Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 109232 December 29, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
NG CHUN !IT "#$o %&o'& "$ (ROM) NG,( accused-appellant.

*ELLOSILLO, J.:
N! "#$N %IT, a "hinese national and &eputed to be a 'e'be& of a #on( %on(-
based d&u( s)ndicate ope&atin( in Met&o Manila, *as colla&ed b) NR"OM ope&atives
in a bu)-bust ope&ation afte& he sold to an unde&cove& a(ent fo& P+,,,,,,.,, a -ilo of
'etha'pheta'ine h)d&ochlo&ide -no*n as shabu. #is ca& also )ielded 'o&e of the
&e(ulated d&u( neatl) tuc-ed in a %leene. bo..
On / Nove'be& 0110, at th&ee o2cloc- in the afte&noon, a "onfidential Info&'e& 3"I4
&epo&ted to "hief Investi(ato& velino I. Ra5on that he 3"I4 had a&&an(ed a t&ansaction
*ith a d&u( deale& inte&ested in sellin( a -ilo of shabu fo& P+,,,,,,.,, and a(&eed to
consu''ate the sale at seven o2cloc- that evenin( at the lobb) of the "a&dinal Santos
Medical "ente&. "hief Investi(ato& Ra5on i''ediatel) o&(ani5ed a bu)-bust tea'
co'posed of "hief Inspecto& Rolando Ma(no as tea' leade&, SPO6 7olita 8u(a&in,
SPO9 "esa& :acobo as poseu&-bu)e&, SPO9 lbe&t San :ose, and SPO9 Do'in(o
Rubi. Fo&t) 3+,4 bundles of (enuine and counte&feit P0,,-bills *e&e p&epa&ed *ith each
bundle supposed to contain P0,,,,,.,,. To ca'oufla(e the counte&feit bills (enuine
P0,,-bills *e&e placed on the top and botto' of ten 30,4 bundles.
t five o2cloc- in the afte&noon the tea' *ent to the "a&dinal Santos Medical "ente&.
The "I and SPO9 :acobo *ho *as ca&&)in( the plastic ba( of 'one) p&oceeded to the
lobb) of the hospital *hile the othe&s 'oved a&ound to avoid detection. t fifteen
'inutes past seven the accused a&&ived in a (&a) To)ota "o&olla *ith Plate No. T8"-
1;/. #e *as 'et at the lobb) b) the "I *ho int&oduced SPO9 :acobo to hi' as the
pe&son inte&ested to bu) shabu. fte& allo*in( the accused a <uic- loo- at the bundles
of 'one), SPO9 :acobo and the "I follo*ed hi' to the pa&-in( lot *he&e the latte&
too- out f&o' the t&un- of his ca& a blue SM Shoe'a&t plastic ba( and handed it to
SPO9 :acobo. fte& asce&tainin( that the ba( contained app&o.i'atel) one 304 -ilo of
shabu, SPO9 :acobo handed the boodle 'one) to the accused. Then SPO9 :acobo
casuall) lit a ci(a&ette to si(nal to the othe& NR"OM ope&atives to 'ove in and effect
the a&&est. The othe& 'e'be&s of the tea' closed in, placed the accused unde& a&&est
and sei5ed the 'one) f&o' hi'. The) also sea&ched his vehicle and found on the
dashboa&d of his ca& th&ee 364 pac-ets 'o&e of c&)stalline substance in a %leene. bo..
SPO6 San :ose b&ou(ht the &e(ulated d&u( &ecove&ed f&o' the accused to the P"
"&i'e 7abo&ato&) *he&e afte& a <ualitative e.a'ination the fo&ensic che'ist confi&'ed
the substance found in the SM Shoe'a&t ba( and in the %leene. bo. to be shabu and
*ei(hin( 1/6.9= (&a's and 916.=, (&a's, &espectivel)>
The accused &efuted the cha&(es. #e t&ied to e.plain his p&esence at the "a&dinal
Santos Medical "ente& thus> In the ea&l) evenin( of / Nove'be& 0110 as he *as
p&epa&in( to have dinne& *ith so'e f&iends in !&eenhills, San :uan, he &eceived a
telephone call f&o' his f&iend :ohnn) S) as-in( if he could &ide *ith hi' to !&eenhills
to visit a sic- f&iend at the "a&dinal Santos Medical "ente&. Since he 3accused4 *as
able to bo&&o* the ca& and the d&ive& of his cousin Ro'an On(, he acceded to :ohnn).
#e passed fo& hi' and his f&iend nthon) "o and b&ou(ht the' to the 'edical cente&.
