On appeal is the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31^[1] finding appellants Samrod Pendatun y Kasan, Richard Nuñez y Sanita, Canapi Ambalgan y Bagundong alias "Pia", Noel Lantikan y Peregrina, Joven Casem y Menko alias "Sarip", Sarah Pendatun y Pandian and Tarhata Salmore y Watama alias "Tata", guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling 982.1 grams of shabu, a regulated drug, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering them to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and costs.

Appellants were charged with violation of Section 15, Article III in relation to Section 21 (b), Article IV of RA 6425, as amended, in an Information which reads:^[2]

That on or about May 25, 1999, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without license or legal authority, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, pass and distribute to PNP member/poseur buyer methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) a regulated drug weighing 982.1 grams contained in a self-sealing transparent plastic bag which was placed in an orange plastic bag with mark "Emporia Department Store", in exchange for six (6) pieces of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) Bills marked money separately placed on top of several pieces of bond paper used as "boodle" money.

Contrary to law.

On May 25, 1999 at around 9:00 in the morning, a confidential agent went to the office of Police Senior Inspector Romualdo Iglesia, Chief of the Service Support Office of the PNP Narcotics Group at Camp Crame, Quezon City, to relay an information about a group of Muslim drug traffickers operating in Metro Manila and nearby provinces. It was determined that the drug deal would take place in San Pedro, Laguna at around 4:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon of that day.  Police Senior Officer Iglesia then designated the team that would conduct the buy-bust operation. PO2 Wilfredo de Leon, as the assigned poseur-buyer, was given P3,000.00 placed on top of a stack of boodle money.  At around 2:30 in the afternoon, the arresting team, composed of 12 to 15 police officers on board five cars, proceeded to the target area. When they arrived at the Petron Gasoline Station along South Expressway, PO2 De Leon, together with the confidential agent, alighted from the car to await the arrival of the suspects. After five minutes, a white taxi with three unidentified passengers arrived. When they met, the confidential agent introduced PO2 De Leon to the three persons, later identified as appellants Canapi Ambalgan alias Pia, Samrod Pendatun, and Richard Nuñez, as the prospective buyer of shabu.  After an exchange of pleasantries, the three drug dealers demanded to see the money.  PO2 De Leon, insisted however, that they first show him the "stuff". Appellants Pia, Samrod, and Richard left but returned later with appellants Tarhata "Tata" Salmore, Sarah Pendatun, Joven Casem and Noel Lantikan. Joven Casem handed the plastic bag he was carrying to Tata who passed it on to the poseur-buyer.  After examining the contents of the plastic bag, PO2 De Leon gave the pre-arranged signal. He then took out his gun and introduced himself as a narcotics agent, while the other police officers rushed to the scene to arrest the seven suspects.

Police Inspector Ma. Luisa David, forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, examined the specimen substance and found that the same was methampethamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug.

On the other hand, appellant Tarhata Salmore testified that among the seven appellants, only Sarah Pendatun was familiar to her.  She narrated that on May 25, 1999 she was accompanied by Sarah to Taguig where they met with appellants Richard Nunez, Joven Casem, and Canapi Ambalgan.  Since the group was planning to go to Laguna, Tarhata volunteered to go with them so she can visit her uncle, a sidewalk vendor, whom she has not seen since December 1998.  They boarded a taxi with Richard taking the front seat while she, Sarah, Joven and Canapi on the back seat.  Tarhata placed the plastic bag containing a kilo of mangoes which she bought for her uncle on the floor between her legs.  Upon reaching the McDonald's Restaurant along South Expressway, Richard instructed the taxi driver to stop, after which all of them alighted from the taxi; that somebody asked her to carry a plastic bag but could not recall who it was; and that she placed the bag on a monobloc chair outside the restaurant.  Moments later, she entered the restaurant with appellants Noel Lantican and Samrod Pendatun when they met the rest of the group.  Then her male companions went out of the restaurant, leaving her and Sarah inside.  Samrod motioned for her to pick up the plastic bag on the monobloc chair, so she went outside and followed Samrod.

