FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 200304. January 15, 2014.]

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

VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @ "DON," accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO , J : p

The case before this Court is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated May 31, 2011 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04201. Said decision a rmed with
modification the Joint Decision 2 dated August 6, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila, Branch 41, in Criminal Case Nos. 98-164174 and 98-164175, which convicted the
appellant Donald Vasquez y Sandigan of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
regulated drugs under Sections 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Criminal Case No. 98-164174 stemmed from a charge of violation of Section 15,
Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, 3 which was allegedly committed as
follows:
That on or about April 3, 1998 in the City of Manila, 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 sell or offer for sale, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute 45.46
grams, 44.27 grams, 45.34 grams, 51.45 grams, 41.32 grams and 20.14 grams or
with a total weight of TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN POINT NINETY-EIGHT
(247.98) grams contained in six (6) transparent plastic sachets of white
crystalline substance known as "Shabu" containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug. 4CIAcSa

Criminal Case No. 98-164175, on the other hand, arose from an alleged violation of
Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, 5 which was said to be
committed in this manner:
That on or about April 3, 1998 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused without being authorized by law to possess or use any regulated drug,
did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession
and under his custody and control 1.61 grams, 0.58 grams, 0.29 grams, 0.09
[grams], 0.10 grams, 0.17 grams, 0.21 grams, 0.24 grams, 0.12 grams, 0.06
grams, 0.04 grams, [0].51 grams or all with a total weight of four point zero three
grams of white crystalline substance contained in twelve (12) transparent plastic
sachets known as "SHABU" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
regulated drug, without the corresponding license or prescription thereof. 6

Initially, Criminal Case No. 98-164175 was ra ed to the RTC of Manila, Branch 23.
Upon motion 7 of the appellant, however, said case was allowed to be consolidated with
Criminal Case No. 98-164174 in the RTC of Manila, Branch 41. 8 On arraignment, the
appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. 9 The pre-trial conference of the cases was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 held on July 27, 1998, but the same was terminated without the parties entering into any
stipulation of facts. 1 0
During the trial of the cases, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the
following witnesses: (1) Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Jean Fajardo, 1 1 (2) P/Insp. Marilyn
Dequito, 1 2 and (3) Police O cer (PO) 2 Christian Trambulo. 1 3 Thereafter, the defense
presented in court the testimonies of: (1) the appellant Donald Vasquez y Sandigan, 1 4 (2)
Angelina Arejado, 1 5 and (3) Anatolia Caredo. 1 6 IcESDA

The Prosecution's Case

The prosecution's version of the events was primarily drawn from the testimonies of
P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo.
P/Insp. Fajardo testified that in the morning of April 1, 1998, a confidential informant
went to their o ce and reported that a certain Donald Vasquez was engaged in illegal drug
activity. This alias Don supposedly claimed that he was an employee of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). According to the informant, alias Don promised him a good
commission if he (the informant) would present a potential buyer of drugs. P/Insp. Fajardo
relayed the information to Police Superintendent (P/Supt.) Pepito Domantay, the
commanding o cer of their o ce. P/Insp. Fajardo was then instructed to form a team
and conduct a possible buy-bust against alias Don. She formed a team on the same day,
which consisted of herself, PO2 Trambulo, PO1 Agravante, PO1 Pedrosa, PO1 Sisteno, and
PO1 De la Rosa. P/Insp. Fajardo was the team leader. With the help of the informant, she
was able to set up a meeting with alias Don. The meeting was to be held at around 9:00
p.m. on that day at Cindy's Restaurant located in Welcome Rotonda. She was only
supposed to meet alias Don that night but she decided to bring the team along for security
reasons. 1 7 cITAaD

