People v. Figueroa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An informant tipped off P/Supt. Nelson T. Yabut about the drug pushing activities of "Baby," later identified as accused-appellant Jesusa Figueroa. A surveillance operation was conducted. PO3 Josefino Callora, posing as a buyer, met with Figueroa, who promised to supply shabu once available. The police prepared buy-bust money. On July 2, 2004, Figueroa agreed to deliver ₱10,000.00 worth of shabu at a convenience store in Pasig City. A buy-bust team was formed with PO3 Callora as poseur-buyer. Figueroa arrived, showed a sachet of white crystalline substance from a plastic bag, and asked for the money. Sensing the presence of police officers, she sped away. During the chase, a passenger threw a plastic bag containing a sachet of shabu. Figueroa's vehicle was blocked, and two more sachets of shabu were recovered from under the floor matting of her car. Figueroa denied the allegations, claiming she was on her way to her brother's house and was stopped by police officers who then searched her vehicle. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Figueroa in Criminal Case No. 04-2432 (possession) but convicted her in Criminal Case No. 04-2433 (attempt to sell) for violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The RTC ordered the forfeiture of the seized drugs. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Figueroa appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant Jesusa Figueroa appealed her conviction, arguing that the buy-bust operation was irregular due to lack of prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), that there was no prior agreement for the sale of shabu between her and PO3 Callora, and that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were conflicting. She also questioned the finding of guilt for attempt to sell.
Issue(s)
Whether the buy-bust operation was irregular due to the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA. Whether there was a prior agreement between PO3 Callora and the accused for the sale of shabu. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were conflicting and contradictory. Whether the accused was correctly found guilty of attempt to sell dangerous drugs under Section 26, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the conviction of Jesusa Figueroa for violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (attempt to sell dangerous drugs).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lack of prior coordination with the PDEA: The Court reiterated its ruling in previous cases, such as People v. Berdadero, that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations conducted by law enforcers due to a failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. The law is silent on the consequences of such failure, and this silence cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make arrests or evidence obtained inadmissible. Therefore, the alleged lack of prior coordination with the PDEA did not render the buy-bust operation irregular or the evidence inadmissible. On the alleged lack of prior agreement between accused-appellant and PO3 Callora: The Court disagreed with the accused-appellant's contention that the sale transaction was between her and the informant, making PO3 Callora's testimony hearsay. The Court applied the doctrine of independently relevant statements, holding that the testimony of PO3 Callora regarding conversations between the informant and the accused was admissible to establish that these communications led to the police operation. More importantly, the Court emphasized that the attempt to sell was clear from the accused-appellant's own actions on July 2, 2004, which were within PO3 Callora's personal knowledge. These overt acts included her arrival at the scene, asking for the money, showing the sachet of shabu, and fleeing when she sensed the police presence. On the alleged conflicting and contradictory testimonies: The Court found no reversible error in the lower courts' assessment of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. It agreed with the Court of Appeals that discrepancies in minor details, which do not touch upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. The Court noted that PS/Insp. Garcia's testimony, based on his personal knowledge, corroborated the existence of the shabu and the circumstances of its recovery, including the act of a passenger throwing the bag and the subsequent recovery of more sachets from the vehicle. The marking of the sachet by PS/Insp. Garcia further established its identity. On the finding of guilt for attempt to sell dangerous drugs: The Court affirmed that the elements of attempt to sell a dangerous drug were sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt. Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, an attempt occurs when the offender commences the commission of a crime directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution due to causes other than spontaneous desistance. The Court found that the accused-appellant's act of showing the sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer constituted a direct overt act towards the commission of the sale. Her subsequent flight upon sensing the police presence, and the throwing of the drugs by a passenger, demonstrated that the crime was not consummated due to circumstances beyond her control, not her spontaneous desistance. The laboratory report confirming the substance as methylamphetamine hydrochloride further supported the conviction.
Main Doctrine
The overt act of showing the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer, coupled with the subsequent attempt to flee upon sensing the presence of police officers, sufficiently establishes the crime of attempt to sell dangerous drugs under Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165, even if the sale was not consummated. The lack of prior coordination with the PDEA does not invalidate the operation or render the evidence inadmissible.