Tarhata and Samrod went towards the back of the restaurant, where she noticed a woman and an old man, together with Noel Lantikan, standing beside a red car.  When she went near the vehicle, Noel Lantikan shoved her inside.  The three individuals then boarded the car, followed a little later by Samrod Pendatun.  The unidentified woman ordered her to hand over the plastic bag.  At this juncture, several men appeared and pulled the four of them out of the vehicle.  Their captors dragged them towards a flesh-colored van and they were brought to Camp Crame.

Appellants Richard Nuñez and Noel Lantikan narrated a substantially similar version of the incident.  Specifically, Richard Nuñez testified that on May 25, 1999 at around 10:00 in the morning, his childhood friend from Laguna, appellant Noel Lantikan, came to visit him at his house in Fairview, Quezon City. Appellant Lantikan invited him to go to his house in Los Baños, Laguna to visit their friends. On their way to Laguna, the jeepney they were riding stopped at a Petron gasoline station along the South Expressway to gas up.  They asked permission from the driver to use the comfort room which was located behind McDonald's Restaurant.  While inside the rest room, they were suddenly pushed down the floor and manhandled by two armed men.  They were then dragged outside towards a vehicle which brought them to Camp Crame.

Appellant Samrod Pendatun testified that on May 25, 1999, he was on board a bus on his way to Calamba, Laguna to see his uncle.  Before he could reach his destination, however, the bus he was riding developed engine trouble near the McDonald's Restaurant, which was located along the South Expressway.  While the bus was being fixed, he went inside the restaurant to call his wife who arrived in a taxi at around 4:00 in the afternoon.  Not long after, three men collared and forcibly brought them to a waiting car.

Appellant Canapi Ambalgan testified that on May 25, 1999, he had just finished his lunch in a restaurant in Quiapo when Joven Casem, a friend from his hometown, came to see him.  Casem asked if he could accompany him to Laguna to visit a relative.  On their way to Laguna aboard a taxi, they asked the driver to stop by the McDonald's restaurant because they wanted to take a snack.  Before they could finish their snack, however, several men collared the two of them and shoved their faces on the table.  Appellant Canapi was led towards a vehicle where he was forced to lie down.  Later, he found himself at Camp Crame.  Appellant claimed that he was tortured to admit the possession of the plastic bag containing the prohibited drugs.  He insisted that, except for Joven Casem, he had not met any of his co-accused before.

In denying the charges, appellant Joven Casem recounted that he went to Manila to look for his sister who got lost after being abandoned by her recruiter. In the morning of May 25, 1999, he and his uncle went to the Muslim mosque in Quiapo to look for her. By chance, he met appellant Canapi Ambalgan, an old friend.  Canapi invited him to go to Laguna.  Along the way, however, they were arrested and detained at Camp Crame. He revealed that, like the other appellants, he was also maltreated by the arresting officers.

For her part, appellant Sarah Pendatun narrated that in the morning of May 25, 1999, she was inside her house in Taguig, Maharlika Village. Her husband, appellant Samrod Pendatun, had just left to go to the recruitment agency in Manila. At around 1:00 in the afternoon, she received a call from her husband telling her to proceed to the McDonald's Restaurant at the South Expressway.  She arrived there at around 3:00 p.m., and had a snack. It was then that three men pulled her husband and brought him outside.  Thereafter, the men returned and ordered her to board a vehicle.

The trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and rendered a decision finding the seven appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling 982.1 grams of shabu, a regulated drug, the dispositive portion of which reads:^[3]

IN VIEW THEREOF, the prosecution assisted by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Melchorito M.E. Lomarda has duly established the guilt of all accused beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of a Violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, for having sold, in conspiracy with one another, 982.1 grams of shabu, a regulated drug, to a poseur-buyer without any authority of law.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing each of the accused Samrod Pendatun y Kasan, Richard Nunez y Sanita, Canapi Ambalgan y Bagundong @ Pia, Noel Lantikan y Peregrina, Joven Casem y Menko @ Sarip, Sarah Pendatun y Pandian and Tarhata Salmore y Watama @ Tata to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and to pay the costs of suit.