At about 9:00 p.m. on even date, P/Insp. Fajardo and her team went to the meeting
place with the informant. The members of her team positioned themselves strategically
inside the restaurant. The informant introduced P/Insp. Fajardo to alias Don as the buyer of
shabu. She asked alias Don if he was indeed an employee of the NBI and he replied in the
a rmative. They agreed to close the deal wherein she would buy 250 grams of shabu for
P250,000.00. They also agreed to meet the following day at Cindy's Restaurant around
10:00 to 11:00 p.m. 1 8
In the evening of April 2, 1998, P/Insp. Fajardo and her team went back to Cindy's
Restaurant. Alias Don was already waiting for her outside the establishment when she
arrived. He asked for the money and she replied that she had the money with her. She
brought ve genuine P500.00 bills, which were inserted on top of ve bundles of play
money to make it appear that she had P250,000.00 with her. After she showed the money
to alias Don, he suggested that they go to a more secure place. They agreed for the sale to
take place at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on April 3, 1998 in front of alias Don's apartment at
765 Valdez St., Sampaloc, Manila. The team proceeded to the Western Police District
(WPD) Station along U.N. Avenue for coordination. Afterwards, the team held their nal
brie ng before they proceeded to the target area. They agreed that the pre-arranged signal
was for P/Insp. Fajardo to scratch her hair, which would signify that the deal had been
consummated and the rest of the team would rush up to the scene. The team then
travelled to the address given by alias Don. 1 9AEDCHc

When the team arrived at the target area around 1:15 a.m. on April 3, 1998, the two
vehicles they used were parked along the corner of the street. P/Insp. Fajardo and the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 informant walked towards the apartment of alias Don and stood in front of the apartment
gate. Around 1:45 a.m., alias Don came out of the apartment with a male companion. Alias
Don demanded to see the money, but P/Insp. Fajardo told him that she wanted to see the
drugs rst. Alias Don gave her the big brown envelope he was carrying and she checked
the contents thereof. Inside she found a plastic sachet, about 10x8 inches in size, which
contained white crystalline substance. After checking the contents of the envelope, she
assumed that the same was indeed shabu. She then gave the buy-bust money to alias Don
and scratched her hair to signal the rest of the team to rush to the scene. P/Insp. Fajardo
identi ed herself as a narcotics agent. The two suspects tried to ee but PO2 Trambulo
was able to stop them from doing so. P/Insp. Fajardo took custody of the shabu. When
she asked alias Don if the latter had authority to possess or sell shabu, he replied in the
negative. P/Insp. Fajardo put her initials "JSF" on the genuine P500.00 bills below the name
of Benigno Aquino. After the arrest of the two suspects, the buy-bust team brought them
to the police station. The suspects' rights were read to them and they were subsequently
booked. 2 0
P/Insp. Fajardo said that she found out that alias Don was in fact the appellant
Donald Vasquez. She learned of his name when he brought out his NBI ID while he was
being booked. P/Insp. Fajardo also learned that the name of the appellant's companion
was Reynaldo Siscar, who was also arrested and brought to the police station. P/Insp.
Fajardo explained that after she gave the buy-bust money to the appellant, the latter
handed the same to Siscar who was present the entire time the sale was being
consummated. Upon receiving the buy-bust money placed inside a green plastic bag,
Siscar looked at the contents thereof and uttered "okey na to." P/Insp. Fajardo marked the
drug specimen and brought the same to the Crime Laboratory. She was accompanied
there by PO2 Trambulo and PO1 Agravante. She handed over the drug specimen to PO1
Agravante who then turned it over to P/Insp. Taduran, the forensic chemist on duty. The
police o cers previously weighed the drug specimen. Thereafter, the personnel at the
crime laboratory weighed the specimen again. P/Insp. Fajardo and her team waited for the
results of the laboratory examination. 2 1
ETaHCD