:ohnn) and nthon) ali(hted in f&ont of the lobb). #e p&oceeded to the pa&-in( lot *ith
the d&ive& and ans*e&ed the call of natu&e. Then he lit a stic- of ci(a&ette. #o*eve&
so'e t*ent) 39,4 to thi&t) 36,4 'inutes late&, plainclothes'en *ith (uns d&a*n, :ohnn)
and nthon) in to*, suddenl) appea&ed f&o' no*he&e and a&&ested hi' and $)
*ithout info&'in( the' the &eason fo& thei& a&&est. #e to(ethe& *ith $), S) and "o *as
then b&ou(ht to "a'p "&a'e *he&e he *as 'auled, detained and inte&&o(ated *ithout
the assistance of counsel. #is &epeated &e<uests to 'a-e a telephone call to his
&elatives and counsel *e&e denied.
7o&eto :acobe, the secu&it) (ua&d on 09-hou& dut) at the hospital sta&tin( seven o2cloc-
that evenin(, testified that f&o' the ti'e he too- his post that ni(ht until he left the&e
*as no unto*a&d incident at the hospital lobb) o& in its vicinit) as &eflected in the
lo(boo-. #is state'ents *e&e co&&obo&ated b) his supe&viso& Vicente P&a(a. The
accused concludes that if the&e *as indeed an unusual incident at the lobb), e.(., sale
of &e(ulated d&u(s, then the secu&it) (ua&ds on dut) *ould have noted it in thei&
lo(boo-.
On 0+ u(ust 0119 the Re(ional T&ial "ou&t of Pasi(, 8&. 0;;,
1
(ivin( c&edence to the
testi'onies of the p&osecution *itnesses, found appellant n( "hun %it also -no*n as
?Ro') n(? (uilt) of sellin( shabu in violation of Sec. 0;, &t. III, R.. No. @+9;, as
a'ended, sentenced hi' to life i'p&ison'ent and o&de&ed hi' to pa) a fine of
P6,,,,,.,,. #ence this appeal.
The accused 'aintains his innocence and faults the t&ial cou&t in not holdin( that the
c&i'e could not have been co''itted unde& the ci&cu'stances na&&ated b) the
a&&estin( office&s and that the alle(ed bu)-bust ope&ation *as a f&a'e-up and the
evidence 'e&el) planted. #e a&(ues that the p&osecution *as not able to p&ove his
(uilt be)ond &easonable doubt since eve&) piece of evidence p&esented a(ainst hi' is
tainted *ith constitutional infi&'ities.
Ae a&e not i'p&essed. The c&u. of this appeal hin(es on the c&edibilit) of *itnesses. In
People v. Co
2
*e said that ?BiCt is doct&inall) ent&enched that the evaluation of the
1
testi'onies of *itnesses b) the t&ial cou&t is &eceived on appeal *ith the hi(hest
&espect because such cou&t has the di&ect oppo&tunit) to obse&ve the *itnesses on the
stand and dete&'ine if the) a&e tellin( the t&uth o& not.? "o&olla&il), in People v.
Ballagan
3
*e &uled that ?BiCn a lon( line of decisions this "ou&t has consistentl) held
that the findin(s of facts of a t&ial Dud(e *ho has seen the *itnesses testif) and *ho
has obse&ved thei& de'eano& and conduct *hile on the *itness stand should not be
distu&bed on appeal unless ce&tain facts of substance and value have been ove&loo-ed
*hich, if conside&ed, 'a) affect the outco'e of the case. Ahen the issue is one of
c&edibilit) of *itnesses the appellate cou&ts *ill (ene&all) not distu&b the t&ial cou&t2s
findin(s.? In the case befo&e us *e do not see an) fact of substance and value *hich
'a) have been ove&loo-ed b) the t&ial cou&t. "onse<uentl), *e defe& to its holdin( that
?. . . indeed the p&ohibited d&u(s in <uestion *e&e confiscated f&o' the accused n(
"hun %it alias ?Romy Ang? *hen he sold the d&u(s to poseu&-bu)e& SPO9 "esa&
:acobo.?
+
Mo&eove&, *e do not believe that Police Office&s :acobo, Rubi and San :ose, all public
officials *ho enDo) the p&esu'ption of &e(ula&it) in the pe&fo&'ance of official dut), *ill
en'esh the'selves in falsehood and i'plicate the accused unless the) have been
i'pelled b) an evil o& ulte&io& 'otive. 8ut neithe& the accused no& the &eco&d offe&s an).
s co&&ectl) obse&ved b) the t&ial cou&t, ?BoCf the thousands, na), 'illions of people in
Met&o Manila, *h) *ould the police office&s sin(le out the accused to be the obDect of a
f&a'e-up.?
