THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. Nos. 144506-07, April 11, 2002 ]PEOPLE v. JERRY TING UY +
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY TING UY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. JERRY TING UY +
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY TING UY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
MELO, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the September 16, 1996 decision of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region (Branch XVII, Manila) finding Jerry Ting Uy guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 15 and 16, Article III
of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Appellant Jerry Ting Uy, a Taiwanese national, was charged on July 24, 1998 for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act in two separate Informations which read:
The record shows that at around 3:30 in the afternoon of July 21, 1998, a Chinese-Filipino police informant went to the Western Police District headquarters at U.N. Avenue, Ermita, Manila to inform the police officers assigned at the Drug Enforcement Unit thereat that a certain Jerry Ting Uy was engaged in illegal drug activities in Sta. Cruz, Manila. PO3 Luis Chico asked the police informant to contact appellant and to negotiate with him for the purchase of shabu. Around 4'o'clock that same afternoon, the police informant called appellant but was informed that shabu was not yet available. The police informant again called up appellant at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and they agreed that appellant would deliver half a kilo of shabu to the informant for P200,000.00 at Severino Street, near the corner of Remigio Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila at 6:30 in the evening of that same day. This information was recorded in the police blotter. Police officers, led by SPO2 Rodolfo Rival, then planned a buy-bust operation for the entrapment of appellant. Eight genuine P500.00 bills, marked with the letter "C", were prepared. These marked P500.00 bills were then placed at the top and at the bottom of four bundles of bogus money. The police designated PO3 Chico to be the poseur-buyer.
At around 6 o'clock in the evening, 13 police officers, including PO3 Chico, and the police informant left the police station and proceeded to the designated meeting place. Except for PO3 Chico and the police informant who waited at the meeting place, the rest of the police officers positioned themselves strategically in various places along Severino Street. Ten minutes later, appellant arrived on board a green Mitsubishi Lancer. Appellant stopped in front of the police informant and PO3 Chico, rolled down the window of his car, and talked to the police informant in Chinese. The police informant then told PO3 Chico to board appellant's car. PO3 Chico slid into the front passenger seat while the police informant sat at the backseat of the car. Appellant then asked for the payment of half a kilo of shabu. PO3 Chico handed the marked money to appellant. Appellant reached down under his seat, took a plastic bag and gave it to PO3 Chico. When PO3 Chico opened the plastic bag, he saw a transparent plastic bag containing substance which he suspected to be shabu. At this point, PO3 Chico introduced himself as a police officer and immediately arrested appellant. PO3 Chico then retrieved the marked money from appellant's lap. Thereafter, PO3 Chico inspected the space underneath the driver's seat and found three more plastic bags containing suspected shabu. After Chico's arrest of appellant, SPO2 Rival arrived and informed appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant was then brought to the WPD headquarters. The marked bills of money and the four plastic bags seized from appellant were handed over to SPO2 Benjamin Nuguit, who then turned over the same to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for laboratory examination.
The very next day, NBI Forensic Chemist Antonino de Belen issued a certification which reads:
Appellant was arrested by virtue of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plans. It is a procedure or operation sanctioned by law and which has consistently proven itself to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Thus, unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by improper motives or were not properly performing their duties, their testimony on the operation deserves full faith and credit (People vs. Chua Uy, G.R. No. 128046, March 7, 2000).
In this case, the evidence shows that it was the police informant who initially contacted and arranged a drug deal with appellant. At the pre-arranged meeting, the informant was accompanied by PO3 Chico, who posed as a buyer of shabu. PO3 Chico handed marked money to appellant as payment for half a kilo of shabu. Appellant was then arrested when he handed a plastic bag containing shabu to PO3 Chico.
The trial court found that PO3 Chico testified in a frank, spontaneous, straightforward, and categorical manner. His testimony was unflinching even during cross-examination by defense counsel. Moreover, PO3 Chico's testimony was corroborated on its material points by PO2 Gene Nelson Javier, another member of the arresting team. As has been repeatedly held by the Court, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary (People vs. Guiamil,, 277 SCRA 658 [1997]). As correctly noted by the trial court, there was no evidence presented as to any ill motive on the part of prosecution witness PO3 Chico which would affect the credibility of his testimony. PO3 Chico and the other law enforcers involved in the buy-bust operation would, thus, have in their favor the presumption that they regularly performed their duties. Absent any showing of palpable error or arbitrariness, as is the case at bar, the Court has no choice but to accord great respect to and to treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses.
