Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. Nos.

144506-07 April 11, 2002

MELO, J.: 8efo"e the 0ou"t is an appeal f"o% the Septe%be" (), (11) decision of the Re+ional T"ial 0ou"t of the National 0apital 9udicial Re+ion ,8"anch :VII, Manila- findin+ 9e""# Tin+ ;# +uilt# be#ond "easonable doubt of violation of Sections (. and (), "ticle III of Republic ct No. )*&., as a%ended b# Republic ct No. 2).1, othe"!ise <no!n as the Dan+e"ous D"u+s ct of (12&. ppellant 9e""# Tin+ ;#, a Tai!anese national, !as cha"+ed on 9ul# &*, (11/ fo" violatin+ the Dan+e"ous D"u+s ct in t!o sepa"ate Info"%ations !hich "ead= 0RIM. 0 S5 NO. 1/-()))2. That on o" about 9ul# &(, (11/, in the 0it# of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, !ithout bein+ autho"i$ed b# la! to possess o" use an# "e+ulated d"u+, did then and the"e !illfull#, unla!full# and <no!in+l# have in his possession and unde" his custod# and cont"ol !hite c"#stalline substance contained in th"ee ,>- sepa"ate selfsealed t"anspa"ent plastic ba+ !ei+hin+ one thousand five hund"ed ten point ei+ht +"a%s ,(,.('./ +- <no!n as ?SH 8;@ containin+ %etha%pheta%ine h#d"ochlo"ide, a "e+ulated d"u+, !ithout the co""espondin+ license o" p"esc"iption the"eof. 0ont"a"# to la!. 0RIM. 0 S5 NO. 1/-()))2) That on o" about 9ul# &(, (11/, in the 0it# of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not havin+ been autho"i$ed b# la! to sell, dispense, delive", t"anspo"t o" dist"ibute an# "e+ulated d"u+, did then and the"e !illfull#, unla!full# and <no!in+l# sell o" offe" fo" sale, dispense, delive", t"anspo"t o" dist"ibute !hite c"#stalline substance contained in a self-sealed t"anspa"ent plastic ba+ !ei+hin+ five hund"ed five point si3 +"a% ,.'..) +- containin+ %etha%pheta%ine h#d"ochlo"ide, a "e+ulated d"u+, !ithout the co""espondin+ license o" p"esc"iption the"eof. 0ont"a"# to la!. ,p. (2, Rollo.;pon a""ai+n%ent, appellant pleaded not +uilt# to both Info"%ations. 4oint t"ial !as the"eafte" conducted.

THE PEOPLE O THE PH!L!PP!NES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. "ERR# T!NG U#, accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS: ppellant, a Tai!anese national, pu"suant to a bu#-bust ope"ation, !as a""ested inside his ca" and !as sei$ed f"o% hi% a total of &,'().* +"a%s contained in fou" ,*- plastic ba+s. Testi%onies f"o% the a""estin+ police office"s disclosed that appellant sold to the% .'..) +"a%s of %etha%pheta%ine h#d"ochlo"ide ,shabu- and !as fu"the" found !ith (,.('./ +"a%s of the sa%e substance !hen his ca" !as sea"ched. 0ha"+ed !ith ille+al possession and ille+al sale of shabu in t!o c"i%inal info"%ations unde" Sections (. and (), "ticle III of Republic ct No. )*&., as a%ended ,Dan+e"ous D"u+s ct of (12&-, appellant pleaded not +uilt# and clai%ed that his a""est !as a f"a%e-up !ith the pu"pose of e3to"tin+ %one# f"o% hi%. The t"ial cou"t "ende"ed 4ud+%ent of conviction a+ainst appellant and !as sentenced to "eclusion pe"petua in each case. ppellant no! co%e to this 0ou"t assailin+, a%on+ othe"s, the c"edibilit# of !itnesses and the ad%issibilit# of evidence sei$ed. 5TIDaH 6indin+s of the t"ial cou"t on the c"edibilit# of police office"s !ho a"e p"esu%ed to have pe"fo"%ed thei" duties in a "e+ula" %anne" a"e upheld on appeal7 that the testi%on# of a police info"%ant in a bu#-bust ope"ation, bein+ co""obo"ative in natu"e, %a# be dispensed !ith7 and that the evidence obtained, incidental to a la!ful a""est is ad%issible7 that the defense of f"a%e-up does not convince and that such defense had been vie!ed b# the cou"t !ith disfavo"7 that the ele%ents of the c"i%e of ille+al sale of shabu and ille+al sale of shabu !e"e p"oved be#ond "easonable doubt.

