G.R. No. 144312; September 3, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHUA TAN LEE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that based on a tip, a buy-bust team was formed with SPO1 Romeo Velasquez as the poseur-buyer. A deal was arranged to purchase one kilo of shabu from accused-appellant Chua Tan Lee for P1.5 million at the Harrison Plaza parking area. At the location, Velasquez and an informant approached the appellant’s car. After an introduction, the appellant produced a white cloth bag containing the shabu. Upon receiving the bag, Velasquez handed over a paper bag containing boodle money and gave the pre-arranged arrest signal. The appellant was apprehended, and the substance, later confirmed as 966.50 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, was seized.
The defense presented a starkly different version, alleging a frame-up or “hulidap.” Appellant testified that after his companion alighted from his car at Pizza Hut, he was suddenly surrounded, handcuffed, blindfolded, and taken by armed men who demanded a million pesos. He claimed he was brought to Camp Crame, mauled, and detained. His companion and uncle corroborated parts of this story, reporting his disappearance to the police.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was lawfully arrested in a valid buy-bust operation for the illegal sale of shabu, or if the defense’s claim of a frame-up is credible.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment crediting the prosecution’s version. The testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation were found to be consistent and credible, detailing a coherent narrative from the planning stage to the arrest and the proper custody of the seized drugs. The defense of frame-up was rejected for being inherently weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted the appellant’s failure to identify any of his alleged captors by name or description, even when the arresting officers testified in open court, as a significant irregularity undermining his claim. While minor inconsistencies regarding the safekeeping of the boodle money were noted, they did not affect the core facts of the sale and arrest. The Court, however, modified the penalty. In addition to the affirmed penalty of reclusion perpetua, the Court imposed a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), which the trial court had omitted, in accordance with Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.