G.R. Nos. 144506-07. April 11, 2002.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERRY TING UY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jerry Ting Uy, a Taiwanese national, was charged with violating Sections 15 (Sale) and 16 (Possession) of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended. Two Informations were filed: Crim. Case No. 98-166675 for illegal possession of 1,510.8 grams of shabu, and Crim. Case No. 98-166676 for illegal sale of 505.6 grams of shabu. The prosecution’s evidence established that on July 21, 1998, based on a tip from a Chinese-Filipino informant, the Western Police District planned a buy-bust operation. PO3 Luis Chico acted as the poseur-buyer. At the pre-arranged meeting place, appellant arrived in his car. After PO3 Chico handed marked money for half a kilo of shabu, appellant handed over a plastic bag containing the substance. PO3 Chico then arrested appellant, recovered the marked money, and found three more plastic bags of suspected shabu under the driver’s seat. The substances tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was a victim of a frame-up and an extortion attempt by police operatives who arrested him earlier in the afternoon after he deposited money in a bank. The trial court convicted appellant in both cases, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 for each offense.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by appellant pertain to the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, specifically: 1) the weight given to PO3 Chico’s testimony; 2) the failure to present the informant as a witness; 3) the rejection of his frame-up defense; 4) the admissibility of the evidence seized from his car; and 5) whether his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court found the buy-bust operation valid and the testimonies of the police officers credible and consistent. The non-presentation of the informant was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as his testimony would have been merely corroborative. Appellant’s defense of frame-up was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers. The warrantless arrest and the subsequent search of appellant’s car were lawful as they were incidental to a valid arrest, the contraband being within his immediate control. All elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalties imposed were correct pursuant to the law.