P/Insp. Fajardo further testi ed that the six plastic bags of shabu seized during the
buy-bust operation were actually contained in a self-sealing plastic envelope placed inside
a brown envelope. When the brown envelope was con scated from the appellant, she put
her initials "JSF" therein and signed it. She noticed that there were markings on the
envelope that read "DD-93-1303 re Antonio Roxas y Sunga" but she did not bother to check
out what they were for or who made them. When she interrogated the appellant about the
brown envelope, she found out that the same was submitted as evidence to the NBI Crime
Laboratory. She also learned that the appellant worked as a Laboratory Aide at the NBI
Crime Laboratory. She identi ed in court the six plastic sachets of drugs that her team
recovered, which sachets she also initialed and signed. P/Insp. Fajardo also stated that
after the appellant was arrested, PO2 Trambulo conducted a body search on the two
suspects. The search yielded 12 more plastic sachets of drugs from the appellant. The 12
sachets were varied in sizes and were contained in a white envelope. P/Insp. Fajardo
placed her initials and signature on the envelope. As to the 12 sachets, the same were
initialed by P/Insp. Fajardo and signed by PO2 Trambulo. 2 2
The testimony of PO2 Trambulo corroborated that of P/Insp. Fajardo's. PO2
Trambulo testi ed that in the morning of April 1, 1998, a con dential informant reported to
them about the illegal drug activities of alias Don. P/Supt. Domantay then tasked P/Insp.
Fajardo to form a buy-bust team. P/Insp. Fajardo was able to set up a meeting with alias
Don at Cindy's Restaurant in Welcome Rotonda, Quezon City. At that meeting, PO2
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Trambulo saw P/Insp. Fajardo talk to alias Don. P/Insp. Fajardo later told the members of
the team that she convinced alias Don that she was a good buyer of shabu and the latter
demanded a second meeting to see the money. After the initial meeting, P/Insp. Fajardo
briefed P/Supt. Domantay about what happened. PO2 Trambulo stated that on April 2,
1998, P/Insp. Fajardo was furnished with ve genuine P500.00 bills together with the
boodle play money. P/Insp. Fajardo placed her initials in the genuine bills below the name
"Benigno Aquino, Jr." Afterwards, the team left the o ce. When they arrived at Cindy's
Restaurant past 10:00 p.m., alias Don was waiting outside. P/Insp. Fajardo showed the
boodle money to alias Don and after some time, they parted ways. P/Insp. Fajardo later
told the team that alias Don decided that the drug deal would take place in front of alias
Don's rented apartment on Valdez St., Sampaloc, Manila. After an hour, the team went to
Valdez St. to familiarize themselves with the area. They then proceeded to the WPD station
to coordinate their operation. Thereafter, P/Insp. Fajardo conducted a nal brie ng
wherein PO2 Trambulo was designated as the immediate back-up arresting o cer. The
agreed pre-arranged signal was for P/Insp. Fajardo to scratch her hair to indicate the
consummation of the deal. PO2 Trambulo was to signal the same to the other members of
the team. 2 3 IcSHTA

The buy-bust team went to the target area at around 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. on April 3,
1998. P/Insp. Fajardo and the informant walked towards the direction of alias Don's
apartment, while PO2 Trambulo positioned himself near a parked jeepney about 15 to 20
meters from the apartment gate. The rest of the team parked their vehicles at the street
perpendicular to Valdez St. Later, alias Don went out of the gate with another person. PO2
Trambulo saw alias Don gesturing to P/Insp. Fajardo as if asking for something but
P/Insp. Fajardo gestured that she wanted to see something rst. Alias Don handed P/Insp.
Fajardo a big brown envelope, which the latter opened. P/Insp. Fajardo then handed to
alias Don a green plastic bag containing the buy-bust money and gave the pre-arranged
signal. When PO2 Trambulo saw this, he immediately summoned the rest of the team and
rushed to the suspects. He was able to recover the buy-bust money from alias Don's male
companion. Upon frisking alias Don, PO2 Trambulo retrieved 12 pieces of plastic sachets
of suspected drugs. The same were placed inside a white envelope that was tucked inside
alias Don's waist. PO2 Trambulo marked each of the 12 sachets with his initials "CVT" and
the date. The police o cers then informed the suspects of their rights and they proceeded
to the police headquarters in Fort Bonifacio. 2 4
As regards the brown envelope that alias Don handed to P/Insp. Fajardo, the latter
retained possession thereof. The envelope contained six pieces of plastic bags of white
crystalline substance. When they got back to their o ce, the team reported the progress
of their operation to P/Supt. Domantay. The arrested suspects were booked and the
required documentations were prepared. Among such documents was the Request for
Laboratory Examination of the drug specimens seized. PO2 Trambulo said that he was the
one who brought the said request to the PNP Crime Laboratory, along with the drug
specimens. 2 5
P/Insp. Marilyn Dequito, the forensic chemist, testi ed on the results of her
examination of the drug specimens seized in this case. She explained that P/Insp. Macario
Taduran, Jr. initially examined the drug specimens but the latter was already assigned to
another o ce. The results of the examination of P/Insp. Taduran were laid down in
Physical Science Report No. D-1071-98. P/Insp. Dequito rst studied the data contained in
Physical Science Report No. D-1071-98 and retrieved the same from their o ce. She
entered that fact in their logbook RD-17-98. She then weighed the drug specimens and
examined the white crystalline substance from each of the plastic sachets. She examined
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 rst the specimens marked as "A-1," "A-2," "A-3," "A-4," "A-5" and "A-6." P/Insp. Dequito's
examination revealed that the white crystalline substances were positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. 2 6 She also examined the contents of 12 heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets that also contained crystalline substances. The 12 plastic
sachets were marked "B-1" to "B-12." The white crystalline powder inside the 12 plastic
sachets also tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. P/Insp. Dequito's
findings were contained in Physical Science Report No. RD-17-98. 2 7 ScTCIE

