GR 121345; (June, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121345 June 23, 1999
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SY BING YOK a.k.a. ARTURO MARCELO SY, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Based on information from a previously arrested individual, Marlon Germedia, a PNP NARCOM team conducted a buy-bust operation targeting Armando Pulongbarit. On May 15, 1993, SPO3 Agustin Timbol acted as poseur-buyer and purchased 100 grams of shabu from Pulongbarit at his residence. After his arrest, Pulongbarit surrendered additional shabu and volunteered information that his supplier was a certain “Willie Sy,” later identified as accused-appellant Sy Bing Yok. Pulongbarit agreed to cooperate in a follow-up entrapment.
Pursuant to the plan, Pulongbarit contacted appellant via cellular phone later that same day, requesting five more kilograms of shabu. The conversation, overheard by SPO3 Timbol, confirmed the drug transaction. Appellant arrived at Pulongbarit’s house carrying a carton box. Upon entry, Pulongbarit gave the pre-arranged signal, and NARCOM agents arrested appellant. The carton box was opened in appellant’s presence and found to contain five plastic bags of a white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Sy Bing Yok for the illegal sale and delivery of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly SPO3 Timbol and team leader Chief Inspector Jerry Valeroso, to be clear, consistent, and credible. They positively identified appellant as the person who delivered the carton box containing the shabu. The detailed account of the entrapment operation, from the monitored phone call to the apprehension and seizure, established all elements of the crime under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425 : the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illicit drugs.
The Court rejected appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up, noting the absence of any ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse him. In the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty. The defense failed to substantiate its claim that the evidence was planted. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was sufficiently established, and the quantity—approximately five kilograms—corroborated the large-scale transaction initiated by the phone call. Thus, the trial court correctly found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine.