People v. De Paz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Bobby de Paz was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, for selling fifteen (15) sticks of marijuana cigarettes to PO1 Leo Letrodo, who acted as a poseur-buyer. The operation was conducted on March 4, 1991, at nighttime, in Barangay No. 9, Ubanon District, Catbalogan, Samar. The accused was apprehended after the transaction, and the marijuana sticks were found positive for the prohibited drug. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) forwarded the case to the Provincial Public Prosecutor after the accused waived his right to a preliminary investigation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in not finding instigation and in giving credence to the prosecution's evidence, which he claimed was uncorroborated and motivated by a sinister purpose.
Issue(s)
Whether the buy-bust operation constituted instigation, thereby absolving the accused. Whether the prosecution's evidence, particularly the testimony of PO1 Leo Letrodo, was sufficiently corroborated and credible. Whether the accused was guilty of selling prohibited drugs under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling prohibited drugs. The Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of instigation: The Court held that the operation was a valid entrapment, not instigation. Instigation occurs when the law enforcer induces the accused to commit a crime he would not otherwise commit. In this case, the accused was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana, indicating that the criminal intent originated from him. The buy-bust operation was a method to apprehend a drug trafficker who was already engaged in the illicit practice. The Court emphasized that entrapment is an effective method for apprehending drug peddlers. On the corroboration and credibility of prosecution evidence: The Court found no merit in the accused's claim that PO1 Letrodo's testimony was uncorroborated. The testimonies of other police officers present during the buy-bust operation corroborated Letrodo's account. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the doctrine that absent any proof to the contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The accused's bare allegation of a sinister motive was insufficient to overcome this presumption, especially since the evidence showed he was under surveillance for drug pushing. On the guilt of the accused for selling prohibited drugs: The Court found that the accused committed a consummated sale of marijuana, punishable under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425. The accused admitted possessing the marijuana and accepting the P50.00 payment. The law does not require proof of intent to sell or possess, nor ownership of the drug, for a conviction of illegal sale. The consummation of the selling transaction is sufficient. The Court noted that the accused's defense of acting as an errand boy was unpersuasive given the clear evidence of the sale.
Main Doctrine
A buy-bust operation, when properly conducted, constitutes a valid entrapment and is not instigation, especially when the accused was caught in flagrante delicto committing the offense. The testimony of police officers is presumed to be regular in the absence of proof to the contrary.