The prosecution, thereafter, adduced the following object and documentary

evidence: (1) photocopies of the ve original P500.00 bills 2 8 used as buy-bust money
(Exhibits A-E); (2) Request for Laboratory Examination 2 9 dated April 3, 1998 (Exhibit F);
(3) Initial Laboratory Report 3 0 dated April 3, 1998, stating that the specimen submitted
for examination tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (Exhibit G); (4)
Court Order 3 1 dated September 2, 1998 (Exhibit H); (5) Physical Sciences Report No. D-
1071-98 3 2 dated April 3, 1998 (Exhibit I); (6) Drug specimens A-1 to A-6 (Exhibits J-O); (7)
Big brown envelope (Exhibit P); (8) Small white envelope (Exhibit Q); (9) Drug specimens B-
1 to B-12 (Exhibits R-CC); (10) Physical Sciences Report No. RD-17-98 3 3 (Exhibit DD); (11)
Joint A davit of Arrest 3 4 (Exhibit EE); (12) Play money (Exhibit FF); (13) Booking Sheet
and Arrest Report 3 5 (Exhibit GG); (14) Request for Medical Examination 3 6 (Exhibit HH);
(15) Medico Legal Slip 3 7 of Donald Vasquez (Exhibit II); and (16) Medico Legal Slip 3 8 of
Reynaldo Siscar (Exhibit JJ).
The Defense's Case
As expected, the defense belied the prosecution's version of events. The appellant's
brief before the Court of Appeals provides a concise summary of the defense's counter-
39
statement of facts. According to the defense:
Donald Vasquez was a regular employee of the NBI, working as a
Laboratory Aide II at the NBI Forensics Chemistry Division. His duties at the time
included being a subpoena clerk, receiving chemistry cases as well as requests
from different police agencies to have their specimens examined by the chemist.
He also rendered day and night duties, and during regular o ce hours and in the
absence of the laboratory technician, he would weigh the specimens. As
subpoena clerk, he would receive subpoenas from the trial courts. When there is
no chemist, he would get a Special Order to testify, or bring the drug specimens, to
the courts. ECHSDc

On 1 April 1998, Donald Vasquez took his examination in Managerial

Statistics between 6:00 to 9:00 o'clock p.m. Thereafter, he took a jeepney and
alighted at Stop and Shop at Quiapo. From there, he took a tricycle to his house,
arriving at 9:45 o'clock that evening, where he saw Reynaldo Siscar and Sonny
San Diego, the latter a confidential informant of the narcotics agents. cIHDaE

On 3 April 1998, at 1:45 o'clock in the morning, Donald's household help,

Anatolia Caredo , who had just arrived from Antipolo that time, was eating while
Donald was asleep. She heard a knock on the door. Reynaldo Siscar opened the
door and thereafter two (2) men entered, poking guns at Reynaldo. They were
followed by three (3) others. The door to Donald's room was kicked down and
they entered his room. Donald, hearing noise, woke up to see P./Insp. Fajardo
pointing a gun at him. He saw that there were six (6) policemen searching his
room, picking up what they could get. One of them opened a cabinet and got drug
specimens in [Donald's] possession in relation to his work as a laboratory aide.
The drugs came from two (2) cases and marked as DD-93-1303 owned by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Antonio Roxas, and DD-96-5392 owned by SPO4 Emiliano Anonas. The drug
specimen contained in the envelope marked as DD-93-1303 was intended for
presentation on 3 April 1998. Aside from the drug specimens, the policemen also
took his jewelry, a VHS player, and his wallet containing P2,530.00.

