1

FIRST DIVISIONG.R. No. 133568 July 24, 2000PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.BETTY CUBA y LUBONa.k.a."Betty," CESAR SANTOS y LUCIAa.k.a."Cesar," SALVACION CAPARAS y DE CASTROa.k.a."Cion,"accused.SALVACION CAPARAS y DE CASTROa.k.a."Cion,"accused-appellant.DAVIDE, JR.,J.:Accused-appellant Salvacion CaparasyDe Castroa.k.a. "Cion" (hereafter CAPARAS) seeks the reversal of the 23 March 1998 decision1of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95, in Criminal Case No. Q-97-70944, finding her guilty of the crime of illegally transporting and selling marijuana under Section 4, Art. II of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The other accused, Betty Cuba y Lubona.k.a."Betty" (hereafter BETTY) and Cesar Santos y Lucioa.k.a."Cesar" (hereafter CESAR) were acquitted.CAPARAS, BETTY and CESAR were indicted under an information2filed on 2 May 1997, with the violation of Section 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The accusatory portion of the information reads:That on or about the 29th day of April 1997 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport and distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully and feloniously transport, deliver, and offer for sale 39, 735.00 grams of marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug to poseur-buyer SPOIII VENUSTO T. JAMISOLAMIN, in violation of said law.CONTRARY TO LAW.At their arraignment on 14 May 1997,3each of the accused entered a plea of not guilty.The prosecution presented police officers Venusto Jamisolamin and Joselito Dominguez. By virtue of the agreement and admissions during the pre-trial, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Alexis Guinanao was dispensed with.The evidence for the defense consisted of the testimonies of the accused BETTY, CAPARAS, and CESAR.The narration of facts and evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense as summarized by the trial court in its decision is hereby quotedverbatim:EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTIONOn June 2, 1997, the prosecution and the accused stipulated on the subject matter of the testimony of the forensic analyst, Alexis Guinanao, to the effect that on April 30, 1997, he received a letter-request (Exh. "A") from a certain Supt. Pedro Ongsotto Alcantara addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory Services stating therein the request for the examination of specimens marked as Exhs. "A", "B", & "C" which were duly received by the said laboratory. The parties further stipulated that the forensic analyst, upon receipt of the said specimens, conducted an examination and the result of which were stated down in his Initial Laboratory Report dated April 30, 1997 (Exhs. "B" to "B-4). He likewise prepared his Physical Science Report No. D- 277-97 (Exh. "C" to "C-3") indicating his findings that the submitted specimens, namely: one (1) blue plastic bag labeled "DUTY FREE PHILIPPINES" containing fourteen (14) bricks of marijuana, which had a total weight of 15, 445.00 grams (Exhs. "D" to "D-14"); one (1) box labeled "LUCKY ME PANCIT CANTON" containing twelve (12) bricks of marijuana, with a total weight of 11, 880.00 grams (Exhs. "E" to "E-12"); and one (1) box labeled "MAGGI RICH MAMI" containing thirteen (13) bricks of marijuana, with a total weight of 12, 420.00 grams (Exhs. "F" to "F-12") were all found positive to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug; that the specimens examined in the Initial Laboratory Report were the same specimens and results/findings in the Physical Science Report. Finally, the parties stipulated that the specimens submitted by the Chemist were each wrapped in newsprint and further placed inside big boxes labeled as MAGGI RICH MAMI and LUCKY ME PANCIT CANTON and a blue shopping bag labeled as DUTY-FREE PHILIPPINES.Aside from the above stipulations, the prosecution presented SPO3 Venusto Jamisolamin and P/Insp. Joselito Dominguez, both from the Narcotics Group Command, Central Narcotics District at EDSA, Kamuning, Quezon City, whose testimonies may be summed up as follows:After receiving and verifying the information from their civilian informant that a certain female supplier/courier is capable of delivering big bulks of marijuana in Metro Manila, P/Supt. Pedro Alcantara instructed Team Leader Bravo, P/Insp. Joselito Dominguez, to conduct a possible test-buying operation and surveillance which designated SPO3 Venusto Jamisolamin as the poseur-buyer. Thus, on April 18, 1997, P/Insp. Dominguez availed of a room at West Avenue Hotel in West Avenue, Quezon City, as evidenced by the Official Receipt dated April 18, 1997 (Exh. "H") in preparation to the initial meeting between the female supplier/courier accompanied by the civilian informant and Jamisolamin, the poseur-buyer. The following day at around 8:30 in the morning, the civilian informant and a certain woman by the name of Cion arrived and she was introduced to Jamisolamin. After the negotiation, Jamisolamin and Cion reached an agreement wherein Cion would deliver 30 to 50 kilos of dried marijuana fruiting tops within 10 days at P1,000.00 per kilogram. On April 27, 1997, sometime in the afternoon, the civilian informant called up P/Insp. Dominguez and informed him that Cion and a certain female supplier/owner will only be bringing around 41 kilos of marijuana stuff and that they will be coming from Baguio City. Since they were scared of commuting by bus, P/Insp. Dominguez instructed the informant to use his white Nissan Sentra car for their transportation. Thus, P/Insp. Dominguez proceeded to Baguio City together with SPO3 Jamisolamin and PO3 Rolando Duazo using a red car. While in Baguio City, P/Insp. Dominguez was in constant communication with the civilian informant pertaining to the loading of the marijuana inside the white car. When informed that the car was already loaded with the stuff, P/Insp. Dominguez, in company with the other two police officers, started tailing the white car. From Baguio City to Quezon City, the team tailed the white car and with the woman, Cion, the supplier of drugs named Betty Cuba, her four-year old son, and the courier Cesar Santos as passengers. The white car arrived at the West Avenue Hotel at around 4:30 in the afternoon and they were met by SPO3 Jamisolamin. Cion alighted from the car and a short conversation took place between SPO3 Jamisolamin and Cion. Not long after, Cion opened the trunk of the car and showed the marijuana stuff to SPO3 Jamisolamin. Upon seeing and confirming that indeed there was marijuana stuff inside the trunk of the car placed in a shopping bag of Duty Free Philippines that contained 14 bricks of marijuana leaves (Exhs. "D" to "D-14") and in a big box labeled "Lucky Me Pancit Canton" that contained 12 bricks of marijuana leaves (Exhs. "E" to "E-12") and a second box labeled "Maggi Rich Mami" that contained 13 bricks of marijuana leaves (Exhs. "F" to "F-13"), SPO3 Jamisolamin immediately gave a pre-arranged signal to his team by lighting a cigarette. Heeding the signal, P/Insp. Dominguez and a certain PO3 Duazo approached the car and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. After which, they effected an arrest on the persons of Salvacion Caparas alias "Cion", Betty Cuba and Cesar Santos for illegal possession of a prohibited drug.1avvphilOn the other hand, the little boy believed to be the child of Betty Cuba was freed for humanitarian reason. Thereafter, the police officers executed their affidavit of arrest (Exhs. "G" to "G-2").EVIDENCE FOR THE ACCUSEDThe defense presented accused Betty Cuba, the alleged supplier, accused Salvacion Caparas, the alleged middleman; and accused Cesar Santos, the alleged courier; to rebut the allegations thrown against them, and their testimonies may be summarized as follows:On April 28, 1997, Cesar Santos met a neighbor named Soso at the market and the latter asked if he knew somebody who can sell cheap vegetables to him. Since Santos knew Salvacion Caparas or Aling Cion for short, Santos accompanied Soso to her. After the introduction and negotiation, they closed a deal. The following day at around 7:00 in the morning, Aling Cion visited the house of Betty Cuba, a vegetable andtocinovendor, to see the latter's sister Melba since they were intending to go to the Trading Post. However, since her sister Melba was not around Beta Cuba agreed to go with her since they would be passing by Tarlac. Thus, Betty and her son accompanied Salvacion. They boarded in a waiting car with three males who were unknown to Betty. The three male passengers were later identified as Cesar Santos, Soso and a certain Jessie. As they proceeded to Tarlac, an old maroon car suddenly crossed their path. Two unidentified men alighted from the old car and approached them. After a few conversations, Soso and Jessie stepped out of the car, took a tricycle and went away. On the other hand, the two unidentified men boarded the white vehicle and proceeded to Manila while the old maroon car was tailing them. However, they stopped at McArthur Highway at Tarlac, Tarlac and the men went behind and opened the trunk of the car. After 30 minutes, they boarded the car again and proceeded straight to NARCOM Office at Kamuning, Quezon City for investigation. After 30 minutes, they were called in the office again and were compelled to admit ownership over the seized marijuana stuff which were placed on the table. When they refused ownership, they were whisked into the detention cell and were charged with the instant case.4The trial court found sufficient evidence that CAPARAS committed the crime charged and is guilty thereof. Per testimony of poseur-buyer Jamisolamin, CAPARAS agreed to sell marijuana for a price ofP1,000.00 per kilo and to deliver the contraband at the designated time and place. Their agreement was consummated on 29 April 1997 when, on such date, CAPARAS arrived at West Avenue Hotel, Quezon City, and showed to Jamisolamin the stack of marijuana loaded at the trunk of her car.5The trial court struck down CAPARAS' defense of denial because of the positive and forthright assertions of the witnesses for the prosecution who, being peace officers, were presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.6However, the trial court was unconvinced of the criminal culpability of BETTY and CESAR as there was no competent evidence to show that the former was the supplier and that the latter participated in the loading and selling of the forbidden merchandise. The trial court did not give credence to the prosecution's theory that the accused conspired in the commission of the illicit activity as it considered the character of evidence against them purely speculative.Thus, in the decision of 23 March 1998, the trial court decreed as