The Officer-In-Charge of this court is hereby directed to turn over the evidence consisting of a plastic bag containing 982.1 grams of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for its proper disposition.

SO ORDERED.

Hence, this appeal based on the following grounds:^[4]

I.

THE LOWER COURT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ACTS OF THE ACCUSED COLLECTIVELY AND INDIVIDUALLY DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF A COMMON DESIGN TOWARDS THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE SAME UNLAWFUL PURPOSE, THUS CONSPIRACY IS NOT EVIDENT;

II.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ADMISSION MADE BY ACCUSED T. SALMORE SUBSTANTIATED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GUILT OF ALL ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;

III.

THE "SHABU" SEIZED WAS INSIDE A CLOSED PACKAGE AND IS NOT IN PLAIN VIEW, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SEIZED WITHOUT A WARRANT;

IV.

THE LOWER COURT DISREGARDED THE FACT THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED WERE VIOLATED, SPECIFICALLY, THE DEFENSE OF NUÑEZ AND LANTIKAN THAT THEY WERE AT THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME; THE PENDATUN'S SPOUSES ALLEGATION THAT THEY WERE MANHANDLED; AND AMBALGAN AND CASEM'S CLAIM THAT THEY WERE SIMILARLY MALTREATED FOR NO APPARENT REASON.

To buttress their stance, appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that their presence at McDonald's was and of itself, a conspiracy.  They claim that the incredible admission made by Tarhata Salmore betrays material contradictions with the narration of PO2 De Leon resulting in the failure by the prosecution to meet the required quantum of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to convict them of the crime charged.

Appellants further claim that the shabu allegedly seized by the authorities was placed inside a closed package and was not in plain view. Hence, it could not be seized without a warrant. Furthermore, they protested the alleged illegal tactics employed by the arresting officers to extract confessions from them which violated their constitutional rights.

Appellants' contentions are bereft of merit.  The trial court was correct in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution's evidence.  The testimonies on how the buy-bust operation was conducted exposed in clear and distinct terms the intention of the malefactors to engage in the illegal sale of shabu.

As recounted by prosecution witness De Leon, and corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses, the Narcotics group acted on the information by the confidential agent that a group of Muslim drug traffickers operating in Metro Manila was about to conduct an illegal drugs deal. At the designated place, the confidential agent introduced the poseur-buyer as a prospective buyer of shabu to appellants Pia, Samrod and Richard.  The three demanded to see the money in exchange for the shabu in their possession. The three left for a while but returned later with Tata, Sara, Jovi and Noel.  It was appellant Jovi who handed the plastic bag to Tata who in turn gave it to PO2 De Leon.

The presence of the seven accused at the locus criminis was confirmed by Tarhata "Tata" Salmore who also testified that on the date of the incident, she and the other appellants Sarah Pendatun, Richard Nunez, Joven Casem, and Canapi Ambalgan decided to go to Laguna. Along the way, the taxi stopped by the McDonald's Restaurant along the South Expressway. There, they met Noel Lantican and Samrod Pendatun inside the McDonald's Restaurant.  It was Samrod who asked appellant Salmore to pick up the plastic bag she was made to carry. She also identified Noel Lantikan as the one who, together with a woman and an old man, shoved her inside the red car before the arresting officers swooped down upon the group and brought them to Camp Crame.

The presence of the seven appellants at the scene of the crime was not only established but the participation of each of the appellant in the aborted drug deal was clearly described and proved by the prosecution witnesses. Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.^[5] These essential ingredients were duly proved in the case at bar. Appellants sold and delivered the shabu to the police officer posing as buyer. It was seized and identified as a prohibited drug and subsequently presented in evidence. Appellants were fully aware that they were selling and delivering a prohibited substance. They were all present when the plastic bag containing the prohibited substance was handed over to the poseur-buyer.  Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.  Hence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.  In this respect, appellants' defense of denial withers in the face of the positive identification by PO2 De Leon who enjoys in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his job.