The "eco"d sho!s that at a"ound >=>' in the afte"noon of 9ul# &(, (11/, a 0hinese-6ilipino police info"%ant !ent to the Aeste"n Police Dist"ict headBua"te"s at ;.N. venue, 5"%ita, Manila to info"% the police office"s assi+ned at the D"u+ 5nfo"ce%ent ;nit the"eat that a ce"tain 9e""# Tin+ ;# !as en+a+ed in ille+al d"u+ activities in Sta. 0"u$, Manila. PO> Cuis 0hico as<ed the police info"%ant to contact appellant and to ne+otiate !ith hi% fo" the pu"chase of shabu. "ound *DoDcloc< that sa%e afte"noon, the police info"%ant called appellant but !as info"%ed that shabu !as not #et available. The police info"%ant a+ain called up appellant at about . oDcloc< in the afte"noon, and the# a+"eed that appellant !ould delive" half a <ilo of shabu to the info"%ant fo" P&'','''.'' at Seve"ino St"eet, nea" the co"ne" of Re%i+io St"eet, Sta. 0"u$, Manila at )=>' in the evenin+ of that sa%e da#. This info"%ation !as "eco"ded in the police blotte". Police office"s, led b# SPO& Rodolfo Rival, then planned a bu#-bust ope"ation fo" the ent"ap%ent of appellant. 5i+ht +enuine P.''.'' bills, %a"<ed !ith the lette" @0@, !e"e p"epa"ed. These %a"<ed P.''.'' bills !e"e then placed at the top and at the botto% of fou" bundles of bo+us %one#. The police desi+nated PO> 0hico to be the poseu"bu#e".1wphi1.nt t a"ound ) oDcloc< in the evenin+, (> police office"s, includin+ PO> 0hico, and the police info"%ant left the police station and p"oceeded to the desi+nated %eetin+ place. 53cept fo" PO> 0hico and the police info"%ant !ho !aited at the %eetin+ place, the "est of the police office"s positioned the%selves st"ate+icall# in va"ious places alon+ Seve"ino St"eet. Ten %inutes late", appellant a""ived on boa"d a +"een Mitsubishi Cance". ppellant stopped in f"ont of the police info"%ant and PO> 0hico, "olled do!n the !indo! of his ca", and tal<ed to the police info"%ant in 0hinese. The police info"%ant then told PO> 0hico to boa"d appellantDs ca". PO> 0hico slid into the f"ont passen+e" seat !hile the police info"%ant sat at the bac<seat of the ca". ppellant then as<ed fo" the pa#%ent of half a <ilo of shabu. PO> 0hico handed the %a"<ed %one# to appellant. ppellant "eached do!n unde" his seat, too< a plastic ba+ and +ave it to PO> 0hico. Ahen PO> 0hico opened the plastic ba+, he sa! a t"anspa"ent plastic ba+ containin+ substance !hich he suspected to be shabu. t this point, PO> 0hico int"oduced hi%self as a police office" and i%%ediatel# a""ested appellant. PO> 0hico then "et"ieved the %a"<ed %one# f"o% appellantDs lap. The"eafte", PO> 0hico inspected the space unde"neath the d"ive"Ds seat and found th"ee %o"e plastic ba+s containin+ suspected shabu. fte" 0hicoDs a""est of appellant, SPO& Rival a""ived and info"%ed appellant of his constitutional "i+hts. ppellant !as then b"ou+ht to the APD headBua"te"s. The %a"<ed bills of %one# and the fou" plastic ba+s sei$ed f"o% appellant !e"e handed ove" to SPO& 8en4a%in Nu+uit, !ho then tu"ned ove" the sa%e to the National 8u"eau of Investi+ation ,N8I- fo" labo"ato"# e3a%ination. The ve"# ne3t da#, N8I 6o"ensic 0he%ist ntonino de 8elen issued a ce"tification !hich "eads=