follows:WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, Salvacion Caparas y De Castro a.k.a. "Cion," GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Sec.4, Republic Act 6425, as amended, and, there being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine ofP500, 000.00.The period within which the accused Salvacion Caparas y De Castro a.k.a. "Cion" was detained at the City Jail shall be credited to her in full as long as she agrees in writing to abide by and follow strictly the rules and regulations of the said institution.The other two accused, Betty Cuba y Lubon a.k.a. "Betty" and Cesar Santos y Lucia a.k.a. "Cesar" for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, are hereby ACQUITTED. The said two accused are hereby ordered released from detention unless they are being detained for another charge or lawful cause.The bricks of marijuana (Exhs. "D" to "D-14"," Exhs. "E" to "E-12" and Exhs. "F" to "F-13") are hereby forfeited in favor of the government. The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to safely deliver or cause the safe delivery of the said marijuana to the Dangerous Drugs Board for safekeeping until the final disposition of this case.The accused Salvacion Caparas y De Castro is hereby ordered to pay the costs.IT IS SO ORDERED.7CAPARAS filed a notice of appeal on 7 April 1998.8We accepted the appeal.In her Appellant's Brief, CAPARAS assails the trial court's judgment of conviction because there was no showing that a sale of prohibited drug took place. In support thereof, she argues that the prosecution has failed to establish that money or specifically "marked money" was paid or exchanged hands between her and the supposed poseur-buyer. She theorizes that in a contract of sale the payment of the contract price is essential to consummate the transaction. In this case, considering that there was no payment made, the contract of sale was not consummated and inevitably the accused-appellant can not be convicted for the illegal sale of prohibited drug.The prosecution prays that the conviction of CAPARAS be affirmed. It asserts that the undisputed facts on record sufficiently established that on 29 April 1997 CAPARAS transported and delivered the marijuana to poseur-buyer Jamisolamin. Her argument that the non-payment of the purchase price precludes the consummation of the transaction which thereby justifies her acquittal is untenable. Under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the law punishes the sale, transportation and delivery of prohibited drugs. It is inconsequential that no payment of money was made to the seller, CAPARAS, by the poseur-buyer, Jamisolamin. Stated differently, it is not a requisite to be convicted under the aforementioned law that the drug trafficker's act of selling is coupled with the actual payment in money of the agreed consideration since the act of offering to sell a prohibited drug isper sepunishable by law. At any rate, it cannot be disputed that a completed sales transaction transpired between CAPARAS and the poseur-buyer Jamisolamin since there was an agreement for the former to sell and deliver 39 kilos of marijuana for a cost ofP1,000.00 per kilogram and the latter to buy the marijuana at the agreed price. There was, therefore, a concurrence on the minds of the parties on the object and cause which thereby perfected the contract of sale.The appeal is without merit.CAPARAS was charged with and convicted of the offense of transporting, delivering and selling prohibited drug defined and penalized under Section 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The section reads:SEC. 4.Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. -- The penalty ofreclusion perpetuato death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.Under this Section the act of selling or acting as broker in a sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime.9More specifically, it punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller.10It has been consistently ruled that the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer.11Thus, contrary to the theory of CAPARAS, proof of actual payment of money is not an indispensable requisite to support a conviction for sale of prohibited drug. What is material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of thecorpus delictias evidence.12In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove the fact of sale. The poseur-buyer Jamisolamin declared that on 19 April 1997 CAPARAS agreed to sell and deliver bricks of marijuana at P1,000 per kilo. On 29 April 1997, CAPARAS, pursuant to said agreement, transported marijuana from Baguio City and delivered the same to Jamisolamin in Quezon City.13The articles seized from CAPARAS per results of the forensic examination were found positive for marijuana.14The conviction of CAPARAS is therefore unassailable. He was caught red-handed orflagrante delictoof the prohibited articles. The incriminatory evidence on record adequately established her guilt beyond moral certainty for thesale, transport and deliveryof marijuana.It is apropos to mention that CAPARAS had not at anytime put in issue the validity of her arrest and the seizure of the contraband from her possession. Neither did CAPARAS raise as an issue the identity of the prohibited articles proffered as incriminatory evidence against her. CAPARAS relied heavily on her defense of denial in that she had not at anytime agreed to deliver or cause the delivery of the marijuana to police officer Jamisolamin. She denied her meetings with him in spite of the positive and forthright testimony of the latter on this point. Moreover, the insinuation that she was allegedly framed-up for the purpose of extorting a large sum of money is unsubstantiated and cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence of her criminal complicity.At the bottom then of CAPARAS' assignment of error is the issue of credibility of witnesses. On this point, prudence and practical considerations dictate that we, in the absence of a compelling reason showing that the trial court overlooked certain significant facts which if considered would suffice to alter the result of the case, hesitate to lightly set-aside its evaluation and assessment on the credibility of witnesses inasmuch as such undertaking is well within the province of the trial court.15Finally, we find no cogent reason to be wary about the truthfulness of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who are police officers and thus have in their favor the presumption that they have performed their duties in a regular manner.16WHEREFORE,the assailed judgment of 23 March 1998 of Branch 95, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. Q-97-70944 convicting SALVACION CAPARAS y CASTRO is hereby AFFIRMED.Costs against accused-appellant.SO ORDERED.Puno, Kapunan, Pardo,andYnares-Santiago, JJ.,concur.G.R. No. 130836 August 11, 2000PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.ARNEL C. MONTANO,accused-appellant.MENDOZA,J.:This is an appeal from the decision1of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City, finding accused-appellant Arnel C. Montano guilty of violation of Art. III, 15 of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, and sentencing him to suffer the penaltyof reclusion perpetuaand to pay a fine of P2 million and the costs of the suit.The information 2 against accused-appellant alleged That in the afternoon of (the) 22nd of January, 1996, in the municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell, distribute and/or deliver 229.7 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as'shabu' which is a regulated drug, without the corresponding license and/or legal authority to sell, distribute and/or deliver the same.CONTRARY TO LAW.When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, whereupon he was tried.The presentation of the testimony of the first witness for the prosecution, Forensic Chemist Demelen Dela Cruz of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), was dispensed with, as the defense entered into a stipulation with the prosecution concerning the following facts: (1) that 229.7 grams of a white crystalline substance was submitted to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division for laboratory examination to determine if it was methamphetamine hydrochloride orshabu; (2) that a forensic examination was performed by the witness on the substance submitted; (3) that the substance was found to be positive forshabu; and (4) that the substance was the same 229.7-gram substance submitted for forensic examination by NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano. Accused-appellant denied, however, that theshabuhad been seized from him.3The prosecution presented evidence showing that theshabuhad been seized from accused-appellant, thus:Sometime in the second week of January 1996, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano received a tip from a female confidential informant that the accused-appellant was engaged in the distribution ofshabuin Taguig, Metro Manila.4Agent Rejano and the informant, therefore, conducted a "test-buy" operation on January 18, 1996 at accused-appellant's residence at 104 N. P. Cruz St., Barangay Ususan, Taguig, Metro Manila.5When they arrived at the place, the female informant went inside the gate as Agent Rejano stayed behind. After thirty minutes, the informant asked Agent Rejano to come in, and the two then proceeded along a roofed alley with concrete walls on both sides. They entered a second gate where a store with a long bench was located. A woman, whom Agent Rejano came to know was accused-appellant's mother, tended the store.At the gate, the informant introduced Agent Rejano to accused-appellant as a Chinese drug-user and a big-time buyer ofshabu. While Agent Rejano waited at the store, the informant went with accused-appellant in front of the latter's house about 15 meters away and transacted business with him on the porch. Agent Rejano saw them sniffing something while seated on the metal chairs. After thirty minutes, the informant returned to Agent Rejano and secretly told him that she already had the stuff from the accused-appellant. Thereafter, they left and returned to the NBI office in Taft Avenue, Manila.1wphi1.ntThe stuff was submitted for forensic examination and was found to beshabu. After Agent Rejano reported to his superiors what transpired during the operation, he was directed to conduct with the informant another "test-buy' operation on the accused-appellant in order to gain the latter's trust and confidence. The plan was eventually to make him sell a larger amount ofshabuto them.6On January 19, 1996, Agent Rejano, together with the female informant and another intelligence agent, returned to accused-appellant's house to