The trial court accorded full credit to the testimony of PO2 De Leon as substantiated by the other arresting officers and at the same time, dismissed the self-serving and uncorroborated testimonies of the appellants. We find no reason to disagree. Well-settled is the rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.^[6] Moreover, the defense failed to prove any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to impute a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of innocent persons.

Appellants alleged that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of a conspiracy among the seven accused, as it did not show a common plan or design among them.  We find otherwise. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. As a rule, conspiracy must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. It is not necessary, however, that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime.  Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused which show a joint or common purpose and design, a concerted action and a community of interest among the accused.^[7]

We find that conspiracy exists in this case.  While there is no showing of direct evidence that appellants agreed to commit the crime, their acts and the attendant circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime disclose a common design that would make all of them co-principals in the crime committed. As the records would show, appellants Pia, Samrod and Richard conducted the preliminaries to the transaction when they tried to ascertain the identity of the supposed buyer and made inquiries on the availability of the drug money. Satisfied, they then brought to the scene appellants Tata, Sara, Jovi and Noel who delivered the prohibited substance. This indubitably demonstrates a concerted effort on the part of the appellants in perpetrating the illegal sale. We can deduce from their collective conduct a common design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. Needless to state, when conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators.^[8]

Neither can we sustain appellants' erroneous invocation of the "plain view doctrine." The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.^[9] It finds no application where the appellants, as in this case, are caught in the act of committing a crime. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of the buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but are even duty- bound to arrest them even without a warrant.

In the instant case, there is reasonable suspicion that the package in the possession of the culprit contains the prohibited item, which the arresting officer came across, not inadvertently, but on purpose. It bears noting that the package containing the illegal substance was seized only after it was examined and voluntarily placed by one of the appellants in the possession of the arresting officer posing as buyer.

Appellants decry the alleged maltreatment and abuse they experienced in the hands of the arresting officers. While we do not condone and in fact condemn the penchant by some members of the police force in resorting to extra-constitutional means to extract, for which reason evidence so obtained are deemed inadmissible, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the conviction of herein appellants rests, not on any evidence so obtained, but on the strength of the prosecution evidence showing their guilt beyond any iota of doubt.

The penalty prescribed under Section 15 of Article III, in relation to Section 20 of Article IV, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA 7659, for unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride is reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.

In the case at bar, as the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death consists of two  indivisible penalties, appellants were correctly meted the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua, conformably with Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code that when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.^[10] As to the fine, considering that the amount of shabu sold was 982.1 grams, we find the amount of P500,000.00 as reasonable.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, finding Samrod Pendatun y Kasan, Richard Nuñez y Sanita, Canapi Ambalgan y Bagundong a.k.a. "Pia", Noel Lantikan y Peregrina, Joven Casem y Menko a.k.a. Sarip, Sarah Pendatun y Pandian and Tarhata Salmore y Watama a.k.a. "Tata" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15, Article III of RA No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 and costs, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Decision penned by Judge Stella Cabuco Andres.

^[2] Rollo, p. 96.

^[3] Id., pp. 106-107.

^[4] Id., p. 89.

^[5] People v. Pacis, G.R. No. 146309, 18 July 2002; People v. Cercado, G.R. No. 144494, 26 July 2002, 385 SCRA 277.

^[6] People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944, 11 July 2002, 384 SCRA 525.

^[7] People v. Sicad, et al., G.R. No. 133833, 15 October 2002, 391 SCRA 19.

^[8] People Gutierrez, et al., G.R. Nos. 137610-11, 6 February 2002, 376 SCRA 360.

^[9] People v. Musa, G.R. No. 96177, 27 January 1993, 217 SCRA 597.

^[10] People v. Monte, G.R. No. 144317, 5 August 2003, 408 SCRA 305.