This ce"tifies that on the above-date at *='. p.%. one PO& Eene Nelson 9avie" of the D5S, DID, NPD, ;.N. ve., Manila sub%itted to his Office fo" labo"ato"# e3a%inationFs to !it= (. Ahite c"#stalline substance contained in a selfsealed t"anspa"ent plastic ba+ %a"<ed @CP0V- (@ and Net !ei+ht of speci%en G .'..) +"a%s &. Ahite c"#stalline substance contained in th"ee ,>- self-sealed t"anspa"ent plastic ba+s %a"<ed @9T;-(@ "espectivel#. Total Net Aei+ht of speci%en G (,.('./ +"a%s ll placed in a "ed plastic ba+. 53a%ination conducted on the above-%entioned speci%enFs +ave POSITIV5 R5S;CTS fo" M5TH MPH5T MIN5 HHDRO0HCORID5. ::: ,P. *2, Reco"d.In his defense, appellant clai%ed that he is a victi% of f"a%eup. ppellantDs b"ief na""ates the ve"sion of the defense as follo!s= t about & oDcloc< in the afte"noon of 9ul# &(, (11/, appellant deposited %one# in a ban< at Masan+<a# St"eet nea" the Met"opolitan Hospital in Manila. Ahen appellant !as about to boa"d his ca" afte" co%in+ f"o% the ban<, t!o vehicles bloc<ed his !a# ,p. *, tsn., 6eb. 1, &'''-. Police ope"atives in civilian clothes, app"oached appellant and de%anded P&'',''' !ithout tellin+ hi% the "eason ,pp. ..-), id.-. Ahen appellant told the% that he could not p"oduce the %one#, he !as %ade to boa"d one of thei" vehicles, blindfolded and ta<en to a house. Ahile inside a "oo%, the police ope"atives !a"ned hi% that the# !ould i%plicate hi% fo" d"u+ pushin+ if he did not p"oduce the %one# de%anded. 8ut appellant "esponded that he did not have %one# ,pp. 2-1, id.-. Cate", he !as ta<en at a police station !he"e he !as investi+ated and loc<ed up in a cell ,pp. ('-(&, id.-. le3 0"u$, !hile sellin+ buco at about past & oDcloc< in the afte"noon of 9ul# &(, (11/ at the co"ne" of Masan+<a# St. and Recto ve., sa! f"o% about &' %ete"s distance, %en in civilian clothes ali+ht f"o% thei" vehicles !hich suddenl# bloc<ed appellantDs vehicle, appellant ali+ht f"o%

his vehicle and boa"d one of thei" vehicles ,pp. >(2, tsn., Nov. (/, (11'. ppellant !as boo<ed and a""ested fo" violation of Sections (. and (), "ticle III of R )*&., as a%ended, co%%itted on o" about )=>' p.%. of 9ul# &(, (11/ as pe" "epo"t of SPO& Rodolfo Rival 9". dated 9ul# &&, (11/ ,p. 1, Rec.-. a 4oint affidavit ,53h. 6, pp. )-2, Rec.- !as e3ecuted on 9ul# &&, (11/ b# police office"s Rodolfo Rival 9"., Cuis 0hico, Eene Nelson 9avie" !ith seven ,2- othe"s, !he"ein the# na""ated ho! the bu#-bust ope"ation t"anspi"ed !he"ein appellant !as app"ehended alle+edl# fo" ille+al sale and possession of shabu. , ppellantDs 8"ief, pp. 2-1.fte" t"ial, the t"ial cou"t "ende"ed 4ud+%ent on 9ul# ), &''', the dec"etal po"tion of !hich "eads as follo!s7 AH5R56OR5, in 0"i%. 0ase No. 1/-()))2., the accused, 9e""# Tin+ ;#, is he"eb# convicted of the c"i%e of Violation of Section () of R. . )*&. as a%ended involvin+ (,.('./ +"a%s of shabu and sentenced to suffe" the penalt# of reclusion perpetua and to pa# a fine of P.'','''.'', plus the costs. In 0"i%. 0ase No. 1/-()))2), the accused, 9e""# Tin+ ;#, is li<e!ise, convicted of the c"i%e of Violation of Section (. of R. . )*&. as a%ended involvin+ one half <ilo+"a% of shabu and sentenced to suffe" the penalt# of reclusion perpetua and to pa# a fine of P.'','''.'', plus the costs. The shabu "ecove"ed f"o% the accused in the t!o cases is fo"feited in favo" of the +ove"n%ent and is o"de"ed tu"ned ove" the Dan+e"ous D"u+s 8oa"d fo" p"ope" disposition. SO ORD5R5D. ,pp. (1-&', Rollo.ppellant no! assails his conviction, "aisin+ the follo!in+ as e""o"s alle+edl# co%%itted b# the t"ial cou"t= I. TH5 COA5R 0O;RT ER V5CH 5RR5D IN EIVINE A5IEHT ND 0R5D5N05 TO TH5 T5STIMONH O6 PROS50;TION AITN5SS PO> 0HI0O, TH5 CC5E5D POS5;R-8;H5R , ON PP5CC NTDS S C5 ND POSS5SSION O6 SH 8; D;RINE 8;H-8;ST OP5R TION.