purchase moreshabu. Again, it was the informant who transacted with accused-appellant while Agent Rejano and the intelligence agent stayed at the store. After half an hour, the informant returned and discreetly told them that she had with her the stuff from accused-appellant and that the latter was willing to deliver 200 grams ofshabuon January 22, 1996. Then, they left.Upon arriving at the NBI, Agent Rejano made a request7for the forensic examination of the crystalline substance purchased from accused-appellant. Forensic Chemist II Emilia Andeo-Rosaldes issued a certification, 8 dated January 19, 1996, stating that the substance submitted wasshabu.9On January 22, 1996, a team of NBI agents proceeded to Taguig, Metro Manila aboard three vehicles. About 100 meters away from the target area, the buy-bust team, composed of Agent Reynaldo Esmeralda, Agent Regner Peneza, and the informant, took a tricycle to accused-appellant's house, while the rest of the NBI operatives waited for a signal at a distance. Accused-appellant and his mother met the buy-bust operatives. The informant informed accused-appellant that they already had the money and were ready to buy 250 grams ofshabu. Accused-appellant then led the group to an alley towards the kitchen outside his house. The informant introduced Agent Peneza as her husband and Agent Esmeralda as the bodyguard of her employer, the Japanese financier. Accused-appellant's mother then served the group some snacks, consisting of leche flan and softdrinks. Accused-appellant left them and, after a few minutes, returned with Hector Tinga. Accused-appellant told the group to follow him. Accused-appellant's mother was left behind. They passed through a dark narrow alley leading to an enclosed space at the back of accused-appellant's house. Tinga brought out two plastic packets of a white crystalline substance and handed them to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant gave the packets to the informant who tested the contents by burning a small amount using an improvised tooter. When the informant confirmed that the substance wasshabu, accused-appellant asked for the money.Agent Esmeralda handed accused-appellant bundles of P100 bills. While the accused-appellant and Tinga were counting the money, Agents Esmeralda and Peneza announced the arrest and handcuffed the two. Esmeralda radioed the other members of the NBI team to proceed to the area.10After the team secured the house, Agent Auralyn Pascual served the search warrant to the mother of accused-appellant. With two barangay officials as witnesses, the NBI agents recovered from the search, besides the two packets of white crystalline substance, a tooter, a burner, aluminum foil, a pair of scissors, and a match.11The items were listed in the inventory of articles seized which was signed by Agent Pascual and attested to by the barangay officials.12Agent Pascual gave the mother of the accused-appellant a copy of the inventory.The NBI team brought accused-appellant and Tinga to NBI Taft where they were booked and their photographs and fingerprints taken.13The two packets of white crystalline substance,14marked as AM-1 and AM-2 respectively, and the improvised tooter15seized during the search were forwarded to the forensic chemistry laboratory for examination.16Accused-appellant and Tinga were brought to the Department of Justice for inquest and then detained at the NBI Taft. The report on the forensic examination showed that the crystalline substance, weighing 229.7 grams, wasshabu. The tooter, however, was negative forshabu.17Later, the Department of Justice, through Prosecutor Ferdinand Abesamis, issued a Resolution, dated February 1, 1996,18recommending the filing of an information only against accused-appellant on account of the insufficiency of evidence against Tinga.19HCacTIAccused-appellant denied that there were "test-buy" operations conducted on him on January 18 and 19, 1996. His version of the incident is as follows:In the afternoon of January 18, 1996, while he was cleaning the passenger jeepney he was driving, a woman arrived and introduced herself as "Solly." As she was looking for the residence of Hector Tinga, accused-appellant pointed to her the direction to the said house. After a few minutes, Solly returned and told him that the gate was closed. She requested him to fetch Tinga. Accused-appellant said he acceded to the request and that, after a while, Tinga came to meet the stranger. According to accused-appellant, Solly told him that she and Tinga met in a nightclub in Ermita, and that she worked for a Japanese employer. Accused-appellant said that he got interested, because he wanted to work abroad, and the stranger might be able to help him get employment overseas.Accused-appellant testified that, on January 22, 1996 at around 2 p.m., Solly returned to his house with her husband and the bodyguard of her Japanese employer. They proceeded directly to the "dirty" kitchen of his house without knocking at the unlocked gate. Accused-appellant said he did not inquire into the purpose of their visit because he assumed it was about his application for overseas employment. They allegedly assured him that they would help him. He introduced them to his mother, who served them leche flan and softdrinks. Then, his mother left to fetch his children and his nephew from school. After eating, Solly and her companions moved to the garden, also inside the compound. Solly requested him to call Tinga. He was about to go, but he saw Tinga coming. Accused-appellant assumed that they agreed to meet at his house. After greeting Tinga and telling him that Solly was waiting for him in the garden, he went inside the kitchen to wash the dishes used by his visitors. Tinga and the visitors went inside his house and joined his children in watching television. Accused-appellant asked Tinga if he could help him in securing an overseas job and Tinga told him he would. He claims that he went out to get an electric fan for his visitors but, when he returned, he saw them already in the storage room at the back of his house. He stated that he saw Tinga handing two bags ofshabuto the "bodyguard," who turned out to be NBI Agent Esmeralda. According to accused-appellant, he told Tinga and the visitors that he might be implicated in the transaction, and that his mother would get angry because she did not know that they were transactingshabuin his house. They assured him, however, that they would take care he did not get involved in the deal. Then, he saw Solly's "husband," whom he later learned was Agent Peneza, handing over a bag of money to Tinga. It was then that the NBI agents identified themselves and ordered him and Tinga, at gun point, to lie face down on the floor. He and Tinga were handcuffed. He allegedly said, "Iyan na nga ba ang sinasabi ko tapos ito pa ang mapapala ko, kawawa naman ako." Accused-appellant claimed he was kicked and was told that he would be "taken care of."Aurora Montano, accused-appellant's mother, arrived and found her grandchildren running around. One of them told her that accused-appellant was handcuffed and lying face down on the floor. When his mother saw him and the NBI agents, she exclaimed, "Bakit ganito ang nangyari? Akala ko ba tutulungan ninyo ang anak ko, ngayon ito pa ang mapapala namin." The NBI agents repeated to his mother that they would "take care of him." Then, another group, presumably with the NBI team, arrived and took pictures of them. Accused-appellant and Tinga were brought out of the storage room. Still another group arrived with the barangay chairman, showed his mother a search warrant, and conducted a search on the house. According to him, nothing was recovered from his house. He and Tinga were taken to the NBI office for fingerprinting. Again, he was told that he would be "taken care of." He and Tinga were detained separately at the NBI Taft. Later, he said he was surprised to learn that Tinga was released. Subsequently, he was transferred for detention to MMRC, Camp Ricardo Papa, Bicutan.20On cross-examination, accused-appellant testified that Solly approached him on January 18, 1996 because there was nobody else at that time she could ask for direction to Tinga's house.21He said he was not investigated at the NBI office but was only asked by Agent Esmeralda as to who was the owner of theshabu.22Aurora Montano, accused-appellant's mother, also testified for the defense. She stated that, on January 18, 1996, she was at their house taking care of her grandchildren, but she denied that they had visitors that day. Likewise, she denied having any visitor at their house on January 19, 1996. According to her, on January 22, 1996 at around 2 p.m., she went out of the house and saw her son, two men, and a woman seated on the bench of their "dirty" kitchen along the passageway. She described the passage as 140 meters long, 2 1/2 meters wide, six feet in height, with concrete walls on both sides, a roof, and three gates. According to her, the "dirty" kitchen was located 40 meters from their house and 100 meters away from the first gate. Her son introduced her to the visitors and requested her to prepare some snacks for them. She overheard them talking about a recruitment agency in Japan. She remembered one of them was named "Boyet." After serving them leche flan and softdrinks, she said she went out to fetch her grandchildren from school. When she arrived, her son and his companions were not in sight. Then, a group of around twenty armed persons arrived and kicked their main and middle gates, shouting "shabu,shabu." She told them there was noshabuin the house. After driving these people away, she went inside to look for her grandchildren. Some of them were at the back of their house where their storeroom was located. She went to the storeroom through another passage and found her son and Tinga with their arms raised. The visitors were also there and introduced themselves as NBI operatives. The other NBI agents arrived after a few minutes. Her son and Tinga were brought to the porch and handcuffed. Afterwards, another group arrived with the barangay chairman and showed her a search warrant. They conducted a search throughout the house but they allegedly did not find anything. Then, the two were taken to the NBI office in Taft Avenue.23On cross-examination, she testified that she did not know the reason why her son, Tinga, and their visitors went to their storage room on January 22, 1996. She did not even notice them going there but only found out that they did when she went and saw her grandchildren in the storeroom. She testified that nobody could enter the storeroom without her son's permission. Aurora Montano admitted that she knew Tinga was sellingshabubut claimed that she could not forbid her son from associating with Tinga