5
Ahile the accused 'aintains that he is a victi' of a f&a'e-up, *hich is the
usual defense put up b) pe&sons accused of bein( d&u( pushe&s,
,
he failed to
substantiate his clai'. It is settled that *he&e the&e is no evidence to indicate that a
p&osecution *itness *as actuated b) i'p&ope& 'otive the p&esu'ption is that he *as
not so actuated and that he *ould not p&eva&icate and cause da'nation to one *ho
b&ou(ht hi' no ha&' o& inDu&)E hence his testi'on) is entitled to full faith and c&edit.
-
The accused unde&sco&es *hat he pe&ceived to be a flip-floppin( stance of poseu&-
bu)e& SPO9 :acobo. In one instance :acobo said that he sa* the shabu at the hospital
lobb) cont&a&) to the ve&sion of the p&osecution *itnesses that the p&ohibited
substance *as ta-en f&o' the t&un- of the ca& afte& the accused, the poseu&-bu)e& and
the "I e'e&(ed f&o' the hospital lobb). The defense *ould la) e'phasis on the
see'in( disc&epanc) bet*een the state'ents of SPO9 San :ose that the) did not
appl) ult&aviolet po*de& on the 'a&-ed 'one) as that *as bein( done b) the P"
"&i'e 7abo&ato&), and that of SPO9 :acobo that the 'a&-ed 'one) *as not t&eated
*ith ult&aviolet po*de& since the) &an out of it.
Ae do not conside& the supposed inconsistencies substantial o& of such natu&e as to
cast se&ious doubt on the c&edibilit) of the p&osecution *itnesses. On the cont&a&) the)
appea& to be 'o&e of honest lapses *hich do not i'pai& the int&insic c&edibilit) of thei&
testi'onies. Thus *hen late& as-ed b) the t&ial cou&t *ith &e(a&d to the 'a&-ed 'one)
SPO9 :acobo cla&ified that afte& he sho*ed the boodle to the accused the latte&
i''ediatel) left fo& his ca& F
"O$RT.
G> Ahe&e did )ou sho* the 'one)H
AITNISS.
> t the lobb) of the "a&dinal Santos, si&.
G> fte& sho*in( the boodle 'one) *hat did the accused doH
> #e then p&oceeded to his ca&, si&.
.
It is ele'enta&) in the &ule of evidence that inconsistencies in the testi'onies of
p&osecution *itnesses *ith &espect to 'ino& details and collate&al 'atte&s do not affect
the substance of thei& decla&ation no& the ve&acit) o& *ei(ht of thei& testi'on).
9
Such
'ino& inconsistencies even se&ve to st&en(then the c&edibilit) of the p&osecution
*itnesses as the) e&ase an) suspicion of a &ehea&sed testi'on) and thus can be
conside&ed a bad(e of t&uth &athe& than of falsehood. "onse<uentl) *e conside&
innocuous *hateve& disc&epancies the&e *e&e in the testi'onies of the (ove&n'ent
a(ents.
Fo& su&e the alle(ed inconsistencies do not det&act f&o' the established fact that the
accused *as cau(ht in flagrante delicto as a &esult of a bu)-bust ope&ation since the
a&&estin( a(ents *e&e able to (ive an othe&*ise clea& and convincin( account of the
ci&cu'stances leadin( to the a&&est of the accused. nd, in eve&) p&osecution fo& ille(al
sale of dan(e&ous d&u(s *hat is 'ate&ial and indispensable is the sub'ission of p&oof
that the sale of illicit d&u( too- place bet*een the selle& and the poseu&-bu)e&.
The accused sub'its that ?it is be)ond hu'an co'p&ehension ho* such a bi(
t&ansaction, ille(al at that, could be pe&fected . . . in f&ont of the *atchful e)es of so
'an) people.?
10
Ae can co'p&ehend. F&o' the testi'on) of the p&osecution *itnesses, *hich *e find
c&edible, the e.chan(e *as casual and s*ift> the accused *as int&oduced to the
poseu&-bu)e& b) the "IE he *as sho*n the 'one)E he passed on the p&ohibited d&u( to
the poseu&-bu)e&. The&e *as no ve&ification of the identit) of the bu)e&. Neithe& *as the
'one) counted no& tests conducted to dete&'ine the <ualit) and <uantit) of the
&e(ulated d&u(. The&e *as no need.
