G.R. No. 145337 ; October 2, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LEE HOI MING a.k.a. “JOEY ONG” and “PIC”, appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Lee Hoi Ming was charged with the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended. The prosecution evidence established that on September 26, 1999, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) at Regine’s Hotel in Makati City. SPO4 Rolando Sayson acted as the poseur-buyer and met with appellant, who agreed to sell 1.5 kilograms of shabu for P675,000.00. At the hotel lobby, appellant handed over a plastic bag containing the shabu to SPO4 Sayson, who in turn gave a bag containing marked money and boodle money. Upon discovering the boodle money, appellant fled but was subsequently apprehended at a nearby hotel.
The defense presented a different narrative, claiming appellant was illegally arrested based on a warrant for a certain “Joey Ong,” a name he denied using. He asserted he was a victim of a frame-up and that the PAOCTF officers had no lawful cause to arrest him or seize the alleged drugs without a warrant.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s finding that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The core issue of the appellant’s identity as the seller was resolved by the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, which is accorded great respect on appeal. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of the crime: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the police officers, particularly SPO4 Sayson, were consistent and credible, detailing a legitimate buy-bust operation. The defense of frame-up was rejected, as it is a claim easily concocted and, in this case, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court upheld the presumption that the police officers regularly performed their official duty.
Regarding the arrest and seizure, the Court ruled the buy-bust operation was a valid entrapment, which justified the warrantless arrest of appellant in flagrante delicto as he was caught in the act of selling shabu. The subsequent seizure of the drugs was likewise lawful as an incident to a lawful arrest. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) was affirmed, being within the range prescribed by law for the sale of 200 grams or more of shabu, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances present.