because they were neighbors. She said she was surprised why Tinga was released while her son remained in detention and was the only one charged in court. She stated that Tinga is the cousin of Congressman Dante Tinga.24On August 29, 1997, the trial court rendered a decision,25the dispositive portion of which reads:26WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Arnel C. Montano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, in relation to Section 20, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Said accused is hereby sentenced to: (a) suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, (b) pay a fine in the amount of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00), and (c) pay the costs.SO ORDERED.Accused-appellant contends that the trial court erred in convicting him (1) "despite its findings that the prohibited drug subject matter of (the) case did not originate from appellant but from Hector Tinga"; (2) "despite the fact that he was singled out for prosecution in violation of his right to equal protection of laws"; and (3) "on the basis of an alleged buy-bust operation when it was shown to have been resorted to harass, extort and abuse."27In the alternative, he prays that this Court find him guilty as an accomplice only, because he merely handed to the poseur-buyers the drug which Tinga produced.28We find these contentions without merit.First. This Court has held that the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.29Contrary to accused-appellant's assertions, the evidence for the prosecution establishes these elements beyond reasonable doubt. NBI Agents Esmeralda and Peneza positively identified accused-appellant as the person who, together with Tinga, sold to them two plastic packets of a white crystalline substance.30Accused-appellant was thus caught inflagrante delictoin the buy-bust operation conducted by the NBI. The corpus delicti of the crime charged, i.e., the 229.7 grams ofshabu, was duly established before the trial court.31In fact, accused-appellant, through his counsel, even admitted the same.32He delivered the drug to the buy-bust team and payment for it was made. The fact that the drug originally came from Tinga is immaterial. As held by this Court, proof of ownership of the drug is not necessary in the prosecution of illegal drug cases. It is sufficient that it was found in accused-appellant's possession.33Indeed, from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be denied that accused-appellant had possession of the 229.7 grams ofshabu. It was he who delivered the same to the NBI operatives after it was handed to him by Tinga.34After making the delivery, he and Tinga asked for the payment.35Second. Accused-appellant invokes the defense of alibi. He claims that he went out of his house to get an electric fan and only witnessed the illegal transaction after his return and that he was merely implicated by the arresting, officers.This defense is uncorroborated. Accused-appellant's mother testified that she too was out of the house at the time the buy-bust operation was being conducted and that, when she came back, she saw her son and Tinga already under arrest.We have consistently held that the defense of alibi, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is weak, self-serving, and without weight in law, and thus undeserving of consideration by the courts. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses who have no reason or ill motive to testify falsely against the accused-appellant.36In this case, the testimonies for the prosecution are consistent, unequivocal, and replete with details of the transaction with accused-appellant, and, therefore, merit our full faith and credence.37Third. The presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties in favor of the arresting officers had not been sufficiently controverted by accused-appellant; hence, this Court is bound to uphold the same.38Except for his self-serving statements, accused-appellant failed to present evidence to establish that the buy-bust operation was "resorted to harass, extort and abuse." In a vain attempt to establish his inculpability, he even questioned the validity of his arrest on account of the absence of a warrant. The fact, however, is that accused-appellant was apprehended inflagrante delictoduring a buy-bust operation against him and his arrest falls within the ambit of Rule 113, 5(a) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on arrests without a warrant. Indeed, this Court has already ruled that a buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law."39The validity of the arrest in this case must be sustained.Fourth. Nor is there merit in accused-appellant's assertion that, because of the release of Hector Tinga, he is entitled to an acquittal. No principle of equality justifies setting free a man who is otherwise guilty just because his co-conspirator escaped prosecution. Accused-appellant's guilt is not dependent on whether or not Tinga was similarly charged with the same offense. As discussed above, the evidence against accused-appellant sufficiently establishes his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.However, it cannot be denied that Agents Peneza and Esmeralda testified that Tinga, who brought out the sachets from his pocket and counted the purchase money with accused-appellant, also directly participated in the sale. What should be done, therefore, is to let a copy of the decision be given to the Department of Justice so that it may review its resolution in the case of Hector Tinga.Alternatively, accused-appellant prays that he be held guilty merely as an accomplice. This cannot be done. Art. 18 of the Revised Penal Code defines an accomplice as a person who, not being a principal in the commission of a felony, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. On the other hand, Art. 17 thereof provides that principals are: (1) those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; (2) those who directly force or induce others to commit it; and (3) those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been accomplished.40The evidence shows that accused-appellant was indeed a principal in the commission of the crime charged in this case. Though it was Tinga who produced the two plastic packets ofshabu, it was accused-appellant who delivered the same to the buy-bust team. He was the one who asked for payment, who received the same, and who counted it in the presence of the buy-bust team. It is undeniable that accused-appellant directly participated in the illegal sale of theshabu. Consequently, his conviction must be upheld.1wphi1.ntWHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 262, Pasig City is AFFIRMEDin toto.Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Honorable Secretary of Justice for whatever action he may deem necessary to take in the case of Hector Tinga.SO ORDERED.Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ ., concur.Bellosillo, J .,is on leave.

G.R. No. 143944 July 11, 2002THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.BASHER BONGCARAWAN y MACARAMBON,accused-appellant.PUNO,J.:This is an appeal from the Decision1dated December 27, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 06, in Criminal Case No. 06-7542, finding accused Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 64252as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetua, and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.1wphi1.ntAccused Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon was charged in an Information which reads, thus:"That on or about March 13, 1999, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control eight (8) packs of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug commonly known as Shabu, weighing approximately 400 grams, without the corresponding license or prescription.Contrary to and in violation of Section 16, Article III of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA 7659."3During the arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.Evidence for the prosecution shows that on March 11, 1999, an interisland passenger ship, M/V Super Ferry 5, sailed from Manila to Iligan City. At about 3:00 a.m. on March 13, 1999, the vessel was about to dock at the port of Iligan City when its security officer, Mark Diesmo, received a complaint from passenger Lorena Canoy about her missing jewelry. Canoy suspected one of her co-passengers at cabin no. 106 as the culprit. Diesmo and four (4) other members of the vessel security force accompanied Canoy to search for the suspect whom they later found at the economy section.4The suspect was identified as the accused, Basher Bongcarawan. The accused was informed of the complaint and was invited to go back to cabin no. 106. With his consent, he was bodily searched, but no jewelry was found. He was then escorted by two (2) security agents back to the economy section to get his baggage. The accused took a Samsonite suitcase and brought this back to the cabin. When requested by the security, the accused opened the suitcase, revealing a brown bag and small plastic packs containing white crystalline substance. Suspecting the substance to be "shabu," the security personnel immediately reported the matter to the ship captain and took pictures of the accused beside the suitcase and its contents. They also called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance.5At about 6:00 a.m., Lt. Robert Patrimonio, YN Aurelio Estoque, CD2 Phoudinie Lantao and RM3 Merchardo De Guzman of the Philippine Coast Guard arrived and took custody of the accused and the seized items--the Samsonite suitcase, a brown bag6and eight (8) small plastic packs of white crystalline substance.7When asked about the contraband articles, the accused explained that he was just requested by a certain Alican "Alex" Macapudi to bring the suitcase to the latter's brother in Iligan City.8The accused and the seized items were later turned over by the coast guard to the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). Chief Inspector Graciano Mijares and his men brought the accused to the PAOCTF Headquarters,9while the packs of white crystalline substance were sent to the NBI Regional Office in Cagayan de Oro City for laboratory examination. NBI Forensic Chemist Nicanor Cruz later confirmed the substance to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," weighing 399.3266 grams.10The accused testified and proffered his own version. On March 11, 1999, at about 10:00 p.m., he was in Quiapo, Manila where he met Alican "Alex" Macapudi, a neighbor who has a store in Marawi City. He was requested by Macapudi to bring a Samsonite suitcase containing sunglasses and watches to Iligan City, and to give it to Macapudi's brother at the Iligan port. He boarded the M/V Super Ferry 5 on the same night, carrying a big luggage full of clothes, a small luggage or "maleta" containing the sunglasses and brushes he bought from Manila, and the Samsonite suitcase of Macapudi.11He stayed at cabin no. 106. At about 4:00 a.m of March 13, 1999, as the vessel was about to dock at the Iligan port, he took his baggage and positioned himself at the economy section to be able to disembark ahead of the other passengers. There, he met a friend, Ansari Ambor. While they were conversing, five (5) members of the vessel security force and a woman whom he recognized as his co-passenger at cabin no. 106 came and told him that he was suspected of stealing jewelry. He voluntarily went with the group back to cabin no. 106 where he was frisked. Subsequently, he was asked to get his baggage, so he went back to the economy section and took the big luggage and Macapudi's Samsonite suitcase. He left the small "maleta" containing sunglasses and brushes for fear that they would be confiscated by the security personnel. When requested, he voluntarily opened the big luggage, but refused to do the same to the Samsonite suitcase which he claimed was not his and had a secret combination lock. The security personnel forcibly opened the suitcase and found packs of white crystalline substance inside which they suspected to be "shabu." They took pictures of him with the merchandise, and asked him to sign a turn over receipt which was later given to the Philippine Coast Guard, then to the PAOCTF.12On December 27, 1999, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:"WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused Basher Bongcarawan y Macarambon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the offense of violation of Section 16, Art. III, R.A. No. 6425 as amended by R.A. No. 7659 and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.Having been under preventive imprisonment since March 13, 1999 until the present, the period of such preventive detention shall be credited in full in favor of the accused in the service of his sentence.The 399.3266 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is hereby ordered delivered to the National Bureau of Investigation for proper disposition.SO ORDERED."13Hence, this appeal where the accused raises the following assignment of errors:"I.THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SO HOLDING THAT THE DRUG CONFISCATED IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT.II.THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SO HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT OWNED THE CONFISCATED EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM."14On the first assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that the Samsonite suitcase containing the methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" was forcibly opened and searched without his consent, and hence, in violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure. Any evidence acquired pursuant to such unlawful search and seizure, he claims, is inadmissible in evidence against him. He also contends thatPeople v. Marti15is not applicable in this case because a vessel security personnel is deemed to perform the duties of a policeman.The contentions are devoid of merit.The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.16Evidence acquired in violation of this right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.17Whenever this right is challenged, an individual may choose between invoking the constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search and seizure. It should be stressed, however, that protection is against transgression committed by the government or its agent. As held by this Court in the case ofPeople v. Marti,18"[i]n the absence of governmental interference, liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State."19The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.20In the case before us, the baggage of the accused-appellant was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found "shabu" inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items was therefore carried out without government intervention, and hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.There is no merit in the contention of the accused-appellant that the search and seizure performed by the vessel security personnel should be considered as one conducted by the police authorities for like the latter, the former are armed and tasked to maintain peace and order. The vessel security officer in the case at bar is a private employee and does not discharge any governmental function. In contrast, police officers are agents of the state tasked with the sovereign function of enforcement of the law. Historically and until now, it is against them and other agents of the state that the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures may be invoked.On the second assignment of error, the accused-appellant contends that he is not the owner of the Samsonite suitcase and he had no knowledge that the same contained "shabu." He submits that without knowledge or intent to possess the dangerous drug, he cannot be convicted of the crime charged.21We are not persuaded.In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proven beyond reasonable doubt,viz: (1) that the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.22The first two elements were sufficiently proven in this case, and were in fact undisputed. We are left with the third.As early as 1910 in the case ofUnited States v. Tan Misa,23this Court has ruled that to warrant conviction, the possession of dangerous drugs must be with knowledge of the accused, or thatanimus possidendiexisted together with the possession or control of such articles.24It has been ruled, however, that possession of dangerous drugs constitutesprima facieevidence of knowledge oranimus possidendisufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.25Hence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge oranimus possidendi.26In this respect, the accused-appellant has utterly failed. His testimony, uncorroborated, self-serving and incredulous, was not given credence by the trial court. 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.27Moreover, evidence must be credible in itself to deserve credence and weight in law. In this case, the accused-appellant admits that when he was asked to get his baggage, he knew it would be inspected.28Why he got the Samsonite suitcase allegedly not owned by him and which had a combination lock known only to the owner remains unclear. He also claims that he did not present his small "maleta" for inspection for fear that its contents consisting of expensive sunglasses and brushes would be confiscated,29but he brought the Samsonite suitcase which is not his and also contained expensive sunglasses, and even watches.30The things in possession of a person are presumed by law to be owned by him.31To overcome this presumption, it is necessary to present clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, the accused points to a certain Alican "Alex" Macapudi as the owner of the contraband, but presented no evidence to support his claim. As aptly observed by the trial judge:"First, who is Alex Macap[u]di aka Ali[c]an Macap[u]di? Does he really exist or simply a figment of the imagination? He says that Alex Macap[u]di is a friend and a fellow businessman who has a stall selling sunglasses in Marawi City. But no witnesses were presented to prove that there is such a living, breathing, flesh and blood person named Alex Macap[u]di who entrusted the Samsonite to the accused. Surely, if he does exist, he has friends, fellow businessmen and acquaintances who could testify and support the claim of the accused."32Mere denial of ownership will not suffice especially if, as in the case at bar, it is the keystone of the defense of the accused-appellant. Stories can easily be fabricated. It will take more than bare-bone allegations to convince this Court that a courier of dangerous drugs is not its owner and has no knowledge or intent to possess the same.1wphi1.ntWHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 06, in Criminal Case No. 06-7542, convicting accused-appellant Basher Bongcarawan of violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty ofReclusion Perpetuaand to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, isAFFIRMED.Costs against the accused-appellant.SO ORDERED.Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ.,concur.YOLLY TEODOSIO y BLANCAFLOR,petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.D E C I S I O NCORONA,J.:Before us is a petition for review of the decision[1]dated February 28, 1995 of the Court of Appeals[2]affirming with modification the decision[3]dated January 18, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 109, convicting herein appellant Yolly Teodosio of violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended.Appellant was charged with selling and delivering regulated drugs in an Information that read:That on or about the 6thday of August 1992, in Pasay City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Yolly Teodosio Y Blancaflor, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to another Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.Contrary to law.[4]During his arraignment on August 19, 1992, appellant pleaded not guilty.The prosecution presented the following witnesses: SPO1 Jeffrey Inciong, SPO1 Emerson Norberte, Julita de Villa and Marita Sioson.The evidence of the prosecution showed that, after four days of surveillance on the house of appellant, at around 8:00 p.m. on August 5, 1992, Chief Inspector Federico Laciste ordered a team from the PNP Regional Office Intelligence Unit to conduct a buy-bust operation on appellant who was suspected of peddling regulated drugs known asshabu(methamphetamine hydrochloride). The team was headed by SPO1 Emerson Norberte and composed of SPO1 Jeffrey Inciong, SPO3 Roberto Samoy, SPO3 Pablo Rebaldo and SPO1 Rolando Llanes.[5]About midnight, the team and their informer proceeded to the appellants house in Solitaria Street, Pasay City. SPO1 Jeffrey Inciong and the informer entered the open gate of appellants compound and walked to his apartment while the rest of the team observed and waited outside. At 12:10 a.m., the informer introduced Inciong to the appellant as ashabubuyer. Appellant told them that a gram ofshabucostP600. When Inciong signified his intention to buy, appellant went inside his apartment while Inciong and the informer waited outside. A few minutes later, appellant came out and said Swerte ka, mayroon pang dalawang natira(You are lucky. There are two [grams] left). When Inciong told appellant that he only needed one gram, the latter gave him one plastic packet. In turn, Inciong handed to appellantP600 or six pieces ofP100 bills earlier treated with ultraviolet powder. After verifying the contents of the packet asshabu,[6]Inciong gave the signal to the other police officers who witnessed the transaction. After introducing himself as a police officer, Inciong, together with his companions, arrested appellant.