The defense, in its efforts to establish the innocence of appellant, claims that it is incredible for a drug peddler to agree to sell his wares without first checking on the possibility of entrapment, given that drug peddlers pursue their nefarious activities with utmost caution. We are not persuaded. Nowadays, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, impudent, and even openly defiant of the law. If drug peddlers are meticulously cautious in carrying out their illicit trade, drug abuse would not have grown to such alarming proportions as it has today and would certainly not pose a serious threat to society. The stark reality is that these unscrupulous drug pushers perform their illegal activities without fear of apprehension and unmindful of the risk of entrapment; in fact, they are only concerned with the swift disposal of their goods. Thus, we have found in many cases drug pushers selling their prohibited wares to any and all prospective customers, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime (People vs. Requiz, 318 SCRA 635 [1999]).
Likewise, it is appellant's view that the testimony of the police informant is indispensable in this case. This is not so. The failure to present the informant does not diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informants are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with inasmuch as his or her narration would be merely corroborative, especially so in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug (People vs. Chua, Uy, supra; People vs. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 [1997]).
Further, appellant's defense of frame-up does not convince. In drug-related cases, the claim that the accused has merely been framed-up by law enforcers for selfish motives is quite often raised by the defense. Such defense, however, has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. For this claim to prosper, the evidence adduced must be clear and convincing (People vs. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 [1997]). Appellant, regrettably, has miserably failed to substantiate his allegations in this respect.
Similarly, appellant's claim that he was arrested by the police in order to extort from him the amount of P200,000.00 is not worthy of belief. Aside from his bare assertions, no evidence was presented to establish such as fact. Moreover, if the arresting police officers indeed tried to extort money from appellant, he could have filed the proper charges against the erring police officers. The fact that no criminal or administrative charges were filed by appellant against the arresting police officers bolsters our conclusion that the alleged frame-up merely exists as a figment of appellant's imagination.
In the same vein, appellant's contention that the 1,510.8 grams of shabu seized from him is inadmissible in evidence must also be rejected. The Constitution generally proscribes searches and seizures without judicial warrant. Any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Sections 2 and 3(2), Article III). The rule is not absolute, however. Searches and seizures may be made without warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) the search was incident to a lawful arrest; (2) the search is of a moving motor vehicle; (3) the search concerns violation of customs laws; (4) the seizure of evidence in plain view; and (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 [1999]).
Clearly, the search made by the police officers in the instant case was incidental to a lawful arrest. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that "a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully arrested, caught as he was in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers.
A buy-bust operation is vastly different from an ordinary arrest. In lawful arrests in the course of a buy-bust operation, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the accused but also in the permissible area within his reach, i.e., that point which is within the effective control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him the means of committing violence or of escaping (People vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 [1998]). In other words, a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. In this case, the three plastic bags containing a total of 1,500 grams of shabu were seized inside the car where appellant himself was arrested. PO3 Chico, in this regard, narrated:
In sum, in Criminal Case No. 98-166676, this Court is convinced that the prosecution's evidence more than proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor (People vs. Uy, G.R. No. 129019, August 16, 2000). In this case, the identities of the seller and the buyer have been established. Appellant was positively identified in open court as the seller of the 505.6 grams of shabu by PO3 Chico himself who acted as the poseur-buyer. The delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer, as well as appellant's receipt of the marked money have also been sufficiently shown by the testimony of prosecution witnesses PO3 Chico and PO2 Javier. What is material and indispensable in a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer (People vs. Khor, 307 SCRA 295 [1999]).
There is likewise no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 98-166675 was proved beyond reasonable doubt, appellant knowingly carrying with him 1,510.8 grams of shabu without legal authority at the time of the buy-bust operation. The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug (Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]). All these circumstances are present in the case at bar.
Finally, pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall sell or possess 200 grams or more of shabu. Appellant, in this case, was caught selling 505.6 grams of shabu, and possessing 1,510.8 grams of the same substance. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crimes, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 in each of the two criminal cases.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Appellant Jerry Ting Uy, a Taiwanese national, was charged on July 24, 1998 for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act in two separate Informations which read:
CRIM. CASE NO. 98-166675Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both Informations. A joint trial was thereafter conducted.
That on or about July 21, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control white crystalline substance contained in three (3) separate self-sealed transparent plastic bag weighing one thousand five hundred ten point eight grams (1,510.8 g) known as 'SHABU" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the corresponding license or prescription thereof.
Contrary to law.
CRIM. CASE NO. 98-166676
That on or about July 21, 1998, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute white crystalline substance contained in a self-sealed transparent plastic bag weighing five hundred five point six gram (505.6 g) containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the corresponding license or prescription thereof.
Contrary to law.
(p. 17, Rollo.)
The record shows that at around 3:30 in the afternoon of July 21, 1998, a Chinese-Filipino police informant went to the Western Police District headquarters at U.N. Avenue, Ermita, Manila to inform the police officers assigned at the Drug Enforcement Unit thereat that a certain Jerry Ting Uy was engaged in illegal drug activities in Sta. Cruz, Manila. PO3 Luis Chico asked the police informant to contact appellant and to negotiate with him for the purchase of shabu. Around 4'o'clock that same afternoon, the police informant called appellant but was informed that shabu was not yet available. The police informant again called up appellant at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and they agreed that appellant would deliver half a kilo of shabu to the informant for P200,000.00 at Severino Street, near the corner of Remigio Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila at 6:30 in the evening of that same day. This information was recorded in the police blotter. Police officers, led by SPO2 Rodolfo Rival, then planned a buy-bust operation for the entrapment of appellant. Eight genuine P500.00 bills, marked with the letter "C", were prepared. These marked P500.00 bills were then placed at the top and at the bottom of four bundles of bogus money. The police designated PO3 Chico to be the poseur-buyer.
At around 6 o'clock in the evening, 13 police officers, including PO3 Chico, and the police informant left the police station and proceeded to the designated meeting place. Except for PO3 Chico and the police informant who waited at the meeting place, the rest of the police officers positioned themselves strategically in various places along Severino Street. Ten minutes later, appellant arrived on board a green Mitsubishi Lancer. Appellant stopped in front of the police informant and PO3 Chico, rolled down the window of his car, and talked to the police informant in Chinese. The police informant then told PO3 Chico to board appellant's car. PO3 Chico slid into the front passenger seat while the police informant sat at the backseat of the car. Appellant then asked for the payment of half a kilo of shabu. PO3 Chico handed the marked money to appellant. Appellant reached down under his seat, took a plastic bag and gave it to PO3 Chico. When PO3 Chico opened the plastic bag, he saw a transparent plastic bag containing substance which he suspected to be shabu. At this point, PO3 Chico introduced himself as a police officer and immediately arrested appellant. PO3 Chico then retrieved the marked money from appellant's lap. Thereafter, PO3 Chico inspected the space underneath the driver's seat and found three more plastic bags containing suspected shabu. After Chico's arrest of appellant, SPO2 Rival arrived and informed appellant of his constitutional rights. Appellant was then brought to the WPD headquarters. The marked bills of money and the four plastic bags seized from appellant were handed over to SPO2 Benjamin Nuguit, who then turned over the same to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for laboratory examination.
The very next day, NBI Forensic Chemist Antonino de Belen issued a certification which reads:
This certifies that on the above-date at 4:05 p.m. one PO2 Gene Nelson Javier of the DES, DID, NPD, U.N. Ave., Manila submitted to his Office for laboratory examination/s to wit:In his defense, appellant claimed that he is a victim of frame-up. Appellant's brief narrates the version of the defense as follows:Examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimen/s gave POSITIVE RESULTS for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE. XXX
- White crystalline substance contained in a self-sealed transparent plastic bag marked "LPCV- 1" and
Net weight of specimen = 505.6 grams
- White crystalline substance contained in three (3) self-sealed transparent plastic bags marked "JTU-1" respectively.
Total Net Weight of specimen = 1,510.8 grams
All placed in a red plastic bag.
(P. 47, Record.)
At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon of July 21, 1998, appellant deposited money in a bank at Masangkay Street near the Metropolitan Hospital in Manila. When appellant was about to board his car after coming from the bank, two vehicles blocked his way (p. 4, tsn., Feb. 9, 2000). Police operatives in civilian clothes, approached appellant and demanded P200,000 without telling him the reason (pp. 55-6, id.). When appellant told them that he could not produce the money, he was made to board one of their vehicles, blindfolded and taken to a house. While inside a room, the police operatives warned him that they would implicate him for drug pushing if he did not produce the money demanded. But appellant responded that he did not have money (pp. 7-9, id.). Later, he was taken at a police station where he was investigated and locked up in a cell (pp. 10-12, id.).After trial, the trial court rendered judgment on July 6, 2000, the decretal portion of which reads as follows;
Alex Cruz, while selling buco at about past 2 o'clock in the afternoon of July 21, 1998 at the corner of Masangkay St. and Recto Ave., saw from about 20 meters distance, men in civilian clothes alight from their vehicles which suddenly blocked appellant's vehicle, appellant alight from his vehicle and board one of their vehicles (pp. 3-17, tsn., Nov. 18, 1990.
Appellant was booked and arrested for violation of Sections 15 and 16, Article III of RA 6425, as amended, committed on or about 6:30 p.m. of July 21, 1998 as per report of SPO2 Rodolfo Rival Jr. dated July 22, 1998 (p. 9, Rec.). a joint affidavit (Exh. F, pp. 6-7, Rec.) was executed on July 22, 1998 by police officers Rodolfo Rival Jr., Luis Chico, Gene Nelson Javier with seven (7) others, wherein they narrated how the buy-bust operation transpired wherein appellant was apprehended allegedly for illegal sale and possession of shabu.
(Appellant's Brief, pp. 7-9.)
WHEREFORE, in Crim. Case No. 98-166675, the accused, Jerry Ting Uy, is hereby convicted of the crime of Violation of Section 16 of R.A. 6425 as amended involving 1,510.8 grams of shabu and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, plus the costs.Appellant now assails his conviction, raising the following as errors allegedly committed by the trial court:
In Crim. Case No. 98-166676, the accused, Jerry Ting Uy, is likewise, convicted of the crime of Violation of Section 15 of R.A. 6425 as amended involving one half kilogram of shabu and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, plus the costs.
The shabu recovered from the accused in the two cases is forfeited in favor of the government and is ordered turned over the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
(pp. 19-20, Rollo.)
This Court has carefully examined the record of this case, and finds no justification to come to conclusions different from those made by the trial court.
- THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS PO3 CHICO, THE ALLEGED POSEUR-BUYER, ON APPELLANT'S SALE AND POSSESSION OF SHABU DURING A BUY-BUST OPERATION.
- THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE CHINESE INFORMANT AS A WITNESS AS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH RENDER DOUBTFUL THE TESTIMONY OF PO3 CHICO ON AN ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION.
- THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO APPELLANT'S DEFENSE THAT HE WAS A VICTIM OF A FRAME-UP IN AN UNSUCCESSFUL EXTORTION ATTEMPT BY POLICE OPERATIVES.
- THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING AS INADMISSIBLE THE THREE BAGS CONTAINING SUSPECTED SHABU AS EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98-166676 FOR BEING ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE IN A WARRANTLESS ARREST.
- THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING APPELLANT FOR FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN SAID CASES.
Appellant was arrested by virtue of a buy-bust operation conducted by the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Western Police District. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plans. It is a procedure or operation sanctioned by law and which has consistently proven itself to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Thus, unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by improper motives or were not properly performing their duties, their testimony on the operation deserves full faith and credit (People vs. Chua Uy, G.R. No. 128046, March 7, 2000).
In this case, the evidence shows that it was the police informant who initially contacted and arranged a drug deal with appellant. At the pre-arranged meeting, the informant was accompanied by PO3 Chico, who posed as a buyer of shabu. PO3 Chico handed marked money to appellant as payment for half a kilo of shabu. Appellant was then arrested when he handed a plastic bag containing shabu to PO3 Chico.
The trial court found that PO3 Chico testified in a frank, spontaneous, straightforward, and categorical manner. His testimony was unflinching even during cross-examination by defense counsel. Moreover, PO3 Chico's testimony was corroborated on its material points by PO2 Gene Nelson Javier, another member of the arresting team. As has been repeatedly held by the Court, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by prosecution witnesses especially so when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary (People vs. Guiamil,, 277 SCRA 658 [1997]). As correctly noted by the trial court, there was no evidence presented as to any ill motive on the part of prosecution witness PO3 Chico which would affect the credibility of his testimony. PO3 Chico and the other law enforcers involved in the buy-bust operation would, thus, have in their favor the presumption that they regularly performed their duties. Absent any showing of palpable error or arbitrariness, as is the case at bar, the Court has no choice but to accord great respect to and to treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the matter of credibility of witnesses.
The defense, in its efforts to establish the innocence of appellant, claims that it is incredible for a drug peddler to agree to sell his wares without first checking on the possibility of entrapment, given that drug peddlers pursue their nefarious activities with utmost caution. We are not persuaded. Nowadays, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, impudent, and even openly defiant of the law. If drug peddlers are meticulously cautious in carrying out their illicit trade, drug abuse would not have grown to such alarming proportions as it has today and would certainly not pose a serious threat to society. The stark reality is that these unscrupulous drug pushers perform their illegal activities without fear of apprehension and unmindful of the risk of entrapment; in fact, they are only concerned with the swift disposal of their goods. Thus, we have found in many cases drug pushers selling their prohibited wares to any and all prospective customers, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime (People vs. Requiz, 318 SCRA 635 [1999]).
Likewise, it is appellant's view that the testimony of the police informant is indispensable in this case. This is not so. The failure to present the informant does not diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informants are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with inasmuch as his or her narration would be merely corroborative, especially so in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug (People vs. Chua, Uy, supra; People vs. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 [1997]).
Further, appellant's defense of frame-up does not convince. In drug-related cases, the claim that the accused has merely been framed-up by law enforcers for selfish motives is quite often raised by the defense. Such defense, however, has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but is difficult to prove. For this claim to prosper, the evidence adduced must be clear and convincing (People vs. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 [1997]). Appellant, regrettably, has miserably failed to substantiate his allegations in this respect.
Similarly, appellant's claim that he was arrested by the police in order to extort from him the amount of P200,000.00 is not worthy of belief. Aside from his bare assertions, no evidence was presented to establish such as fact. Moreover, if the arresting police officers indeed tried to extort money from appellant, he could have filed the proper charges against the erring police officers. The fact that no criminal or administrative charges were filed by appellant against the arresting police officers bolsters our conclusion that the alleged frame-up merely exists as a figment of appellant's imagination.
In the same vein, appellant's contention that the 1,510.8 grams of shabu seized from him is inadmissible in evidence must also be rejected. The Constitution generally proscribes searches and seizures without judicial warrant. Any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Sections 2 and 3(2), Article III). The rule is not absolute, however. Searches and seizures may be made without warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) the search was incident to a lawful arrest; (2) the search is of a moving motor vehicle; (3) the search concerns violation of customs laws; (4) the seizure of evidence in plain view; and (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 [1999]).
Clearly, the search made by the police officers in the instant case was incidental to a lawful arrest. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that "a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant." Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully arrested, caught as he was in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers.
A buy-bust operation is vastly different from an ordinary arrest. In lawful arrests in the course of a buy-bust operation, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the person of the accused but also in the permissible area within his reach, i.e., that point which is within the effective control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him the means of committing violence or of escaping (People vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 [1998]). In other words, a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. In this case, the three plastic bags containing a total of 1,500 grams of shabu were seized inside the car where appellant himself was arrested. PO3 Chico, in this regard, narrated:
Given this scenario, it became advisable, if not necessary, for the police officers to forthwith undertake a search of the car, the same being within the area of immediate control by appellant.
COURT: Q: A: Q: A:
In sum, in Criminal Case No. 98-166676, this Court is convinced that the prosecution's evidence more than proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor (People vs. Uy, G.R. No. 129019, August 16, 2000). In this case, the identities of the seller and the buyer have been established. Appellant was positively identified in open court as the seller of the 505.6 grams of shabu by PO3 Chico himself who acted as the poseur-buyer. The delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer, as well as appellant's receipt of the marked money have also been sufficiently shown by the testimony of prosecution witnesses PO3 Chico and PO2 Javier. What is material and indispensable in a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer (People vs. Khor, 307 SCRA 295 [1999]).
There is likewise no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 98-166675 was proved beyond reasonable doubt, appellant knowingly carrying with him 1,510.8 grams of shabu without legal authority at the time of the buy-bust operation. The elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug (Manalili vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 [1997]). All these circumstances are present in the case at bar.
Finally, pursuant to Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall sell or possess 200 grams or more of shabu. Appellant, in this case, was caught selling 505.6 grams of shabu, and possessing 1,510.8 grams of the same substance. Since no aggravating or mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crimes, the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 in each of the two criminal cases.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Vitug, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.