Angelina Arejado , Donald's neighbor, witnessed the policemen entering

the apartment and apprehending Donald and Reynaldo from the apartment
terrace. 4 0 (Citations omitted.)

The defense then offered the following evidence: (1) NBI Disposition Form 4 1 dated
April 3, 1998 (Exhibit 1); (2) Sworn Statement of Idabel Bernabe Pagulayan 4 2 (Exhibit 2);
(3) Photocopy of the buy-bust money 4 3 (Exhibit 3); (4) List of Hearings 4 4 attended by
Donald Vasquez (Exhibit 4); (5) Authorization Letter 4 5 prepared by Acting Deputy Director
Arturo A. Figueras dated March 27, 1998 (Exhibit 5); and (6) List of Evidence 4 6 taken by
Donald Vasquez from 1996-1998 (Exhibit 6). aSECAD

The Decision of the RTC

On August 6, 2009, the RTC convicted the appellant of the crimes charged. The RTC
gave more credence to the prosecution's evidence given that the presumption of regularity
in the performance of o cial duty on the part of the police o cers was not overcome. The
trial court held that the appellant did not present any evidence that would show that the
police o cers in this case were impelled by an evil motive to charge him of very serious
crimes and falsely testify against him. Also, the trial court noted that the volume of the
shabu involved in this case was considerable, i.e., 247.98 grams and 4.03 grams for illegal
sale and illegal possession, respectively. To the mind of the trial court, such fact helped to
dispel the possibility that the drug specimens seized were merely planted by the police
o cers. Furthermore, the RTC ruled that the positive testimonies of the police o cers
regarding the illegal drug peddling activities of the appellant prevailed over the latter's bare
denials.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the appellant was merely framed up by the
police, the trial court pointed out that:
[T]he accused should have reported the said incident to the proper authorities, or
asked help from his Acting Chief [Idabel] Pagulayan from the NBI to testify and
identify in Court the xerox copy of the Disposition Form which she issued to the
accused and the A davit dated April 17, 1998 (xerox copy) executed by her or
from Mr. Arturo A. Figueras, Acting Deputy Director, Technical Services of the
NBI to testify and identify the Letter issued by the said Acting Deputy Director in
order to corroborate and strengthen his testimony that he was indeed authorized
to keep in his custody the said shabu to be presented or turned over to the Court
as evidence, and he should have led the proper charges against those police
o cers who were responsible for such act. But the accused did not even bother
to do the same. Further, the pieces of evidence (Disposition Form, A davit of
[Idabel] Pagulayan and Letter dated March 27, 1998 issued by Acting Deputy
Director) presented by the accused in Court could not be given weight and
credence considering that the said persons were not presented in Court to
identify the said documents and that the prosecution has no opportunity to
cross-examine the same, thus, it has no probative value. 4 7 EIAaDC

The trial court, thus, decreed:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 1. In Crim. Case No. 98-164174, finding accused, DONALD VASQUEZ y
SANDIGAN @ "DON" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of
Sec. 15, Art. III in Relation to Sec. 2 (e), (f), (m), (o), Art. I of R.A. No. 6425 and
hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a ne of
P5,000,000.00; and
2. In Crim. Case No. 98-164175, judgment is hereby rendered nding
the accused, DONALD VASQUEZ y SANDIGAN @ "DON" guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 16, Art. III in Relation to Sec. 2 (e-2) Art. I of
R.A. 6425 as Amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179 and hereby sentences him
to suffer the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS
and a fine of FOUR THOUSAND (P4,000.00) PESOS.
The subject shabu (247.98 grams and 4.03 grams, respectively) are hereby
forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby
directed to deliver and/or cause the delivery of the said shabu to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), upon the finality of this Decision. 4 8 CSDAIa

The Judgment of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, 4 9 the Court of Appeals a rmed the conviction of the appellant. The
appellate court ruled that the prosecution su ciently proved the elements of the crimes of
illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. The testimony of P/Insp. Fajardo on the
conduct of the buy-bust operation was found to be clear and categorical. As the appellant
failed to adduce any evidence that tended to prove any ill motive on the part of the police
o cers to falsely charge the appellant, the Court of Appeals held that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of o cial duties on the part of the police o cers had not
been controverted in this case.
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision stated:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED .
The August 6, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41 of the City of
Manila in Criminal Cases No. 98-164174-75, nding appellant Donald Vasquez y
Sandigan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of Violation of Section
15 and Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 98-164175, appellant is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to two years, four months and one day of prision correccional in its
medium period, as maximum. 5 0 HACaSc