II. TH5 COA5R 0O;RT ER V5CH 5RR5D IN NOT 0ONSID5RINE TH5 PROS50;TIONDS 6 IC;R5 TO PR5S5NT TH5 0HIN5S5 IN6ORM NT S AITN5SS S 0IR0;MST N05 AHI0H R5ND5R DO;8T6;C TH5 T5STIMONH O6 PO> 0HI0O ON N CC5E5D 8;H-8;ST OP5R TION. III. TH5 COA5R 0O;RT ER V5CH 5RR5D IN NOT EIVINE 6;CC A5IEHT ND 0R5D5N05 TO PP5CC NTDS D565NS5 TH T H5 A S VI0TIM O6 6R M5-;P IN N ;NS;005SS6;C 5:TORTION TT5MPT 8H POCI05 OP5R TIV5S. IV. TH5 COA5R 0O;RT ER V5CH 5RR5D IN NOT 6INDINE S IN DMISSI8C5 TH5 THR55 8 ES 0ONT ININE S;SP50T5D SH 8; S 5VID5N05 IN 0RIMIN C 0 S5 NO. 1/-()))2) 6OR 85INE ICC5E CCH S5II5D 5VID5N05 IN A RR NTC5SS RR5ST. V. TH5 COA5R 0O;RT ER V5CH 5RR5D IN NOT 0J;ITTINE PP5CC NT 6OR 6 IC;R5 O6 TH5 PROS50;TION TO 5ST 8CISH HIS E;ICT 85HOND R5 SON 8C5 DO;8T IN S ID 0 S5S. This 0ou"t has ca"efull# e3a%ined the "eco"d of this case, and finds no 4ustification to co%e to conclusions diffe"ent f"o% those %ade b# the t"ial cou"t. ppellant !as a""ested b# vi"tue of a bu#-bust ope"ation conducted b# the D"u+ 5nfo"ce%ent ;nit of the Aeste"n Police Dist"ict. bu#-bust ope"ation is a fo"% of ent"ap%ent !he"eb# !a#s and %eans a"e "eso"ted to fo" the pu"pose of t"appin+ and captu"in+ la!b"ea<e"s in the e3ecution of thei" c"i%inal plans. It is a p"ocedu"e o" ope"ation sanctioned b# la! and !hich has consistentl# p"oven itself to be an effective %ethod of app"ehendin+ d"u+ peddle"s. Thus, unless the"e is a clea" and convincin+ evidence that the %e%be"s of the bu#-bust tea% !e"e inspi"ed b# i%p"ope" %otives o" !e"e not p"ope"l# pe"fo"%in+ thei" duties, thei" testi%on# on the ope"ation dese"ves full faith and c"edit ,People vs. Chua Uy, E.R. No. (&/'*), Ma"ch 2, &'''-. In this case, the evidence sho!s that it !as the police info"%ant !ho initiall# contacted and a""an+ed a d"u+ deal !ith appellant. t the p"e-a""an+ed %eetin+, the info"%ant !as acco%panied b# PO> 0hico, !ho posed as a bu#e" of shabu. PO> 0hico handed %a"<ed %one# to appellant as pa#%ent fo" half a <ilo of shabu. ppellant !as then a""ested !hen he handed a plastic ba+ containin+ shabu to PO> 0hico.

The t"ial cou"t found that PO> 0hico testified in a f"an<, spontaneous, st"ai+htfo"!a"d, and cate+o"ical %anne". His testi%on# !as unflinchin+ even du"in+ c"oss-e3a%ination b# defense counsel. Mo"eove", PO> 0hicoDs testi%on# !as co""obo"ated on its %ate"ial points b# PO& Eene Nelson 9avie", anothe" %e%be" of the a""estin+ tea%. s has been "epeatedl# held b# the 0ou"t, c"edence shall be +iven to the na""ation of the incident b# p"osecution !itnesses especiall# so !hen the# a"e police office"s !ho a"e p"esu%ed to have pe"fo"%ed thei" duties in a "e+ula" %anne", unless the"e be evidence to the cont"a"# ,People vs. Guiamil,, &22 S0R )./ K(112L-. s co""ectl# noted b# the t"ial cou"t, the"e !as no evidence p"esented as to an# ill %otive on the pa"t of p"osecution !itness PO> 0hico !hich !ould affect the c"edibilit# of his testi%on#. PO> 0hico and the othe" la! enfo"ce"s involved in the bu#-bust ope"ation !ould, thus, have in thei" favo" the p"esu%ption that the# "e+ula"l# pe"fo"%ed thei" duties. bsent an# sho!in+ of palpable e""o" o" a"bit"a"iness, as is the case at ba", the 0ou"t has no choice but to acco"d +"eat "espect to and to t"eat !ith finalit# the findin+s of the t"ial cou"t on the %atte" of c"edibilit# of !itnesses. The defense, in its effo"ts to establish the innocence of appellant, clai%s that it is inc"edible fo" a d"u+ peddle" to a+"ee to sell his !a"es !ithout fi"st chec<in+ on the possibilit# of ent"ap%ent, +iven that d"u+ peddle"s pu"sue thei" nefa"ious activities !ith ut%ost caution. Ae a"e not pe"suaded. No!ada#s, d"u+ pushe"s have beco%e inc"easin+l# da"in+, i%pudent, and even openl# defiant of the la!. If d"u+ peddle"s a"e %eticulousl# cautious in ca""#in+ out thei" illicit t"ade, d"u+ abuse !ould not have +"o!n to such ala"%in+ p"opo"tions as it has toda# and !ould ce"tainl# not pose a se"ious th"eat to societ#. The sta"< "ealit# is that these unsc"upulous d"u+ pushe"s pe"fo"% thei" ille+al activities !ithout fea" of app"ehension and un%indful of the "is< of ent"ap%ent7 in fact, the# a"e onl# conce"ned !ith the s!ift disposal of thei" +oods. Thus, !e have found in %an# cases d"u+ pushe"s sellin+ thei" p"ohibited !a"es to an# and all p"ospective custo%e"s, be he a st"an+e" o" not, in p"ivate as !ell as in public places, even in the da#ti%e ,People vs. Requiz, >(/ S0R )>. K(111L-. Ci<e!ise, it is appellantDs vie! that the testi%on# of the police info"%ant is indispensable in this case. This is not so. The failu"e to p"esent the info"%ant does not di%inish the inte+"it# of the testi%on# of the !itnesses fo" the p"osecution. Info"%ants a"e al%ost al!a#s neve" p"esented in cou"t because of the need to p"ese"ve thei" invaluable se"vice to the police. Thei" testi%on# o" identit# %a# be dispensed !ith inas%uch as his o" he" na""ation !ould be %e"el# co""obo"ative, especiall# so in this case, !hen the poseu"-bu#e" hi%self testified on the sale of the ille+al d"u+ ,People vs. Chua, Uy, supra; People vs. ac!anes, &2' S0R (1> K(112L-.