[7]The marked money bills,[8]the other packet ofshabu[9]recovered from appellants right front pants-pocket and the buy-bustshabuwere brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination by forensic chemists Julita de Villa and Marita Sioson. Appellant was also taken to the said laboratory to determine the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder.The results were positive in appellants hands, the marked money bills and the right front pocket of his pants.[10]The buy-bustshabuand the contents of the other packet recovered from appellant were also confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.[11]For his defense, appellant, a driver by profession, claims that police officers raided his house without a search or arrest warrant. When they found no drugs, they took a bag containing a large sum of money. To support his defense, the following witnesses were presented: the appellant himself, Ulysses Ramos (appellants neighbor), Marilyn Teodosio (appellants wife) and Paul Teodosio (appellants 10-year-old son).Appellant, Marilyn Teodosio and Paul Teodosio alleged that, on August 5, 1992, they were sleeping in their bedroom on the second floor of their apartment when they were suddenly awakened by a noise downstairs. Appellant went down and, while on the third step of the stairs, he met three policemen on their way up. Their guns were pointed at him. One of the three inquired from him where he kept hisshabubut he denied having any. The three then searched appellants room on the second floor but did not find anyshabu. Instead, they took an overnight bag from a locked cabinet which they forcibly opened. The bag contained $7,260 and approximatelyP40,000 belonging to the appellants niece who was scheduled for a heart operation. After appellant was arrested by six police officers, he was dragged, slapped and punched in the stomach. As he was being forcibly taken out of his apartment, SPO3 Samoy fired a gun near his ear. On their way to his detention cell in Bicutan, Taguig, his hands were handcuffed behind his back. Appellant felt and saw the police officers rubbingP100 bills on his hands.[12]Defense witness Ulysses Ramos testified that, after the arrest of appellant, his wife called for police assistance. Two police officers responded while appellants son Paul took pictures[13]of the broken door and their ransacked apartment. Thereafter, his wife and Marilyn Teodosio went to the police station and formally reported the incident.[14]On January 18, 1993, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which read:IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Yolly Teodosio guilty beyond reasonable doubt for (sic) violation of Section 15, Art. III of RA 6425 as amended and hereby sentences him to life imprisonment.The methamphetamine hydrochloride is hereby forfeited in favor of the government and the Clerk of Court of this Branch is hereby ordered to transmit the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board thru the National Bureau of Investigation for proper disposition.SO ORDERED.Pasay City, January 18, 1993.[15]In convicting appellant, the trial court relied on the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were officers of the law without any ill-motive to testify falsely against him. In the absence of proof to the contrary, there was a presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions. The trial court gave no credence to the claim that the police officers stole a bag containing a large sum of money, considering the failure of appellants niece to file a case or even complain against the officers. Also, for the reason that they were biased witnesses, the trial court junked the claim of appellants wife and son that the police officers illegally raided their apartment.Ramos testimony was given little weight because he did not actually see the police officers go in and out of the apartment. Furthermore, the trial court dismissed appellants claim of a frame-up because this defense, like alibi, could be fabricated with facility and was therefore an inherently weak defense unless proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court also wondered how the appellant could have seen the officers rubbing money on his handcuffed hands behind his back. It also took note of the fact that the appellant, a driver by profession, attempted to cover up his ownership of the 190 square-meter lot and the three-door apartment thereon worth aboutP300,000.[16]In view of the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment, the appeal was originally brought to us. However, the Second Division of this Court ordered the transfer of this case to the Court of Appeals in accordance with our ruling inPeople vs. Simon y Sunga[17]wherein we held that RA 7659 which amended RA 6425, effective December 31, 1993, should be given retroactive application in so far as the amended and reduced imposable penalties provided therein are favorable to the appellant. Section 17 of RA 7659[18]states that the penalty shall range fromprision correccionaltoreclusion perpetua,depending on the quantity of the drug. In the present case, the amount of shabu sold by appellant was only 0.73 gram, thus the penalty ofreclusion perpetuacould not be imposed. Such being the case, the appeal should have been filed in the Court of Appeals and not in this Court because we can only exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over criminal cases in which the penalty imposed isreclusion perpetuaor higher.[19]The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated February 28, 1995, affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant but modified the penalty imposed, as follows:Finally, even as We agree on the findings of the lower court on the guilt of the appellant for a Violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act 6425, as amended, considering the application of Section 17 of RA 7659, the penalty imposed should be reduced to Ten (10) years of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Twenty (20) Years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum.WHEREFORE, except for the modification of the penalty, as above indicated (sic), the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED, in all other respects. No pronouncement as to costs.[20]Agreeing with the factual findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeals gave more weight to the prosecutions claim that the entrapment operation in fact took place outside the appellants apartment. The appellate court gave no merit to appellants assertion that no warrant was secured despite four days of surveillance. It described as minor the appellants observations of alleged inconsistencies in the prosecutions version of events.Hence, this appeal based on the following assignment of errors:ITHE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED CERTAIN MATERIAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS IN ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDING THAT THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION CONDUCTED WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT OR WARRANT OF ARREST TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER.IIBOTH THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION IN ADMITTING THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE WHICH WAS EITHER PROCURED FROM AN ILLEGAL WARRANTLESS RAID OR FABRICATED BY THE RAIDING POLICEMEN.IIITHE LOWER COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT SUBJECTION OF PETITIONER TO ULTRA-VIOLET POWDER TEST WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IS VIOLATIVE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION.IVTHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SAD TO SAY, DISREGARDED AND IGNORED THE INHERENT AND NATURAL BIAS AND PREJUDICE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE, HER HONOR, JUDGE LILIA LOPEZ, AGAINST PERSONS CHARGED OF (SIC) DRUG OFFENSES AS DULY NOTED BY THE SUPREME COURT INPEOPLE VS. SILLO, 214 SCRA 74.VTHE ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO AN ACQUITTAL BASED ON REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CONVICTION.[21]In short, appellant insists that the police officers forcibly entered and searched his house without a warrant. When they did not find any regulated drug, they instead took a bag containing a large sum of money. They also showed their brutality by slapping him and punching him in the stomach. Thereafter, they framed up appellant by wiping ultraviolet powder on his palms.We affirm appellants conviction.Well-settled is the rule that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are to be respected when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gleaned from such findings.[22]Such findings carry even more weight if they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in the case at bar. The alleged flaws pointed out by appellant are not enough for us to reverse the factual findings of the courtsa quo.The police officers were clear and categorical in their narration of how the entrapment operation was conducted. SPO1 Inciong, acting as a poseur-buyer, was introduced by the informer to appellant in front of the latters apartment. Thereafter, appellant went inside his apartment and came back with two packets ofshabu. Inciong handed to appellant six pieces ofP100 bills treated with ultra-violet powder in exchange for one packet ofshabu. Immediately after, Inciong gave the signal to the other policemen who then entered the compound and effected appellants arrest. Recovered from appellant was the other packet ofshabuand the six pieces of marked money. The tests conducted on these pieces of evidence, appellants hands and right front pants-pocket showed that appellant was the same person who sold the drugs to police officer Inciong.There was strong evidence therefore, certainly beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant was engaged in drug-dealing.The elements of the crime were duly proven. In the prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of thecorpus delictias evidence.[23]On the other hand, appellant insists he was framed up for possession ofshabuafter the search in his apartment produced no illegal drugs.Frame-up, a usual defense of those accused in drug-related cases, is viewed by the Court with disfavor since it is an allegation that can be made with ease. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.[24]However, appellant was unable to prove he was the victim of a frame up. First, appellant failed to show any motive why the police officers would illegally raid his house. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the persons in authority was never overcome. Second, if indeed they broke into his apartment and took an overnight bag containing a hefty amount, appellant or any of his family members should have filed a criminal complaint against the supposed malefactors but they did not. This weakened the defenses story that the police officers stormed and robbed appellants apartment. Third, appellant testified that, after the search forshabuproved futile, the police officers dragged and slapped him, and punched him in the stomach. However, appellant never filed a case for physical injuries against the arresting officers. No medical certificate was presented to show his alleged injuries. He never even complained about it to anybody.To prove his allegation that the arresting officers raided his apartment, appellant quoted officer Inciongs testimony that his (Inciongs) informant introduced him to Yolly Teodosio specificallyat the houseof Yolly Teodosio. Appellants argument is misplaced. The preposition at merely signifies that Inciong was within the vicinity of appellants apartment. There is nothing in it from which we can infer that Inciong entered appellants abode. Moreover, the statement must be taken in conjunction with the rest of his testimony which unequivocally showed that the transaction happened in front of the door of appellants apartment, not inside.Appellant also cites in his defense the police blotter of the Investigation Branch of the Pasay City Police Station:[25]xxx.It was learned that on or about 11:45 p.m. 05 August 1992, a group of RPIU Operatives headed by SPO3 Emerson Norberte went inside the room of 421-C Apartment by forcing to open it and the owner / occupant was brought with them, who was identified as YOLLY TEODOSIO.xxx.Unfortunately for appellant, the police blotter does not support his version because entries in police blotters, although done in the regular course of the performance of official duty, are not conclusive proof of the truth stated in such entries and should not be given undue significance or probative value. They are usually incomplete and inaccurate. Sometimes they are based on partial suggestion or inaccurate reporting and hearsay, untested in the context of a trial on the merits.[26]Appellant furthermore points out the discrepancies in the testimonies and the joint affidavit of arrest executed by officers Inciong and Norberte. First, the affidavit stated that the second packet ofshabuwas recovered from appellants pants-pocket but the officers testimony in court was that it was recovered from appellants hands. Second, the affidavit stated that the informer acted as the poseur-buyer but the policemen testified in court that Inciong was the poseur-buyer.The established rule is that discrepancies between the affidavit of a witness and his testimony in court do not necessarily discredit him because it is a matter of judicial experience that affidavits, being takenex-parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. Besides, the testimonial discrepancies may be due to the natural fickleness of memory; this in fact tends to strengthen, rather than weaken, credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.[27]In an attempt to weaken the prosecutions case, appellant also cites several inconsistencies in the narration of events.According to appellant, SPO1 Norberte testified that it was SPO1 Inciong who knocked at the door, contrary to Inciongs own testimony that it was the informer who knocked at the door. This is, however, a minor matter that does not affect the substance of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Minor variances in the details of a witness account, more frequently than not, are badges of truth rather thanindiciaof falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony.[28]Also, according to appellant, the prosecution witnesses testified that the total weight of the confiscatedshabuwas 2 grams but its actual weight was only 0.73 grams. It must be remembered that during the drug deal, it was appellant who led officer Inciong to believe that each packet ofshabuhe was selling weighed 1 gram. Inciong, under the circumstances, had no opportunity to verify the actual weight of the drug. Thus, the discrepancy did not in anyway weaken the credibility of Inciongs testimony that appellant was selling a prohibited drug.Appellant likewise attacks SPO1 Norbertes credibility. Norberte claimed that he wrote the serial numbers of the marked money billsafterthe operation; however, he later declared that he listed the numbers in the logbookbeforethe buy-bust operation. There is no contradiction. Norberte never said that he wrote the serial numbersafterthe operation. On the contrary, what he said was that he wrote the numberspriorto the buy-bust.[29]Appellant likewise points out several instances of improbable behavior in the prosecutions version of the facts. Appellant believes it is not a discreet and wary behavior of a pusher to bring two packets ofshabuafter closing a deal for only one packet with an unknown, newly-introduced buyer. Likewise, it is unnatural for a drug pusher to shout while being arrested. His natural tendency is to hush things up so as not to attract the neighbors attention. Appellant also swears that he could not have held the money bills because the traces of the powder were only in the thumb and forefinger. This means that he held some sort of a cylindrical object but not money. Moreover, it was unnatural for SPO1 Inciong to be the poseur-buyer instead of the informant considering the caution practiced by pushers in selling only to customers known to them. And, contrary to standard procedure, the police officers did not issue any receipt for theshabuand money bills confiscated from appellant.Lastly, the police authorities had four days to secure a search and arrest warrant but they did not get one.We dismiss all of appellants observations as pure nonsense and inanity that did not in anyway affect the clear and unequivocal testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. No physical or testimonial evidence was presented during the trial to support his allegations. If there was anything such gratuitous statements proved, it was that appellant appeared to be extremely familiar with the intricacies and practices of drug dealers.As to his allegation that he never held any money bills treated with ultra-violet powder, we note his failure to rebut the unimpeached testimony of forensic chemist Julita de Villa that theyellowultraviolet powder in the money bills was the sameyellowpowder found in his fingers.His argument that the prosecutions case was weakened by the fact that the police officers did not issue a receipt for the confiscated drugs and money bills, is stretching things too far.Issuing such a receipt is not essential to establishing a criminal case for selling drugs as it is not an element of the crime.On the argument that the officers had four days to secure a warrant but did not get one, the evidence was that the four-day period was not enough to establish probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. All that the police authorities knew about appellant was the information gathered from the informer and their surveillance of the area.Furthermore, no warrant was needed considering that the mission was not a search but an entrapment. An arrest made after an entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.[30]Any search resulting from a lawful warrantless arrest is valid because the accused committed a crime inflagrante delicto, that is, the person arrested (appellant in this case) committed a crime in the presence of the arresting officers.[31]On another constitutional issue, appellant alleges that his right against self-incrimination was violated when he was subjected to ultra-violet powder test without the presence of a lawyer. We disagree. InPeople vs. Gallarde,[32]we held that:The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required. (People vs. Olvis, et al., 154 SCRA 513 [1987]) The essence of the right against self-incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. (People vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992];People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 [1994];People vs. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383 [1999]) Hence, it has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be compelled to submit to physical examination to determine her pregnancy; (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 [1920]) and an accused may be compelled to submit to physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for medical determination as to whether he was suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim;(U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 [1912]) to expel morphine from his mouth; (U.S. vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]) to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity with bloody footprints;(U.S. vs. Salas, 25 Phil. 337 [1913];U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 [1921]) and to be photographed or measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.(People vs. Otadora, et al., 86 Phil. 244 [1950])Appellant also questions the impartiality of Judge Lilia Lopez who allegedly had an inherent bias against persons facing drug charges.We seriously doubt the fairness of the accusation. Nevertheless, it is now too late for the appellant to raise this defense because the good judges impartiality was never questioned during the trial and the appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moreover, no evidence was presented on any specific act manifesting partiality against appellant.We now determine whether the appellate court imposed the proper penalty on appellant. In the 1994 case ofPeople vs. Simon y Sunga,[33]the proper penalties for drug-related crimes under RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, were clarified. The appropriate penalty isreclusion perpetuaif the quantity of the drug weighs 750 grams or more. If the drug weighs less than 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed isprision correccional; from 250 grams to 499 grams,prision mayor; and, from 500 grams to 749 grams,reclusion temporal.[34]Since appellant was caught selling 0.73 grams ofshabuonly, the proper penalty should be no more thanprision correccional.There being neither generic mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the penalty ofprision correccionalshall be imposed in its medium period. And applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period shall be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree which isarresto mayor.No fine is imposable in this case because appellants penalty is notreclusion perpetuaor death.