Republic of the Philippines vs.

Ronald De Jesus and Amelito Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 191753 ; 17 September 2012

PONENTE: Brion

SUBJECT: Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, Buy-Bust Operation

FACTS:

The District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Task Force (DAID) received a tip from its asses
about illegal drug activities on Cartier St., Barangay Pasong Tamo, Quezon City. The
DAID Chief then formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation and designated PO1
Hamdani to act as a poseur-buyer. He was given a P1,000 bill to be used in the
operation, which he marked his initials. After coordinanting with the PDEA, the buy-
bust team accompanied by the asset proceeded to Cartier St., where they saw the
accused. The asset introduced the accused to the poseur-buyer, who expressed intention
to buy shabu, but no sale took place because the accused had not stock at that time.
When they returned the next day, accused De Jesus told them that he already had the
stuff. The poseur-buyer then handed the marked money and Dela Cruz handed him
the shabu. After the exchange, the poseur-buyer made a pre-arranged signal which
prompted the buy-bust team to immediately arrest the accused. Two (2) plastic sachets
of white substance and the marked money was found in the possession of Dela Cruz. The
accused were brought to the DAID office for booking and investigation while the
confiscated white substance tested positive for shabu. The accused denied the charges
against them and claimed that there was no buy-bust operation which took place but
that they were abducted in their homes by armed men. During trial, the accused
presented several testimonies evidences to contradict the documentary evidence for the
prosecution.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the CA and RTC erred in the giving credence to the evidence presented
by the prosecution
2. Whether or not the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers is fatal for the
prosecution
3. Whether or not there was a valid buy-bust operation

HELD:
1. No, testimonial evidence cannot prevail over the documentary and physical evidence
arrayed against the accused because the defenses testimonial evidence were (1) largely
self-serving, (2) the defenses of denial and police extortion cannot prevail over the
positive and categorical assertions of the police officers against whom no ill-motive was
established, (3) the testimonies of the defense witnesses were unable to discount or
render impossible the participation of the accused in the buy-bust operation and (4) the
testimonies of the defense are self-serving.

2. In the prosecution illegal sale of dangerous drugs the following elements must first be
established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of
the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The
commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs merely requires the
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives
the drug from the seller.

3. Yes, the Supreme Court held that police officers would not commit the serious crimes of
abduction and extortion knowing that they would risk their liberty and employment to
arrest the ablest accused. The RTC also noted that the alleged extortion came only after
the case had already been submitted by the police officers for proper disposition.

Buy-bust operations are recognized methods of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in

drug-related crimes. Upon proof and establishment of a prima facie case based on the
buy-bust evidence, the burden of evidence shifts to the defense to support its denial or
to show that irregularities attended the buy-bust story that the prosecution presented.