FACTS:

The accused appellant, Jesusa Figueroa, was convicted for violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Two Informations were filed against her in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. In Criminal Case No. 04-2432, she was charged with possession of 9.42 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). In Criminal Case No. 04-2433, she was charged with attempting to sell, give away, distribute, and deliver 4.60 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) to a proposed buyer.

The prosecution's version of the events was that an informant informed the police about Figueroa's drug pushing activities. The police conducted surveillance and arranged a buy-bust operation. On July 2, 2004, at the agreed meeting place, Figueroa showed a plastic sachet containing shabu to the poseur-buyer. However, she fled when she sensed the presence of police officers and was later apprehended.

The defense, on the other hand, denied any involvement in the drug transaction and claimed to be innocent.

ISSUES:

1. Did the trial court err in not holding that the alleged buy-bust operation conducted by the police was irregular due to lack of prior coordination with the PDEA?

2. Did the trial court seriously err in holding that there was a prior agreement between the police officer and the accused regarding the alleged sale of shabu?

3. Did the trial court seriously err in giving weight to the conflicting testimonies of the police officers?

4. Did the trial court seriously err in finding the accused guilty of the offense of attempt to sell shabu?

5. Whether the failure of law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation renders the arrest and evidence obtained illegal.

6. Whether the testimony of PO3 Callora regarding the alleged sale transaction is hearsay and without probative value.

7. Whether the identity of the white crystalline substance was established.

8. Whether or not the findings of the administrative bodies violate the right to due process

9. Whether or not the removal of the petitioner from the service is valid

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in its findings and affirmed the conviction of the accused. It found that the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA does not invalidate the operation conducted by the police. The Court also found that the evidence presented proved that there was a prior agreement between the police officer and the accused regarding the sale of shabu. It further held that the trial court did not err in giving weight to the testimonies of the police officers, as it is the trial court's duty to assess the credibility of witnesses. Finally, the Court found that the trial court did not err in finding the accused guilty of the offense of attempt to sell shabu.

2. The failure of law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation does not render the arrest and evidence obtained illegal. The silence of the law and its implementing rules on the consequences of such failure cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.

3. The testimony of PO3 Callora regarding the alleged sale transaction is admissible and has probative value. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, the hearsay rule does not apply where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The testimony of PO3 Callora established that the information led the police officers to prepare for and proceed with the buy-bust operation. The conversation between the informant and the accused-appellant was not necessary to prove the attempted sale of shabu, as said attempt to sell was already clear from accused-appellant's actuations witnessed by PO3 Callora.

4. The identity of the white crystalline substance was established through the testimonies of PO3 Callora and PS/Insp. Garcia, as well as the initial laboratory report. The testimonies of the witnesses, which were found credible by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, established that the white crystalline substance found inside a Chowking plastic bag was positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

5. The findings of the administrative bodies did not violate the right to due process because the petitioner was given ample opportunity to present evidence and be heard. The administrative bodies followed the proper procedures in conducting the investigation.

6. The removal of the petitioner from the service is valid because the administrative bodies found him guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty, which are valid grounds for dismissal.

PRINCIPLES:

• Lack of prior coordination with the PDEA does not invalidate police operations in drug-related cases under Republic Act No. 9165.

• The trial court has the duty to assess the credibility of witnesses and determine the weight to be given to their testimonies.

• The failure of law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation does not render the arrest and evidence obtained illegal.

• Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, the hearsay rule does not apply where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial.

• The testimony of a witness has probative value if it establishes relevant facts and is found credible by the court.

• Minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, which do not touch upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair the credibility of the witnesses.

• The right to due process requires that a person be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.

• Administrative bodies must follow the proper procedures in conducting investigations to ensure that the right to due process is protected.

• Serious misconduct and dishonesty are valid grounds for dismissal from the service.