REPORTER : SHIERLY C.

BA-AD JD 3

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EDWIN CONCEPCION Y JACINTO, ET. AL.

FACTS:

Police Inspector Isagani Montalbo Latayan and SPO2 Marcelino Perez Male (Latayan and Male,
for brevity) are members of the Fourth Narcom Regional Field Unit, NP Narcotics Command.
Their main duty as Narcom agetNs is to conduct operations against violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972. Barangay Captain AlfreDo Alcantara of Maytalang I, Lumban, Laguna, fed
up with the rampant illegal drug activities at the Barangay, requested the Narcom Office to
conduct operation against those persons indulging in illegal trade.

Male did the tedious and risky job. Luckily, he was able to penetrate the group by pretending to
be a pusher and joining their happenings until he gained their trust. Come, March 20, 1996 at
around 9:00 to 10:00 o’clock in the morning, he was introduce by hiS contact man (Andres
Manambit) to one of the sources of shabu in the name of Jimmy at the latters house at Barangay
Aplaya, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. ON the same occasion, a sale of shabu was perfected between the
two, in the presence of Adres Manambit and a certain Joey with Jimmy to deliver to Male one
half kilo of shabu at a price of P1,000/gram. Likewise, on that instance, Jimmy called up
somebody through telephone telling the person at the end of the line that the deal was okay. They
parted with the agreement that Jimmy will bring the stuff to Lumban, Laguna together with his
manager and that Male will prepare the money.

Report of the development was immediately made to Latayan who headed a team composed of
Male, SPO1 Patag, SPO1 Guevarra and Yatco, to Barangay Maytalang I, Lumban, Laguna, at
around 2:00 'clock in the afternoon and waited together with some Barangay Officials, the arrival
of accused/pushers at the place of a certain alias Daboy Manambit (Narcom's Agent/Informer),
and the cousin of Andres Manambit. At around 1:00 o'clock in the morning of March 22, 1996,
Jimmy arrived alone. Male and Jimmy talked to each other and the latter asked if the money is
ready. Male responded in the affirmative to which Jimmy replied "If the money is ready, I will
fetch my manager",and left the place. After about ten (10) minutes, a white Toyota car with Plate
No. TSZ-227 arrived. Jimmy first alighted from the car followed by three (3) others, who
introduced themselves by the name of Edwin, Harold and Joey. The two (Male and Jimmy)
proceeded to the terrace of the house of Daboy followed by the three. Male asked Jimmy if the
stuff was with him, and Jimmy answered by pointing to Edwin as their manager, and added that
the order was with them. Male and Edwin greeted each other. Male asked Edwin if he can see the
stuff, who answered "yes" then showed and gave Male one (1) blue clutch bag. Edwin even told
Male to see if it is real. For their part, Joey and Harold also asked Male if the money is ready and
he answered "yes". Male opened the clutch bag and saw the plastic bag containing shabu.
 REPORTER : SHIERLY C. BA-AD JD 3

Thereafter, as a pre-arranged signal to his colleagues, Male pulled out a handkerchief from his
pocket and wiped his face. With signal he gave, the members of the arresting team approached
them, and arrested the four (4) accused, and brought them to their headquarters at Calamba,
Laguna.

Respondents claim that they are merely victims of a police frame up, that the samples examined
were substituted and that the existence of marked money is necessary in the buy bust operation.

ISSUE :

Whether or not, defendants are guilty of violating the dangerous drug act

HELD :

The defense of frame up or denial, like alibi, has invariably been viewed by the courts with
disfavour for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. For such a defense to prosper, the
evidence must be clear and convincing.What is material to a prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place coupled with
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In this regard, in a prosecution for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that 1) the accused is in possession of an
item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; 2) such possession is not
authorized by law, and 3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

Moreover, the Court agrees with the trial court that the accused-appellants, behaviours during
that entrapment operation show clearly that there was conspiracy between them. It is an
established rule that direct proof to show that the accused had come to an agreement to commit a
felony is not necessary. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of all accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime. More explicitly –

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest
on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties
indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of
the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together
and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful
scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. It may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred
from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.

As aptly observed by the trial court, accused-appellants’ being together at the early dawn of
march 22, 1996 at around 1:00 am all the way from Sta. Rosa, Laguna to Barangay
 REPORTER : SHIERLY C. BA-AD JD 3

Maytalang I, Lumban Laguna for the delivery of the shabu and the established participation
of each of the accused-appellants before, during and after the delivery of the drug signified
their concerted efforts and cooperation towards the attainment of the criminal objective. As
has been stated earlier, Jimmy was the one with who SPO1 Male, the poseur-buyer
transacted for the sale of the shabu while Edwin acted as the manager of the group. Joey
and Harold’s knowledge and concurrence to the transaction were shown by their eagerness
to ascertain if the money was ready.

The Court is also not persuaded that the samples examined were not taken from the drugs
seized. On the contrary, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses SPO1 Marcelino Male
and Police Inspector Isagani Latayan fairly established that the shabu taken from the
appellants is the same substance examined by the forensic chemist and later presented as
evidence in court. As such, their testimonies to this effect should be accorded more
credence than accusedappellants' bare denials. Certainly, the presumption of regularity
must prevail over accused-appellants' unfounded allegations

Similarly, the accused's other contention in the demurrer to evidence that show money is
wanting should be taken with a grain of salt considering the settled jurisprudence in the
buy-bust operation that marked money is not necessary.
Absence of marked money would not create a hiatus in the prosecution's
evidence as long as the prohibited stuff was presented before the trial court.
The presentation in Court of "marked money" used in "buy-bust operations"
is not indispensable in drug cases for the offense is committed by mere act
of delivery or transfer of the prohibited drug and the consideration for the
transaction is of no moment.
The court several times stressed that the offense of illegal sale of prohibited
drug is committed once a sale transaction was consummated. The presence
of actual monetary consideration is not indispensable for the existence of
the offense. In People vs. de la Cruz, the court stated that when a police
officer went through the motions of buying prohibited drugs and his offer to
buy was accepted by the accused-seller, the crime was consummated by
mere delivery of the drug purchased. The fact that no money was actually
delivered by the pretended buyer to the accused-seller did not prevent the
offenses from being committed.

Moreover, the herein accused are charged of (sic) delivering and transporting
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is consummated by the mere act of
passing/transporting to another with or without consideration.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch
91, in Criminal Case No. SC-6011, finding all the accused-appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV, in relation to
Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS.
REPORTER : SHIERLY C. BA-AD JD 3