The Ruling of the Court

The appellant appealed his case to this Court to once again impugn his conviction
on two grounds: (1) the purported illegality of the search and the ensuing arrest done by
the police o cers and (2) his supposed authority to possess the illegal drugs seized from
him. 5 1 He argues that the police o cers did not have a search warrant or a warrant of
arrest at the time he was arrested. This occurred despite the fact that the police o cers
allegedly had ample time to secure a warrant of arrest against him. Inasmuch as his arrest
was illegal, the appellant avers that the evidence obtained as a result thereof was
inadmissible in court. As the corpus delicti of the crime was rendered inadmissible, the
appellant posits that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant further
insists that he was able to prove that he was authorized to keep the drug specimens in his
custody, given that he was an employee of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Laboratory who
was tasked with the duty to bring drug specimens in court.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 After an assiduous review of the evidence adduced by both parties to this case, we
resolve to deny this appeal. aSIETH

At the outset, the Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of
his arrest. We reiterated in People v. Tampis 5 2 that "[a]ny objection, defect or irregularity
attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea on arraignment.
Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their
arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any
irregularity was cured upon their voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction." 5 3
Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that the appellant was caught in agrante delicto
of selling illegal drugs to an undercover police o cer in a buy-bust operation. His arrest,
thus, falls within the ambit of Section 5 (a), Rule 113 5 4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure when an arrest made without warrant is deemed lawful.
Having established the validity of the warrantless arrest in this case, the Court holds
that the warrantless seizure of the illegal drugs from the appellant is likewise valid. We
held in People v. Cabugatan 5 5 that:
This interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures, however, is
not absolute and such warrantless searches and seizures have long been deemed
permissible by jurisprudence in instances of (1) search of moving vehicles, (2)
seizure in plain view, (3) customs searches, (4) waiver or consented searches, (5)
stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and search incidental to a lawful
arrest . The last includes a valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is
considered legitimate [if] effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court
recognize permissible warrantless arrest, to wit: (1) arrest in agrante delicto ,
(2) arrest effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrest of escaped prisoners. (Citation
omitted.) CSaIAc

Thus, the appellant cannot seek exculpation by invoking belatedly the invalidity of his
arrest and the subsequent search upon his person.
We now rule on the substantive matters.
To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs,
the following elements should be satisfactorily proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. 5 6 As held in People v. Chua Tan Lee , 5 7 in a prosecution of illegal sale of
drugs, "what is material is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti."
On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of drugs are: (1) the accused
is in possession of an item or object which is identi ed to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug. 5 8
In the case at bar, the testimonies of P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo established
that a buy-bust operation was legitimately carried out in the wee hours of April 3, 1998 to
entrap the appellant. P/Insp. Fajardo, the poseur-buyer, positively identi ed the appellant
as the one who sold to her six plastic bags of shabu that were contained in a big brown
envelope for the price of P250,000.00. She likewise identi ed the six plastic bags of
shabu, which contained the markings she placed thereon after the same were seized from
the appellant. When subjected to laboratory examination, the white crystalline powder
contained in the plastic bags tested positive for shabu. We nd that P/Insp. Fajardo's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 testimony on the events that transpired during the conduct of the buy-bust operation was
detailed and straightforward. She was also consistent and unwavering in her narration
even in the face of the opposing counsel's cross-examination. DIAcTE