The accused -ne* the "I *ho int&oduced the poseu&-bu)e& to hi'. The&e *as &appo&t
at once. Thus the t&ansaction *hich *as consu''ated in the pa&-in( lot of the hospital
is no diffe&ent f&o' an o&dina&) d&u(-pushin( F info&'al, casual, da&in( and s*ift F
*he&e the peddle&s at ti'es ope&ate in the open and in the p&esence of othe& people,
e.(., in a billia&d hall,
11
in f&ont of a sto&e,
12
alon( a st&eet at 0>+; p.'.,
13
in f&ont of a
house,
1+
*hich does not necessa&il) discou&a(e the' f&o' pl)in( thei& t&ade as these
'a) even se&ve to ca'oufla(e thei& illicit t&ade.
15
s *e have said, the&e *as nothin(
absu&d in such a scena&io. The sellin( of &e(ulated o& p&ohibited d&u(s to co'plete
st&an(e&s, openl) and in public places, has beco'e a co''on occu&&ence, a sad fact
*hich this "ou&t has ta-en notice of and att&ibuted to the (&o*in( casualness of d&u(
pushe&s in the pu&suit of thei& clandestine activit), as if it *e&e a pe&fectl) le(iti'ate
ope&ation involvin( no pa&ticula& caution o& <ual' of conscience.
1,
D&u( pushe&s have
2
beco'e inc&easin(l) da&in( in the ope&ation of thei& t&ade and have not hesitated to act
openl), al'ost casuall), even in sco&nful violation of the la*, in sellin( the ille(i'ate
'e&chandise to an) and all bu)e&s.
1-
The accused then ha&ps on the testi'onies of his *itnesses, the secu&it) (ua&ds on
dut), that ?the&e *as nothin( unto*a&d that happened at the hospital lobb) o&
p&e'ises.?
1.
If *e *e&e to believe these secu&it) (ua&ds in thei& ve&sion then all the
'o&e should *e disc&edit the accused hi'self *ho na&&ated that *hile he *as at the
pa&-in( lot of the hospital seve&al a&'ed 'en and *o'en *ith d&a*n (uns suddenl)
s*ooped do*n on hi', pointed thei& *eapons at hi', o&de&ed hi' to &aise his hands in
the ai& and then a&&ested hi' fo& no appa&ent &eason. "e&tainl), if these secu&it) (ua&ds
*e&e conscientious in the pe&fo&'ance of thei& duties, as ho* the accused *ould li-e
the' to appea&, then the) should have noticed and noted in thei& lo(boo- the a&&est of
the accused in the hospital pa&-in( lot *hich *as Dust a fe* 'ete&s a*a) f&o' the
lobb). cco&din(l), *e cannot (ive full faith to the testi'onies of defense *itnesses
:acobe and P&a(a.
The defense also as-s the "ou&t to &eDect the sto&) of the p&osecution that the shabu
*as contained in one plastic ba( instead of seve&al s'all plastic ba(s as ho* d&u(
deale&s *ould no&'all) pac- the p&ohibited d&u( fo& eas) conceal'ent. Ae cannot
)ield. Ahile the s*iftness *ith *hich the t&ansaction *as unde&ta-en is &e'iniscent of
s'all-ti'e d&u(-pushin(, *hat is involved in the case at bench is not a 'easl) su' of
'one) and a s'all <uantit) of d&u(s that could be pac-ed in tea ba(s but a *holesale
deal involvin( P+,,,,,,.,, and a -ilo of shabu.
The defense then faults the p&osecution fo& its failu&e to p&esent the 'a&-ed 'one)
and u&(es the "ou&t to appl) People v. Distrito
19
*he&e in ac<uittin( the accused *e
said that ?BnCo 'a&-ed 'one) *as sei5ed f&o' 3hi'4 as none passed f&o' the alle(ed
bu)e&s to the alle(ed selle&s.? 8ut the &eliance on People v. Distrito is 'isplaced. Ae
have &uled often enou(h that the absence of 'a&-ed 'one) used in bu)-bust
ope&ations does not c&eate a hiatus in the evidence fo& the p&osecution.
20

Pa&entheticall), if the defense onl) &ead People v. Distrito ca&efull) it *ould have
&eali5ed that in that case the&e *as &eall) no e.chan(e of 'one) as even the
police'en ad'itted that the) a&&ested the suspect befo&e an actual bu)-bust ope&ation
could be effected, unli-e in the case at bench *he&e the&e *as an actual e.chan(e of
ille(al 'e&chandise fo& 'one).
The accused also ta-es to tas- the absence of a blotte& &epo&t befo&e the bu)-bust
ope&ation and the supposed failu&e of the app&ehendin( office&s to seal the plastic ba(
of shabu upon its sei5u&e. These a&e t&ivialities *hich do not abate the fact that the
accused *as a&&ested afte& he unla*full) sold 'etha'pheta'ine h)d&ochlo&ide to
NR"OM a(ents. Suffice it to sa) that a p&io& blotte& &epo&t and the sealin( of the
plastic ba( of shabu a&e not indispensable no& &e<ui&ed in bu)-bust ope&ations.