6u"the", appellantDs defense of f"a%e-up does not convince. In d"u+-"elated cases, the clai% that the accused has %e"el# been f"a%ed-up b# la! enfo"ce"s fo" selfish %otives is Buite often "aised b# the defense. Such defense, ho!eve", has been inva"iabl# vie!ed b# this 0ou"t !ith disfavo" fo" it can easil# be concocted but is difficult to p"ove. 6o" this clai% to p"ospe", the evidence adduced %ust be clea" and convincin+ ,People vs. "nriquez, &/( S0R ('> K(112L-. ppellant, "e+"ettabl#, has %ise"abl# failed to substantiate his alle+ations in this "espect. Si%ila"l#, appellantDs clai% that he !as a""ested b# the police in o"de" to e3to"t f"o% hi% the a%ount of P&'','''.'' is not !o"th# of belief. side f"o% his ba"e asse"tions, no evidence !as p"esented to establish such as fact. Mo"eove", if the a""estin+ police office"s indeed t"ied to e3to"t %one# f"o% appellant, he could have filed the p"ope" cha"+es a+ainst the e""in+ police office"s. The fact that no c"i%inal o" ad%inist"ative cha"+es !e"e filed b# appellant a+ainst the a""estin+ police office"s bolste"s ou" conclusion that the alle+ed f"a%e-up %e"el# e3ists as a fi+%ent of appellantDs i%a+ination.1wphi1.nt In the sa%e vein, appellantDs contention that the (,.('./ +"a%s of shabu sei$ed f"o% hi% is inad%issible in evidence %ust also be "e4ected. The 0onstitution +ene"all# p"osc"ibes sea"ches and sei$u"es !ithout 4udicial !a""ant. n# evidence obtained !ithout such !a""ant is inad%issible fo" an# pu"pose in an# p"oceedin+ ,Sections & and >,&-, "ticle III-. The "ule is not absolute, ho!eve". Sea"ches and sei$u"es %a# be %ade !ithout !a""ant and the evidence obtained the"ef"o% %a# be ad%issible in the follo!in+ instances= ,(the sea"ch !as incident to a la!ful a""est7 ,&- the sea"ch is of a %ovin+ %oto" vehicle7 ,>- the sea"ch conce"ns violation of custo%s la!s7 ,*- the sei$u"e of evidence in plain vie!7 and ,.- !hen the accused hi%self !aives his "i+ht a+ainst un"easonable sea"ches and sei$u"es , People vs. #oria, >'( S0R ))/ K(111L-. 0lea"l#, the sea"ch %ade b# the police office"s in the instant case !as incidental to a la!ful a""est. Section (>, Rule (&) of the Revised Rules of 0"i%inal P"ocedu"e e3plicitl# states that @a pe"son la!full# a""ested %a# be sea"ched fo" dan+e"ous !eapons o" an#thin+ !hich %a# have been used o" constitute p"oof in the co%%ission of an offense !ithout a sea"ch !a""ant.@ ;ndoubtedl#, appellant !as la!full# a""ested, cau+ht as he !as in $la%rante &elicto as a "esult of a bu#-bust ope"ation conducted b# police office"s. bu#-bust ope"ation is vastl# diffe"ent f"o% an o"dina"# a""est. In la!ful a""ests in the cou"se of a bu#-bust ope"ation, it beco%es both the dut# and the "i+ht of the app"ehendin+ office"s to conduct a !a""antless sea"ch not onl# on the pe"son of the accused but also in the pe"%issible a"ea !ithin his "each, i.e., that point !hich is !ithin the effective cont"ol of the pe"son a""ested, o" that !hich %a# fu"nish hi% the %eans of co%%ittin+ violence o" of escapin+ , People vs.

