defense of "frame-up" as it was neither substantiated nor
proven. It held that affirmative testimony, especially when it came from the mouth
of a credible witness, was far stronger than a negative one.

Hence, this appeal.8

The Issues

Appellant raises the following alleged errors for our consideration:

"1. The lower court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425
as amended, despite the inherent incredibility of the NBI (National Bureau of
Investigation) version of the manner the alleged buy-bust operation was
conducted.

"2. The court a quo gravely erred in giving too much weight to the testimony
of the witnesses for the prosecution when their testimonies were shot with
material discrepancies and inconsistencies.

"3. The lower court erred when it failed to accord full significance [of] the fact
that the informant was not presented in court when circumstances demand
for his presentation.

5
 "4. The lower court erred when it failed to give weight and credence to the
alibi offered by the accused as a defense."9

These issues may be summed as follows: (1) whether the "buy-bust" operation that
led to appellant's arrest was valid, (2) whether the presentation of the informant was
necessary to prove appellant's guilt, and (3) whether the trial court erred in not
giving weight and credence to appellant's alibi.

This Court's Ruling

The appeal is not meritorious.

First Issue:

Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation

Claiming that he was framed by the agents of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), appellant assails the validity of the buy-bust operation that led to his arrest.

Entrapment Distinguished from Instigation

In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation on the
other hand, instigators practically induce the would-be defendant into the
commission of the offense and become co-principals themselves. It has been held in
numerous cases by this Court that entrapment is sanctioned by law as a legitimate
method of apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and distribution of
illegal drugs.10

A careful examination of the records shows that the operation that led to the arrest
of appellant was indeed an entrapment, not an instigation. The trial court's
assessment of the credibility of witnesses must be accorded the highest respect,
because it had the advantage of observing their demeanor and was thus in a better
position to discern if they were telling the truth or not. 11 In the present case, the RTC
noted that the prosecution witnesses testified in a clear and straightforward manner
in narrating the events that had transpired before and during the buy-bust
operation.

Furthermore, courts generally give full faith and credit to officers of the law, for they
are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.12 Accordingly, in
entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution
witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties
in a regular manner in the absence of evidence to the contrary.13

No Proof of Ill Motive on the Part of NBI Agents

6
It is not unusual in criminal cases of this kind to have a version of the prosecution so
diametrically opposed to that of the defense. However, upon a careful perusal of the
records, we find the evidence presented by the defense to be unsound and self-
serving.

Appellant did not submit any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the
arresting officers to falsely impute to him a serious and unfounded charge. Where
there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by
improper motives, the presumption is that they were not so moved, and that their
testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.14 The records show that appellant had a
ready supply of shabu for sale and disposition to anyone willing to pay the right
price.

Elements of Crime Duly Proven

Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal
sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to
another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous
drug.15 These elements were duly proven in the case herein. The records show that
appellant sold and delivered the shabu to NBI agents posing as buyers. It was seized
and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence.
Appellant was likewise shown to be aware that what he was selling and delivering
was a prohibited substance.

Second Issue:

Identity of Informant Not Necessary

With respect to the informant's identity, we hold that it may remain confidential.
There are strong practical reasons for keeping its secrecy, including the continued
health and safety of the informant and the encouragement of others to report any
wrongdoing to police authorities.16 This is settled jurisprudence and we will not
belabor it here.

Third Issue:

Alibi as a Defense

On April 6, 1998, NBI agents, acting as poseur-buyers of illegal drugs, allegedly went
to the house of appellant to discuss with him preliminary arrangements for the sale.
However, Pacis disputed this allegation. To bolster his claim, he presented his sister-
in-law's driver, Ramon V. Ty, who testified that he was with the former in Urdaneta,
Pangasinan on that same day; hence, appellant could not have been with the poseur-
buyers in Manila to discuss the quantity and the price of the shabu to be delivered
the next day.

7
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that it was physically
impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
The excuse must be so airtight that it admits of no exception.17

In the present case, however, we agree with the RTC that the claim of Ty was not
substantiated by the testimonies of the persons he and appellant were supposed to
have met in Urdaneta, Pangasinan.

Hence, appellant was unable to disprove the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses that on April 6, 1998, he was discussing the terms of the sale with the
poseur-buyers.

Furthermore, it is a well-settled rule that the positive identification of the accused --

when categorical and consistent and without any ill motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses -- prevails over alibi and denial which are negative and self-
serving, undeserving of weight in law.18

Compared with the detailed, convincing and well-documented Decision of the trial
court, appellant's denial and alibi pale into insignificance.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs

against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ.,  concur.

Footnotes
1
 Written by Judge Edwin A. Villasor; rollo, pp. 16-44; records, pp. 259-287.
2
 Rollo, p. 5; records, p. 1.
3
 Atty. Ernesto O. Pua.
4
 Order dated July 30, 1998; records, p. 38.
5
 Assailed Decision, pp. 28-29; rollo, pp. 16-44; records, pp. 259-287.
6
 Appellee's Brief, pp. 3-6; rollo, pp. 137-140. The Brief was signed by Assistant
Solicitor General Carlos N. Ortega, Assistant Solicitor General Amy C. Lazaro-
Javier and Associate Solicitor Elmira S. Cruz.
7
 Appellant's Brief, pp. 5-11; rollo, pp. 63-69. The Brief was signed by Atty.
Benjamin B. Bernardino.
8
 This case was deemed submitted for resolution on March 4, 2002, upon
receipt by this Court of appellee's Brief. The filing of a reply brief was deemed
waived, as none had been submitted within the reglementary period.
9
 Appellant's Brief, p. 1; rollo, p. 59. Original in upper case.

8
10
 People v. Lapatha, 167 SCRA 159, November 9, 1988; People v. Rualo, 152
SCRA 635, July 31, 1987; People v. Natipravat,  145 SCRA 483, November 13,
1986.
11
 People v. Ruedas, 194 SCRA 553, February 27, 1991.
12
 People v. Lamog, 172 SCRA 342, April 17, 1989.
13
 People v. Boholst, 152 SCRA 263, July 23, 1987.
14
 People v. Sanchez,  173 SCRA 305, May 12, 1989.
15
 People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561, 579, September 5, 1997; People v.
Manzano, 227 SCRA 780, 785, November 16, 1993.
16
 Ibid.
17
 People v. Barera, 262 SCRA 63, September 19, 1996.
18
 People v. Edgar Ayupan,  GR No. 140550, February 13, 2002.