Apart from her description of the events that led to the exchange of the drug
specimens seized and the buy-bust money, P/Insp. Fajardo further testi ed as to the
recovery from the appellant of another 12 pieces of plastic sachets of shabu. After the
latter was arrested, P/Insp. Fajardo stated that PO2 Trambulo conducted a body search
on the appellant. This search resulted to the con scation of 12 more plastic sachets, the
contents of which also tested positive for shabu. The testimony of P/Insp. Fajardo was
amply corroborated by PO2 Trambulo, whose own account dovetailed the former's
narration of events. Both police o cers also identi ed in court the twelve plastic sachets
of shabu that were confiscated from the appellant.
In People v. Ting Uy , 5 9 the Court explains that "credence shall be given to the
narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they are police
officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there
be evidence to the contrary." In the instant case, the appellant failed to ascribe, much less
satisfactorily prove, any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses as to
why they would falsely incriminate him. The appellant himself even testi ed that, not only
did he not have any misunderstanding with P/Insp. Fajardo and PO2 Trambulo prior to his
arrest, he in fact did not know them at all. 6 0 In the absence of evidence of such ill motive,
none is presumed to exist. 6 1 STIcEA

The records of this case are also silent as to any measures undertaken by the
appellant to criminally or administratively charge the police o cers herein for falsely
framing him up for selling and possessing illegal drugs. Such a move would not have been
a daunting task for the appellant under the circumstances. Being a regular employee of the
NBI, the appellant could have easily sought the help of his immediate supervisors and/or
the chief of his o ce to extricate him from his predicament. Instead, what the appellant
offered in evidence were mere photocopies of documents that supposedly showed that he
was authorized to keep drug specimens in his custody. That the original documents and
the testimonies of the signatories thereof were not at all presented in court did nothing to
help the appellant's case. To the mind of the Court, the evidence offered by the appellant
failed to persuade amid the positive and categorical testimonies of the arresting o cers
that the appellant was caught red-handed selling and possessing a considerable amount
of prohibited drugs on the night of the buy-bust operation.
It is apropos to reiterate here that where there is no showing that the trial court
overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion,
the Court will not disturb the trial court's assessment of the facts and the credibility of the
witnesses since the RTC was in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence
presented during trial. Settled too is the rule that the factual ndings of the appellate court
sustaining those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing
that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error. 6 2
On the basis of the foregoing, the Court is convinced that the prosecution was able
to establish the guilt of the appellant of the crimes charged.
The Penalties
Anent the proper imposable penalties, Section 15 and Section 16, Article III, in
relation to Section 20 (3) of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 state:
SEC. 15 . Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation
and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a ne ranging from ve 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.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if
the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any
offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim
thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed. cDTHIE

SEC. 16 . Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. — The penalty of

reclusion perpetua to death and a ne ranging from ve hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or
prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

SEC. 20 . Application of Penalties, Con scation and Forfeiture of the

Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. — The penalties for offenses under
Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and 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:

1. 40 grams or more of opium; acIASE

2. 40 grams or more of morphine;

3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;

7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or

8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far
beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the
Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the
purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the
penalty shall range from prision correccional t o reclusion perpetua depending
upon the quantity. (Emphases supplied.)

In Criminal Case No. 98-164174 involving the crime of illegal sale of regulated drugs,
the appellant was found to have sold to the poseur-buyer in this case a total of 247.98
grams of shabu, which amount is more than the minimum of 200 grams required by the
law for the imposition of either reclusion perpetua or, if there be aggravating
circumstances, the death penalty. cCDAHE

Pertinently, Article 63 6 3 of the Revised Penal Code mandates that when the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating
nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime, the lesser penalty shall be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 applied. Thus, in this case, considering that no mitigating or aggravating circumstances
attended the appellant's violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, the Court of Appeals correctly a rmed the trial court's imposition of reclusion
perpetua. The P5,000,000.00 ne imposed by the RTC on the appellant is also in accord
with Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
As to the charge of illegal possession of regulated drugs in Criminal Case No. 98-
164175, the Court of Appeals properly invoked our ruling in People v. Tira 6 4 in determining
the proper imposable penalty. Indeed, we held in Tira that: aTEACS

Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the
imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this
case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity
of the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as
follows:
QUANTITYIMPOSABLE PENALTY
Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 gramsprision correccional
49.26 grams to 98.50 gramsprision mayor
98.51 grams to 147.75 gramsreclusion temporal
147.76 grams to 199 gramsreclusion perpetua
(Emphases ours.)

