GR 144545; (March, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144545 ; March 10, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RUBEN TIU a.k.a. RUBEN GO a.k.a. MR. ONG, ROSALINA SUMILI a.k.a. ROSE and TAN HUNG a.k.a. EMMIE TAN, appellants.
FACTS
Appellants Ruben Tiu, Rosalina Sumili, and Tan Hung were charged with the sale and delivery of 1,977 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The prosecution evidence established that a confidential informant, Setsuo Sugawara, negotiated the drug transaction with appellant Sumili. A buy-bust operation was subsequently planned and executed. The marked boodle money was placed inside a vehicle. During the entrapment at Dusit Hotel, Sugawara handed the payment to Sumili. Thereafter, appellants Tiu and Tan Hung arrived and delivered the shabu. Upon Sugawara’s pre-arranged signal, the arresting team moved in and apprehended the appellants, recovering the drugs and the marked money.
The appellants denied the charges, claiming they were victims of a frame-up or “hulidap.” They alleged they were forcibly taken by unidentified men who demanded money from them. The Regional Trial Court convicted all three appellants, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and a fine of Ten Million Pesos. They appealed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously reviewed the records and found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, to be credible, consistent, and worthy of belief. Their detailed narration of the events—from the initial negotiation to the actual sale, the delivery of the contraband, and the apprehension—conclusively established all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of credible substantiation. The Court emphasized that such a defense, while common, must be clearly proven once the prosecution has established the elements of the crime, which the appellants failed to do. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the fine of Ten Million Pesos for each appellant, as imposed by the trial court, were upheld as correct under the applicable law. The appeal was denied.