GR 135378; (April, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135378; April 14, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. ANGELITO AMBROSIO y CAMPOS, ROMAN OZAETA y LAO and WARREN QUE alias WEDDY, WILLY, SHAO WEI GUO, QUE SIAO UY, respondents.
FACTS
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a buy-bust operation based on information from a confidential informant, “Venus,” regarding the drug-selling activities of Warren Que. NBI agents prepared marked money dusted with fluorescent powder. During the operation, the informant and an agent, acting as poseur-buyer, met with Que at his residence. Que instructed his co-accused, Angelito Ambrosio, to retrieve a package, which Ambrosio handed to Ozaeta, who then gave it to the poseur-buyer. Upon receiving the marked money, Que was arrested. Ultraviolet examination revealed fluorescent powder on Que’s hands. The seized substance was confirmed to be 750.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Warren Que as principal and Ambrosio and Ozaeta as accomplices for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Ambrosio later withdrew his appeal. Que and Ozaeta appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt, that the buy-bust was fabricated, and that the trial court erroneously relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the NBI agents.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether the participation of appellants Ozaeta and Que in the illegal sale of shabu was proven beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) whether the trial court erred in basing their conviction on the presumption of regularity of the arresting officers’ duties.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. On the first issue, the Court found the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration. The testimonies of the NBI agents were consistent and credible, detailing how Que negotiated and consummated the sale, with Ambrosio and Ozaeta performing indispensable acts by physically handling and delivering the drugs. Their coordinated actions constituted accomplice liability.
On the second issue, the Court held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands when not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Appellants failed to present evidence of ill motive on the part of the NBI agents to frame them. The presence of fluorescent powder on Que’s hands corroborated the transaction. The non-presentation of the confidential informant was not fatal, as her testimony would be merely corroborative, and the prosecution’s evidence from the arresting officers was already sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the trial court’s findings were upheld.