The defense a&(ues that the shabu found inside the ca& is inad'issible in evidence as
it *as p&ocu&ed th&ou(h an ille(al sea&ch and sei5u&e, the sa'e havin( been found
inside the ca& and not in the pe&son of the accused *ho *as outside the ca&. 8ut the
sea&ch inside the ca& *as an incident of a la*ful a&&est. It 'ust be &e'e'be&ed that
the accused *as *ith a d&ive& *ho *as inside the ca&. $pon the a&&est of the accused,
the a&&estin( a(ents also had to neut&ali5e the d&ive& inside the ca& *ho could be
p&esu'ed at that instance to be actin( to(ethe& and in conspi&ac) *ith the accused.
Fo& a *eapon could have easil) been concealed in the dashboa&d of the vehicle *hich
*as ve&) *ell *ithin the &each of the d&ive& at that ti'e. "o&olla&il), in People v.
Figueroa *e &eite&ated that ?BtChe *a&&antless sea&ch and sei5u&e, as an incident to a
suspect2s la*ful a&&est, 'a) e.tend be)ond the pe&son of the one a&&ested to include
the p&e'ises o& su&&oundin(s unde& his i''ediate cont&ol.?
21
Thus *hethe& the
accused (ave his consent to the sea&ch of the ca& *hich the a&&estin( a(ents sa) he
did, but *hich he denies, is i''ate&ial.
Ae ho*eve& a(&ee *ith the accused that his si(natu&e on the &eceipt o& lists of ite's
confiscated f&o' hi' is inad'issible in evidence as the&e is no sho*in( that he *as
then assisted b) counsel. In People v. Mauyao *e said that ?confo&'ance to these
docu'ents a&e decla&ations a(ainst inte&est and tacit ad'issions of the c&i'e cha&(ed,
since 'e&el) une.plained possession of p&ohibited d&u(s is punished b) la*. The)
have been obtained in violation of his &i(ht as a pe&son unde& custodial investi(ation
fo& the co''ission of an offense, the&e bein( nothin( in the &eco&ds to sho* that he
*as assisted b) counsel.?
22
Aith &e(a&d to the 8oo-in( Sheet and &&est Repo&t, *e
al&ead) said in People v. Morico that ?*hen an a&&ested pe&son si(ns a 8oo-in( Sheet
and &&est Repo&t at a police station he does not ad'it the co''ission of an offense
no& confess to an) inc&i'inatin( ci&cu'stance. The 8oo-in( Sheet is 'e&el) a
state'ent of the accused2s bein( boo-ed and of the date *hich acco'panies the fact
of an a&&est. It is a police &epo&t and 'a) be useful in cha&(es of a&bit&a&) detention
a(ainst the police the'selves. It is not an e.t&a-Dudicial state'ent and cannot be the
basis of a Dud('ent of conviction.?
23
8ut as in the cases of Mau)ao and Mo&ico, accused n( "hun %it2s confo&'it) to the
<uestioned docu'ents has not been a facto& in his conviction since his (uilt has been
ade<uatel) established b) the detailed and unsha-en testi'onies of the office&s *ho
app&ehended hi'. #ence even dis&e(a&din( the <uestioned docu'ents *e still find the
accused (uilt) be)ond &easonable doubt of the c&i'e cha&(ed.
Inte&estin(l), *e find it difficult to believe the ve&sion of the accused. #e did not even
p&esent :ohnn) S) o& nthon) "o to substantiate his sto&), 'uch less did he &eveal the
na'e of the patient the) *e&e to visit in the hospital. 8esides it appea&s that the&e *as
no &eason fo& the accused to *ait fo& :ohnn) S) and nthon) "o in the pa&-in( lot as
the) did not have an) p&io& a(&ee'ent to 'eet the&e. On the cont&a&) the accused still
had to attend a dinne& so'e*he&e and should not have *aited an) lon(e&.
A#IRIFORI, the Decision of the t&ial cou&t findin( accused-appellant n( "hun %it
also -no*n as ?Ro') n(? (uilt) be)ond &easonable doubt of sellin(
'etha'pheta'ine h)d&ochlo&ide in violation of Sec. 0;, &t. III, R.. @+9;, as
a'ended, sentencin( hi' to life i'p&ison'ent and o&de&in( hi' to pa) a fine of
P6,,,,,.,, is FFIRMID. "osts a(ainst accused-appellant.
SO ORDIRID.
3
4