Given that the additional 12 plastic sachets of shabu found in the possession of the
appellant amounted to 4.03 grams, the imposable penalty for the crime is prision
correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no aggravating or
mitigating circumstance in this case, the imposable penalty on the appellant should be the
indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four years and two
months of prision correccional, as maximum. The penalty imposed by the Court of
Appeals, thus, falls within the range of the proper imposable penalty. In Criminal Case No.
98-164175, no ne is imposable considering that in Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, a
ne can be imposed as a conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death. 6 5
Incidentally, the Court notes that both parties in this case admitted that the
appellant was a regular employee of the NBI Forensics Chemistry Division. Such fact,
however, cannot be taken into consideration to increase the penalties in this case to the
maximum, in accordance with Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. 6 6 Such a
special aggravating circumstance, i.e., one that which arises under special conditions to
increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, 6 7 was not alleged and
charged in the informations. Thus, the same was properly disregarded by the lower courts.
HICEca

All told, the Court finds no reason to overturn the conviction of the appellant.
WHEREFORE , the Court of Appeals Decision dated May 31, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR.-
H.C. No. 04201 is AFFIRMED . No costs.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Bersamin, Del Castillo * and Villarama, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 *Per Raffle dated December 5, 2012.

1.Rollo, pp. 2-23; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez with Associate Justices
Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a
member of this Court), concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 39-47; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Teresa P. Soriaso.

3.Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7659 (An
Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other
Purposes), states:

"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.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the victim of the
offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section
be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty therein
provided shall be imposed."
4.Records, p. 1.

5.Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, provides:
"SEC. 16. Possession or Use 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 shall possess or use any regulated drug without the
corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof."

6.Records, p. 16.
7.Id. at 28-29.

8.Id. at 62.
9.Id. at 19, 52.

10.Id. at 69.

11.TSN, August 11, 1998; TSN, October 6, 1998.

12.TSN, September 15, 1998.

13.TSN, December 2, 1999.

14.TSN, September 20, 2001; TSN, August 10, 2006.

15.TSN, April 21, 2005.

16.TSN, March 9, 2006.

17.TSN, August 11, 1998, pp. 5-7.

18.Id. at 7-9.
19.Id. at 9-14.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 20.Id. at 15-25.
21.Id. at 25-33.

22.TSN, October 6, 1998, pp. 4-19.

23.TSN, December 2, 1999, pp. 5-12.

24.Id. at 13-19.

25.Id. at 19-21, 27-29.

26.TSN, September 15, 1998, pp. 6-19.

27.Id. at 21-26.
28.Records, p. 177.

29.Id. at 178-179.

30.Id. at 180.
31.Id. at 79.

32.Id. at 181.
33.Id. at 182.

34.Id. at 4-6.

35.Id. at 8.
36.Id. at 9.

37.Id. at 10.

38.Id.
39.CA rollo, pp. 66-78.

40.Id. at 70-71.
41.Records, p. 402.

42.Id. at 403-405.

43.Id. at 406.
44.Id. at 407-411.

45.Id. at 412.
46.Id. at 413-420.

47.CA rollo, p. 46.

48.Id. at 47.
49.Id. at 50.

50.Rollo, p. 22.
51.Id. at 24-26.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 52.455 Phil. 371 (2003).

53.Id. at 382.
54.Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provide:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A 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;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant
shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded
against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

55.544 Phil. 468, 485 (2007).

56.People v. Tiu, 469 Phil. 163, 173 (2004).

57.457 Phil. 443, 449 (2003).

58.People v. Ting Uy, 430 Phil. 516, 530 (2002).

59.Id. at 526.

60.TSN, September 20, 2001, p. 53.

61.People v. Butch Bucao Lee, 407 Phil. 250, 260 (2001).

62.People v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 622, 634.

63.Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code states:

ART. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the
deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance,
the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the
deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is
no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their
number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.

64.G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 155.
65.People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994, 234 SCRA 555, 573.

66.Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Section 19 of Republic Act No. 7659,
states:
SEC. 24. Penalties for Government Officials and Employees and Officers and Members of
Police Agencies and the Armed Forces; Planting of Evidence. — The maximum penalties
provided for in Sections 3, 4 (1), 5 (1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections
14, 14-A, 15 (1), 15-A (1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found guilty of
any of the said offenses are government officials, employees or officers including
members of police agencies and the armed forces.
Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of "planting" any
dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14,
14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the immediate vicinity of
another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same penalty as therein
provided.
67.Palaganas v. People, 533 Phil. 169, 196 (2006).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com