[35]Pursuant to our jurisprudence on the sale of less than 1 gram ofshabu,[36]we therefore impose the penalty of 6 months ofarresto mayor, as minimum to 4 years and 2 months ofprision correccionalas maximum.WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 28, 1995 of the Court of Appeals convicting herein appellant Yolly Teodosio for the sale of 0.73 grams ofshabuis herebyAFFIRMED, with theMODIFICATIONthat the penalty of imprisonment imposable on appellant should be the indeterminate sentence of 6 months ofarresto mayoras minimum to 4 years and 2 months ofprision correccionalas maximum.SO ORDERED.Vitug, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,andCarpio-Morales, JJ.,concur.G.R. No. 131872-73 February 17, 2000PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs.CHEN TIZ CHANG and CHENG JUNG SAN a.k.a. Willy Tan,accused-appellants.PANGANIBAN,J.:Because prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the "buy-bust" operation, the Court relies on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the discretion of the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying. Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. Once the elements of the crime are established, the hackneyed defense of frame-up or "hulidap" must be clearly proven by the appellants. Again, the defense being factual, its tenability depends largely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused. In the present appeal, the defense has failed to convince us that the trial court's Decision should be disbelieved or modified, much less reversed. On the contrary, we believe that the said Decision is clear, convincing and correct.1wphi1.ntThe CaseBefore the Court is an appeal by Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San, also known as Willy Tan,1challenging the October 16, 1997 Decision2of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 95) in Criminal Case No. Q-96-68250-51, finding them guilty ofillegal possessionandsaleof shabu3and sentencing each of them to two counts ofreclusion perpetua. The decretal portion of said Decision reads as follows:WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in the following:1. In Crim. Case No. Q-96-68250, the Court finds both accused, Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San a.k.a. Willy Tan, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of [v]iolation of Sec. 15, Rep. Act 6425, as amended by Rep Act. 7659, and hereby sentences each one of them the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaand to pay a FINE of one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos each; and,2. In Crim. Case No. Q-96-68251, the Court finds both accused, Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San a.k.a. Willy Tan, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of [v]iolation of Sec. 16, Rep. Act 6425, as amended by Rep. Act. 7659 and hereby sentences each one of them the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaand to pay a FINE of one million (P1,000,000.00) pesos each.4On November 4, 1996, two separate Informations were filed5against both appellants. The first, charging them with selling or offering to sell shabu, is reproduced below:The undersigned accuses CHEN TIZ CHANG and CHEN JUNG SAN a.k.a. WILLY TAN [of] violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, in rel. to Sec. 2 (e), (f), (m), to), Art. I of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by P.D. No. 1683, committed as follows:That on or about the 31st day of October, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale 2,017.7 grams [of] white crystalline substance known as "SHABU" containing methampethamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.6The other Information indicted them for possession and/or use of shabu and is worded as follows:The undersigned accuses CHEN TIZ CHANG and CHEN JUNG SAN [of] violation of Sec. 16, Art. III in relation to Section 2 (e) (2), Article 1 of R.A. 6425, committed as follows:That on or about the 31st day of October, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating with and mutually helping each other did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess and/or use 943.5 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) a regulated drug, without the necessary license and/or prescription therefor, in violation of said law.7When arraigned on November 12, 1996, appellants pleaded8not guilty.9The Motion for Bail, filed on November 27, 1996,10was denied by the courta quoon February 17, 1997.11In an Order dated June 23, 1997,12it also denied their subsequent Motion for Reconsideration. After due trial, it promulgated its assailed Decision.Hence, this appeal.13The FactsThe Prosecutor's VersionIn its Brief,14the Office of the Solicitor General presents the prosecution's version of the facts in this wise:Prior to October 31, 1997, Police Superintendent Allan Purisima, commander of Task Force Spider, NCRPO, Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila received reliable information about illegal activities of Chinese nationals, particularly the sale of shabu. Upon receipt of such classified information, Police Superintendent Purisima ordered the surveillance of two (2) Chinese nationals who were reportedly members of a drug syndicate. With the assistance of an informant, members of Task Force Spider were able to establish contact with suspected members of the drug syndicate (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 7), two (2) of whom are herein appellants.In the early morning of October 31, 1996, through the informant, members of Task Force Spider were able to get in touch with appellants with a use of a cellular phone and negotiate a drug deal with them. Appellant agreed to deliver and sell two (2) kilos of shabu at the parking lot of the Maalikaya Health Palace located at Quezon Avenue, Quezon City (Ibid., 7).PO2 Hilarion Juan, a member of Task Force Spider, testified that on October 31, 1996, at 7:00 o'clock in the morning, Police Superintendent Allan Purisima conducted a briefing at Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila. The subject of the briefing was the buy-bust operation involving the sale of shabu by appellants at the Maalikaya Health Palace parking lot at Quezon City (Ibid., 5-7; TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 4). The members of the task force were assigned to observe and monitor the suspects at Maalikaya Health Palace (TSN, December 16, 1998, p. 3-4). The briefing, which lasted for around 30 minutes, was attended by four police officers, namely: PO2 Hilarion Juan, SPO2 Jesus Bernal Camacho, SPO2 Bernardino Lagdameo and PO2 Jose Bernadino Jr. (Ibid., 5-6). PO2 Hilarion Juan was designated to act as the poseur-buyer together with the informant, while the three (3) other police officers were tasked to position themselves at some distance from the poseur-buyers and assist in the buy-bust operation (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 7).After the briefing, the members of the team prepared the buy-bust money made of genuine P100.00 peso bills and P500.00 peso bills in the amount P700,000.00, while the rest were photocopied money (Ibid., 7), all of which totaled P2,000,000.00 (TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 9). From their office at Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila, they proceeded to the Maalikaya Health Palace, in Quezon City.At 11:00 o'clock that morning, PO2 Juan, the informant and other police officers positioned themselves at the Maalikaya Health Palace parking area. After thirty (30) minutes, a red-colored Daihatsu Feroza bearing plate No. TBU-479 (Exhibits "L" to "L-3") (hereinafter described as Feroza) arrived with the appellants on board (TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 5). PO2 Juan and the informant approached appellants who were then on board the Feroza. Appellants conversed with PO2 Juan (TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 6) and the informant introduced PO2 Juan to appellants as an interested buyer (TSN, December 16, 1996, p. 8). Chen Jung San left the place and drove the Feroza towards EDSA while Chen Tiz Chang was left behind (TSN, December 16, 1996, pp. 6-7). Later, the Feroza reappeared (Ibid., pp. 5-7). Appellant Chen Tiz Chang emerged from the Feroza and initiated conversation about the sale of shabu (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 11).The informant instructed PO2 Juan to hand over the suitcase containing buy-bust money to Chen Tiz Chang (Ibid., pp. 11-12) which Juan did and in return Chen Tiz Chang handed to PO2 Juan a black bag (Exhibit "D") which contained 2 plastic transparent bags of shabu (Ibid., 12). (Exhibits "E" and "F"). After the exchange, PO2 Juan opened the black bag (Exhibit "D"), examined the two (2) plastic bags (Ibid.,id) and signaled his companions to approach him. PO2 Juan introduced himself as a police officer (Ibid., 13) and tried to arrest appellant Chen Tiz Chang who, after Juan took hold of him, resisted (Ibid., 13-14). Appellant Chen Tiz Chang was able to free himself from PO2 Juan and ran towards a nearby car about five (5) meters away from where the buy-bust operation took place, and passed the suitcase containing the buy-bust money to an unidentified person on board (Ibid., 14). Then, the car sped away with the buy-bust money (ibid.,id; TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 7). Due to Chen Tiz Chang's attempt to evade arrest (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 14) a commotion ensued prompting the three (3) other members of the team to respond in order to assist PO2 Juan in subduing Chen Tiz Chang (TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 7, 16). The three (3) other police officers who were positioned about 5 to 10 meters away (TSN, December 18, 1996, p. 13), after announcing themselves as police officers (TSN, December 16, 1996, pp. 8-9), helped PO2 Juan in affecting the arrest of Chen Tiz Chang by handcuffing him (TSN, December 18, 1998, p. 14). The police officers could not pursue the person [i]n the vehicle with the buy-bust money, because the team was only composed of four members (TSN, December 18, 1998, p. 15) and between the money and the shabu recovered from appellants, the police officers chose to ensure the custody of the shabu which would be used as evidence against appellant (TSN, April 8, 1997, p. 18). PO2 Juan observed that the unidentified person who fled with the buy-bust money was already at the parking area when the members of the Task Force Spider