Cueno, &1/ S0R )&( K(11/L-. In othe" !o"ds, a !a""antless sea"ch incidental to a la!ful a""est %a# e3tend be#ond the pe"son of the one a""ested to include the p"e%ises o" su""oundin+s unde" his i%%ediate cont"ol. In this case, the th"ee plastic ba+s containin+ a total of (,.'' +"a%s of shabu !e"e sei$ed inside the ca" !he"e appellant hi%self !as a""ested. PO> 0hico, in this "e+a"d, na""ated= 0O;RT= J= Hou a""ested hi%M

= Hes, Si", and I "ecove"ed the bu#-bust %one# on the lap of the accused. J= seatM t the ti%e the accused !as on the d"ive"Ds

= Hes, Si", then %# police co%panions ca%e and the# a""ested the accused. ;pon e3a%ination of the unde"neath of the d"ive"Ds seat, I also "ecove"ed th"ee plastic ba+s also containin+ suspected shabu. ,tsn, Ma# &', (111, pp. (2-(/.Eiven this scena"io, it beca%e advisable, if not necessa"#, fo" the police office"s to fo"th!ith unde"ta<e a sea"ch of the ca", the sa%e bein+ !ithin the a"ea of i%%ediate cont"ol b# appellant. In su%, in 0"i%inal 0ase No. 1/-()))2), this 0ou"t is convinced that the p"osecutionDs evidence %o"e than p"oved be#ond "easonable doubt all the ele%ents necessa"# in eve"# p"osecution fo" the ille+al sale of shabu, to !it= ,(identit# of the bu#e" and the selle", the ob4ect, and conside"ation7 and ,&- the delive"# of the thin+ sold and the pa#%ent the"efo" ,People vs. Uy, E.R. No. (&1'(1, u+ust (), &'''-. In this case, the identities of the selle" and the bu#e" have been established. ppellant !as positivel# identified in open cou"t as the selle" of the .'..) +"a%s of shabu b# PO> 0hico hi%self !ho acted as the poseu"-bu#e". The delive"# of the shabu to the poseu"-bu#e", as !ell as appellantDs "eceipt of the %a"<ed %one# have also been sufficientl# sho!n b# the testi%on# of p"osecution !itnesses PO> 0hico and PO& 9avie". Ahat is %ate"ial and indispensable in a p"osecution fo" ille+al sale of p"ohibited o" "e+ulated d"u+s is the p"oof that the t"ansaction o" sale actuall# too< place bet!een the selle" and the poseu"-bu#e" ,People vs. 'hor, >'2 S0R &1. K(111L-. The"e is li<e!ise no doubt that the cha"+e of ille+al possession of shabu in 0"i%inal 0ase No. 1/-()))2. !as p"oved be#ond "easonable doubt, appellant <no!in+l# ca""#in+ !ith hi% (,.('./ +"a%s of shabu - !ithout le+al

autho"it# - at the ti%e of the bu#-bust ope"ation. The ele%ents of ille+al possession of dan+e"ous d"u+s a"e= ,(the accused is in possession of an ite% o" ob4ect !hich is identified to be a p"ohibited d"u+7 ,&- such possession is not autho"i$ed b# la!7 and ,>- the accused f"eel# and consciousl# possessed the said d"u+ ,(analili vs. Court o$ )ppeals, &/' S0R *'' K(112L-. ll these ci"cu%stances a"e p"esent in the case at ba". 6inall#, pu"suant to Sections (. and () of Republic ct No. )*&., as a%ended b# Republic ct No. 2).1, in "elation to Section &' of Republic ct No. 2).1, the penalt# of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine "an+in+ f"o% five hund"ed thousand pesos to ten %illion pesos shall be i%posed upon an# pe"son !ho shall sell o" possess &'' +"a%s o" %o"e of shabu. ppellant, in this case, !as cau+ht sellin+ .'..) +"a%s of shabu, and possessin+ (,.('./ +"a%s of the sa%e substance. Since no a++"avatin+ o" %iti+atin+ ci"cu%stance attended the co%%ission of the c"i%es, the t"ial cou"t !as co""ect in i%posin+ the penalt# of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P.'','''.'' in each of the t!o c"i%inal cases. $HERE ORE, the appealed decision is he"eb# affi"%ed in toto. SO ORD5R5D. *itu%, Pan%ani!an, --., concu". +an&oval,Gutierrez, an& Carpio,