G.R. No. L-97309-10 June 3, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ernesto Quejada, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 28, 1989, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the Pasig Police Anti-Narcotics Unit based on a tip from an informant. Pat. Benjamin Placido acted as the poseur-buyer. The team marked two fifty-peso bills and proceeded to Lorenzo Street, Caniogan, Pasig. Placido approached accused-appellant Ernesto Quejada, showed him the marked money, and asked if he had shabu for sale. Quejada took the money and retrieved a small transparent plastic bag containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from a red bag carried by his wife, Lilia Quejada. After confirming the contents, Placido gave a signal, and the team arrested the couple. The red bag was later found to contain more shabu and paraphernalia. Separate informations were filed against Ernesto for selling shabu (Criminal Case No. 1036-D) and against Lilia for possession (Criminal Case No. 1037-D). The Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 164, found both guilty. Ernesto was sentenced to life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine, while Lilia received six years and one day imprisonment and a P6,000 fine. Only Ernesto appealed.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the appellant are: (1) whether the prosecution’s version of the buy-bust operation was credible; (2) whether the failure to present the informant was fatal; (3) whether inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies cast doubt on guilt; (4) whether the trial court erroneously favored the presumption of regularity of official functions over the presumption of innocence; and (5) whether the arrest and search were unlawful.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the buy-bust operation was legitimate. The failure to present the informant was not fatal, as his testimony was not essential for conviction, and his identity could be withheld for safety. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses (Pat. Placido and Pat. Geda) were minor and did not affect the core narrative of the sale. The trial court correctly relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, as there was no evidence of ill motive. The arrest was lawful as it was made after a valid buy-bust operation, which constituted a crime committed in the presence of the police. The search of the red bag was also valid as incidental to a lawful arrest. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.