FACTS:

The case involves accused-appellants Phoebe Astudillo and Ku Sho Ping who were charged with unlawfully selling and distributing 2,978.3 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as "shabu." The prosecution's witness, P/Insp. Jean Fajardo, received a report that Astudillo was looking for a buyer of shabu. Fajardo arranged a meeting and agreed to buy three kilos of shabu for P2.1 million. A buy-bust operation was planned, and a team of police officers, including Fajardo, was formed. On the agreed date, Fajardo and the informant met accused-appellants at a McDonald's restaurant in Divisoria. Accused-appellants asked to see the money, and Fajardo opened a maroon attaché case containing genuine bills mixed with boodle money. After some conversations and exchanges, Fajardo took hold of accused-appellants, but Astudillo managed to pass the attaché case to another person who escaped with the money. Accused-appellants were then apprehended and taken into custody.

During the trial, accused-appellant Ku Sho Ping claimed that she was arrested while buying vegetables in Divisoria and was taken to an office where she was detained for a charge she did not understand. She denied knowing what shabu looked like and denied delivering three kilos of shabu. Accused-appellant Phoebe Astudillo testified that she went to meet a certain "Larry" at Max's Restaurant, where she was asked if she could produce three kilos of shabu. She refused to be involved in drugs but was forced to give a telephone number of an acquaintance. Later on, she received a call confirming the willingness to pay an acceptance fee, leading to a meeting at Texas Restaurant. Astudillo went to the restaurant but decided to leave when "Larry" did not arrive. She then encountered a man named Mang Vic/Boy and, before she knew it, was being arrested by police officers. She denied delivering shabu, having a maroon attaché case, and being at McDonald's on the day of the incident. Various witnesses, including a vegetable vendor and a pedicab driver, corroborated aspects of the accused-appellants' testimonies.

In the trial court, P/Insp. Jean Fajardo testified that during the operation, an envelope was handed over to him, which he later tore in anger. He claimed that Astudillo and Mang Boy left after the incident and never came back. Fajardo said he saw them near the railway, and Astudillo told him that a Chinese woman had escaped. They tried to go after her but failed to catch her. On their way back to the service vehicle parked in front of McDonald's, Fajardo witnessed SPO2 Reynaldo Palma grabbing Astudillo by the neck. The trial court found Fajardo's testimony convincing and rendered a guilty verdict against both accused-appellants, sentencing them to death by lethal injection. The accused-appellants appealed the decision, arguing inconsistencies in the testimonies and the lower court's failure to consider certain evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses are contradictory and inconsistent

2. Whether certain vital evidence was conveniently omitted or disregarded by the trial court

3. Whether there are serious doubts and insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused-appellant

4. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credit to the testimonies of the accused-appellant's witnesses

5. Whether the death penalty is justified in this case

6. Whether there was a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers.

7. Whether the testimony of the witness Pedroza is more credible than the testimony of Valmores.

8. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of the duties of the police officers has been overcome

9. Whether the different weights mentioned by the prosecution witness affect the essence of her testimony

10. Whether the absence of marked money creates a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution

11. Whether the defense of denial can prevail in this case

12. Whether the filing of a charge for theft against certain police officers affects the plausibility of the defense's theory

13. Whether the death penalty was properly imposed on accused-appellants

14. Whether or not the accused-appellants constituted an organized or syndicated crime group.

15. Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of the offense being committed by an organized or syndicated crime group can be considered even if not alleged in the information.

RULING:

1. The Court will not disturb the trial court's assessment of witness credibility unless there are facts or circumstances of weight and influence that have been overlooked or misinterpreted by the trial court. In this case, the trial court's findings that accused-appellants tried to sell regulated drugs without authority are fully supported by the evidence.

2. The alleged omission or disregard of vital evidence by the trial court is not sufficient to overturn its judgment. It is the trial court's unique opportunity to observe witnesses and assess their demeanor.

3. There is sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses.

4. The trial court did not err in not giving credit to the testimonies of the accused-appellant's witnesses as their testimonies only serve to place doubt on the credibility of the accused-appellant.

5. The issue of the death penalty is not pertinent to the issues raised in this appeal and is considered moot.

6. Yes, there was a buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers. The witness Pedroza provided a detailed account of the operation, including the preparation of boodle money and the actual arrest of the accused. The testimony of Pedroza was given more weight compared to Valmores, who denied the existence of a briefing before the operation.

7. The testimony of Pedroza is more credible than the testimony of Valmores. Pedroza was in a vantage position to observe the entire buy-bust operation and his account was consistent and detailed. On the other hand, Valmores's testimony was inconsistent, particularly regarding the presence or absence of a briefing before the operation. Therefore, Pedroza's testimony was found to be more reliable.

8. The presumption of regularity in the performance of the duties of the police officers has not been overcome. The police officers showed concern in recovering the money used in the buy-bust operation.

9. The different weights mentioned by the prosecution witness do not affect the essence of her testimony. It is a minor detail that does not invalidate her statement regarding the weight of the shabu.

10. The absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution. The prosecution has established all the elements necessary for the illegal sale of shabu.

11. The defense of denial cannot prevail in this case. Denial and frame-up are viewed with disfavor and are common defense tactics in drug-related cases.

12. The filing of a charge for theft against certain police officers does not affect the plausibility of the defense's theory. Such charge, if true, would only constitute another crime separate from the illegal sale of shabu.

13. The trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on accused-appellants. The quantity of shabu involved does not warrant the imposition of the death penalty under the law.

14. The accused-appellants did not constitute an organized or syndicated crime group as defined by law. While they confederated and mutually helped one another for the purpose of gain, there is no proof that they were part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain.

15. The aggravating circumstance of the offense being committed by an organized or syndicated crime group cannot be considered because it was not alleged in the information. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information in order to be considered, even if proven. This provision, being favorable to the accused, may be given retroactive effect in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

• The credibility of witnesses is primarily a function of the trial court, and its assessment will not be disturbed by the appellate court unless there are facts or circumstances of weight and influence that have been overlooked or misinterpreted.

• The trial court has the opportunity to observe witness demeanor, conduct, and attitude during direct and cross-examination, which the appellate court does not have.

• Omission or disregard of certain evidence by the trial court does not automatically invalidate its judgment if there is sufficient evidence to support its findings.

• The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• Inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses may affect their credibility, but they do not necessarily negate the guilt of the accused if there is other supporting evidence.

• Presumption of good faith and regularity in the performance of official functions by public officers.

• Presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of police officers

• Minor details do not invalidate the essence of testimonial evidence

• Absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in evidence for the prosecution

• Denial and frame-up are viewed with disfavor in drug-related cases

• Separate crimes do not mitigate liability in the present case

• Proper application of penalties based on the quantity of drugs involved

• A group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the commission of any crime constitutes an organized or syndicated crime group.

• Qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information in order to be considered, even if proven.

• Procedural laws regulating the procedure of the court are retroactive and applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.