People vs. Figueroa (G.R. No.

186141, April 11, 2012)

Facts:

On June 20, 2004, the PNP received a report from an informant about drug-pushing activities of
accused-appellant Figueroa alias “Baby”. After conducting discreet surveillance operations to verify the
information, PO3 Josefino Callora of the PNP and the informant met with Figueroa to order shabu on
June 23, 2004.

A week later, on or about the 2nd of July 2004, the PNP conducted a buy-bust operation after Figueroa
made contact with the informant that the shabu is already available and agreed to deliver the drug on
the same day. During the said meet-up, Figueroa showed the shabu to PO3 Callora. When PO3 Callora
was about to hand over the payment, Figueroa sensed the presence of police officers nearby and in fear,
ran away with her vehicle. Thus, the act (sale of shabu) was not consummated. (Crim. Case No. 04-2433
version)

Note: There were two Informations (cases) filed against the accused-appellant Jesusa Figueroa: Criminal
Case No. 04-2432 on illegal “possession, direct custody and control” of dangerous drugs; and Criminal
Case No. 04-2433 on illegal “attempt to sell, give away, distribute and deliver” dangerous drugs. Both
are in violation of Sec. 26, Art II of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002.

Figueroa was acquitted for Crim. Case No. 04-2432 for lack of evidence and was convicted for Crim. Case
No. 04-2433 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64 of Makati. Figueroa sought a review of the decision
of the RTC with the Supreme Court but the latter remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for
immediate review.

On October 25, 2007, the Court of Appeals assailed the Decision of the RTC and affirmed the conviction
of Figueroa. Figueroa appealed again with the Supreme Court, this time, with a Supplemental Brief
highlighting that the appellate court did not tackle the issue regarding the irregularity of the buy bust
operation led by the PNP because it did not coordinate with the PDEA.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in the following issues:

a. By not holding that the PNP-led buy-bust operation irregular because of the former’s lack of
prior coordination with the PDEA (under Sec. 86 of RA 9165);
b. By holding that there was a prior agreement between PO3 Callora and the accused regarding
the alleged sale of shabu; (Figueroa argues that the sale transaction was borne between her
and the informant. Hence, the informant is the competent one to testify not PO3 Callora)
c. By giving weight and credence to the conflicting and contradictory testimonies of PO3 Callora
and P/Insp. Pepito Garcia that have direct bearing on the elements of the offense charged; and
d. By finding the accused guilty of the offense of attempt to sell shabu as provided under Sec. 26,
Art. II of RA 9165.
Ruling:

a. Sec. 86 does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcer’s failure to coordinate
with the PDEA. The court noted that the said provision and similar Internal Rules and
Regulations are silent with regards to the consequences of the failure of the PNP to coordinate
with the PDEA in conducting buy-bust operations.

b. The testimony of PO3 Callora regarding the conversations between the informant and Figueroa
is admissible and not a hearsay insofar as it established that said information which led the PNP
to prepare for and proceed with the buy-bust operation. Under the doctrine of independently
relevant statements, hearsay rule does not apply where only the fact that such statements
were made is relevant and the truth or falsity is immaterial.

Furthermore, the said conversation between the informant and Figueroa was not necessary to
prove the attempted sale of shabu, as said attempt to sell was already clear from accused-
appellant's actuations on July 2, 2004.

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a crime when the offender
commences its commission directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance. In this case, the attempt to sell shabu was shown by the overt
act of Figueroa of showing the substance to the poseur-buyer.

c. The alleged conflicting and contradictory testimonies of PO3 Callora and P/Insp. Pepito Garcia
(prosecution witnesses) are as what the Court of Appeals said "referring to minor details, and
not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair [the witnesses']
credibility" nor do they overcome the presumption that the arresting officers have regularly
performed their official duties.

d. The SC denied Figueroa’s petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals in
convicting him in Crim. Case No. 04-2433 for violation of Sec. 26, Art. II of RA 9165.