View full case

PEOPLE v. SY BING YOK

FACTS:

In this case, two accused individuals, Armando Pulongbarit and Sy Bing Yok, were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offenses of selling, delivering, transporting, and distributing methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" without lawful authority. Armando Pulongbarit, also known as "Mike," was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to six years of prision correcional as maximum. On the other hand, Sy Bing Yok, also known as "Arturo Marcelo Sy," "Arturo Marcelo Lim," or "Willie," was sentenced to life imprisonment.

The court also ordered the forfeiture and confiscation of the shabu found in their possession in favor of the government. Only Sy Bing Yok appealed his conviction, while Armando Pulongbarit applied for probation.

The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by NARCOM agents, wherein Armando Pulongbarit sold 100 grams of shabu to SPO3 Timbol. Following the transaction, Pulongbarit was apprehended, and during questioning, he disclosed that his supplier was Arturo Sy.

Subsequently, the NARCOM agents devised an entrapment operation and arrested Sy Bing Yok when he arrived at Pulongbarit's residence with five kilograms of shabu. The substance seized during the operation was subjected to examination, and it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the decision rendered by a judge who did not personally hear the case is valid.

  2. Whether the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses affect the credibility of their testimonies.

  3. Whether the defense of denial is a valid defense in this case.

  4. Whether appellant's lack of knowledge that the box he was carrying contained "shabu" is a valid defense in a mala prohibita crime.

RULING:

  1. The fact that the judge who rendered the decision was not the same judge who heard the greater part of the case is of no moment. A judge may validly render a decision based on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial.

  2. The alleged inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are only with respect to minor details and are inconsequential. They do not affect the credibility of the witnesses or detract from the established fact of the illegal sale of shabu by the accused.

  3. The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor and is a weak form of defense, particularly when not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the bare denials of the accused cannot prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.

  4. The Supreme Court held that lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances in a mala prohibita crime. Hence, the appellant's contention that he did not know the box he was carrying contained "shabu" cannot constitute a valid defense. Mere possession and/or delivery of a regulated drug, without legal authority, is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, as he was caught in flagrante delicto during a "buy-bust" operation. Therefore, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court finding the appellant guilty is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A judge who did not personally hear the case but relied on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial can still render a valid and just decision.

  • Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses do not affect the credibility of their testimonies if they are inconsequential and do not detract from the established facts.

  • Denials are weak forms of defense and must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence to prevail in a criminal case.

  • Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances in a mala prohibita crime.

  • Mere possession and/or delivery of a regulated drug, without legal authority, is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

  • In a "buy-bust" operation, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary.