G.R. No. 187157               February 15, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.ARNEL CLARITE y SALAZAR, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:

On July 8, 2002, Romano received information from his "asset," Cedeño, that a certain Arnel, a supplier of illegal drugs from Cavite, is looking for a buyer of shabu. Romano directed Cedeño to negotiate the sale and devised a plan to entrap said Arnel. Romano and Jimenez prepared what they called "budol [boodle] money," counterfeit notes made out of photocopied P1000 and P500 bills. The counterfeit bills, representing a total value of P50,000.00, were dusted with fluorescent powder.

On July 11, 2002, Dizon was informed of the operation. Before 8:00 a.m., Romano, Jimenez, Dizon and Cedeño proceeded to the CBD terminal where they posted themselves in strategic locations. While Romano and Cedeño were talking to each other in front of the Dunkin Donut shop, accused-appellant arrived, carrying a small bag. Romano asked for the shabu. When said shabu was handed to Romano, accused-appellant asked for the money. This was when accused-appellant noticed that the money was fake. Romano then removed his sunglasses to signal the completion of the transaction to Jimenez and Dizon.

The NBI investigators arrested and handcuffed accused-appellant, and thereafter brought the latter to the NBI Office and PNP Crime Laboratoty. Therein, accused-appellant was booked, fingerprinted and photographed. Both hands of accused-appellant were found positive for the presence of bright orange ultraviolet fluorescent powder. The plastic sachets, which had a total weight of 45.8712 grams, were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Only accused-appellant was able to testify for the defense. He narrated that on July 10, 2002, at around 6:00 p.m., he was sent by Mrs. Fely Gutierrez, his employer, to go to Naga City to deliver 100 grams of shabu to a certain Ching Lo. He was in compliance to a strict instruction that someone would approach him at the Naga City Civic Center. He was supposed to give the shabu to said person in exchange for P110,000.00. He stressed that he was then carrying 100 grams of shabu, not 45.87 grams as reported by the prosecution witnesses.

Accused-appellant denied that the buy-bust operation took place. Instead, he narrated that he was aboard a tricycle, on his way to the Civic Center, when Romano and Jimenez apprehended him, forced him into their car and blindfolded him. While still blindfolded, Romano and Jimenez brought him to a hotel. He was told to contact his employerto extort money equivalent to the value of 50% of the 100 grams of shabu. After the accused-appellant was able to speak briefly with his employer, the latter turned off her phone and cannot be contacted again. The NBI operatives, showing him the marked money, threatened that a drug case would be filed against him. On March 18, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City rendered its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty of the offense of violation of Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165.

Issue:

Whether the court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to support Clarite’s conviction.

Held:

The Court ruled in the negative.

Unfortunately for accused-appellant, findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court, save only for certain compelling reasons. We perused the records of the case at bar and found no reason to disturb the findings of the courts a quo.

In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The exception is when there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular

performance of their duties. In the case at bar, accused-appellant’s only evidence of ill motive on the part of the NBI operatives is his own testimony of frame-up and extortion, a very common defense in dangerous drugs cases. We have held that such defense is viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be clear and convincing.

The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of Romano, Jimenez and Dizon, on one hand, and that of accused-appellant, on the other, was thoroughly convinced of the version of the prosecution in this matter. Furthermore, accused-appellant’s admission in open court of being a drug courier for his employer, though not conclusive evidence of the specific act of selling shabu on the date and under the circumstances specified in the complaint, nevertheless constitutes circumstantial evidence of the same. By admitting the previous sales of shabu, accused-appellant in effect attested to his own proclivity to do such an act, as well as the accessibility to him of the object of his alleged illegal trade.

Jurisprudence holds that the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs are the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.22

The testimonies of Romano, corroborated by his fellow NBI investigators Jimenez and Dizon and informant Cedeño established the sale and delivery by accused-appellant Clarite to Romano of what was initially believed to be 50 grams of shabu in four plastic sachets, in exchange for what Clarite thought was P50,000.00. Romano positively identified accused-appellant Clarite as the person who sold the plastic sachets of shabu to him.