THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JERRY SANTOS y MACOL and RAMON CATOC y PICAYO, accused-appellants. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Assailed before Us is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 2006 in CA-G.R. C.R.-HC No. 01291 which affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 70, in Criminal Cases No. 12193-D and No. 12194-D, finding accused-appellants Jerry Santos y Macol and Ramon Catoc y Picayo guilty of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly known as shabu, and finding accused-appellant Ramon Catoc y Picayo guilty of illegal possession of the said prohibited drug, respectively. On 10 March 2003, two Informations were filed against appellants Jerry Santos y Macol and Ramon Catoc y Picayo before the RTC of Pasig City, for violating the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In Criminal Case No. 12193-D, appellants Santos and Catoc allegedly violated Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 91653 in the following manner: On or about March 8, 2003, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO3 Carlo Luna, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methylamphethamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.4(Emphasis ours). On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. 12194-D, appellant Catoc was additionally charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law,5 committed as follows: On or about March 8 2003, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing three (3) centigrams (0.03 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for methylamphethamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.6 (Emphasis ours). During their arraignment on 19 May 2003, appellants Santos and Catoc pleaded not guilty to the above-mentioned charges.7 On 3 June 2003, the Pre-Trial Conference of the cases was terminated without the prosecution and the defense agreeing to any stipulation of facts.8 On 5 August 2003, the parties, however, agreed to re-open the Pre-Trial Conference and they entered into a stipulation of facts as to the testimony to be given by the first prosecution witness, Forensic Chemist Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Lourdeliza Cejes.9 As contained in the Pre-Trial Order dated 5 August 2003, the parties stipulated on: (1) the due execution and genuineness of the Request for Laboratory Examination dated 8 March 2003, and the stamp showing receipt thereof by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory; (2) the due execution, genuineness and truth of the contents of Physical Science Report No. D-405-03E issued by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Lourdeliza Cejes, the finding or conclusion appearing on the report, and the signature of the forensic chemist over her typewritten name appearing therein; and (3) the existence of the plastic sachets, but not their source or origin, contained in a brown envelope, the contents of which were the subject of the Request for Laboratory Examination.10 Thereafter, the cases were consolidated and tried jointly.11 The prosecution presented two witnesses: (1) Police Officer (PO)3 Carlo Luna 12 and (2) Senior Police Officer (SPO)3 Leneal Matias,13 both members of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU)14 of the Pasig City Police Station. The defense, on the other hand, presented (1) appellant Jerry Santos y Macol 15; (2) appellant Ramon Catoc y Picayo16; (3) Maria Violeta Catoc,17 sister of appellant Catoc; and (4) Eric Santos,18 brother of appellant Santos. The People's version of the facts shows that on 8 March 2003, the SDEU operatives of the Pasig City Police conducted a buy-bust operation in a residential area along Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue, Brgy. Rosario, Pasig City, on the basis of reports that a certain alias Monching Labo was selling illegal drugs in the said locality.19 Accompanied by a confidential informant, the police team composed of PO3 Carlo Luna, SPO3 Leneal Matias, PO1 Michael Espares and PO1 Michael Familara, proceeded to the target area at around 1:15 to 1:20 a.m. on the above-mentioned date. PO3 Carlo Luna was to act as the poseur-buyer, whereas the other members of the team were to serve as his backup. 20 Upon reaching the designated place, PO3 Luna and the informant alighted from their vehicle, while the rest of the team were left inside.21 The informant then pointed to two persons standing along the target area, one of whom was Monching Labo, later identified as appellant Ramon Catoc y Picayo.22 After approaching, the informant introduced PO3 Luna as a shabu customer to one of the persons, later identified as appellant Jerry Santos y Macol. Appellant Santos then asked PO3 Luna how much worth of shabu he was buying and asked for the money. PO3 Luna gave appellant Santos the buy-bust money consisting of a pre-marked P100.00 bill.23 Appellant Santos handed this money to appellant Catoc, who took out from his pocket a sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance,24 which he handed back to appellant Santos. When appellant Santos gave the plastic sachet to PO3 Luna, the latter nabbed the former and introduced himself as a policeman.25 At that point, the other members of the team arrived and likewise held and arrested appellant Catoc. SPO3 Matias then ordered appellant Catoc to empty the contents of his pockets. After having done so, another plastic sachet containing a similar crystalline substance 26 was recovered from appellant Catoc, together with the marked P100.00 buy-bust money.27 Immediately thereafter, the policemen marked the two plastic sachets.28 The sachet handed by appellant Santos to PO3 Luna was marked with the latter's initials "CEL," his signature, and appellant Santos's initials "JMS." 29 On the other hand, the sachet recovered from appellant Catoc by SPO3 Matias was marked with the latter's initials "LTM," his signature and appellant Catoc's initials "RPC."30 The policemen then informed the appellants of their violations and apprised them of their constitutional rights.31 Afterwards, appellants Santos and Catoc were brought to the Pasig City Police Station at Pariancillo Park, Pasig City, for proper investigation. PO3 Luna submitted the two plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Eastern Police District in Mandaluyong City for an examination of the contents thereof.32 The laboratory test results as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-405- 03E33 stated the following: SPECIMEN SUBMITTED: Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "CEL/JMS 030803 and RPC/LTM 030803" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance and marked as A and B respectively. xxxx FINDINGS: Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave [a] POSITIVE result to the tests for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. x x x CONCLUSION: Specimens A and B contains (sic) Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. As expected, the appellants offered a version of the facts that was diametrically opposed to that of the prosecution. According to them, there was no buy-bust operation to speak of and that prior to their arrests, they were literally strangers to each other. Appellant Jerry Santos y Macol testified that on 8 March 2003, at around 12:00 midnight to 1:00 a.m., while he was watching television at their house at 151 Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue, Barangay (Brgy.) Rosario, Pasig City, and was about to sleep, five male persons in civilian clothing suddenly entered and handcuffed him.34 Santos claimed that he voluntarily went with the men when they tried to arrest him because his ailing mother, who was then awakened, was already becoming nervous. 35 Santos was brought outside and placed in a tricycle, and the entire group left for the police station. There, Santos was detained and questioned about the marked money, which he said he knew nothing about. Santos was then charged with the offense of selling illegal drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.36 It was also at that time in the police station where he first met appellant Catoc.37 For his part, appellant Ramon Catoc y Picayo narrated that on 8 March 2003, between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight, he awoke to a loud sound at the door of their house at 125 Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue, Brgy. Rosario, Pasig City.38 When Catoc opened the door, five male persons with guns entered their house.39 The men frisked Catoc and searched his house. After being likewise awakened, Catoc's mother asked the men what his son's fault was. They replied that they were looking for the drugs that Catoc was selling.40 When their search yielded nothing, the men mauled Catoc. Afterwards, Catoc was placed in a tricycle and the group headed for a gasoline station along J. E. Manalo Street. There, Catoc was transferred to a parked van; inside the vehicle was appellant Jerry Santos y Macol, whom the former saw for the first time. 41 The men took the appellants to the police station in Pariancillo Park where they were again mauled. The policemen who arrested the appellants produced two plastic sachets of shabuand a P100.00 bill and alleged that the same were taken from Catoc's possession. The appellants were then charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.42 On 4 May 2005, the trial court rendered its decision, the pertinent portion of which states: The Court is more inclined to give credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses given the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty accorded to them by law and jurisprudence vis-à-vis the self-serving disclaimers of the herein accused whose version of the incident as narrated above hardly inspires belief. It has been clearly established from the evidence adduced by the State that at around 1:00 in the morning of March 8, 2003, accused Jerry Santos and Ramon Catoc, in conspiracy with one another, sold or traded and delivered, to PO3 Carlo Luna, in a buy-bust operation, one transparent plastic sachet of shabu containing white crystalline substance (Exh. "C-1") in consideration of the amount of PHP 100.00 (Exh. "D"). x x x That there was [a] conspiracy between the two accused as alleged in the information in Criminal Case No. 12193-D, is evident. The transaction was successfully consummated between the poseur buyer PO3 Luna, on the one hand, and the accused Ramon Catoc, together with his co-accused, Jerry Santos, on the other, with accused Santos receiving the marked money from the poseur buyer and thereafter handing the same to his co-accused Catoc who, thereafter, took out from his right pocket a plastic sachet of shabu which he gave to Santos, and which the latter in turn handed to PO3 Luna. There can be no other conclusion that can be drawn from the above concerted actions of both accused, but that they were bound by a common purpose and community of interest, indicative of conspiracy, in committing the offense charged against them. On the same occasion of the buy-bust operation, the police officers were also able to recover from the possession of accused Ramon Catoc another sachet of shabu weighing 0.03 grams (Exh. "C-2") which is in violation of Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of the same law, subject of Criminal Case No. 12194-D, which penalizes the mere possession of dangerous drugs w/o (sic) being authorized by law. xxxx WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: In Criminal Case No. 12193-D, both accused, JERRY SANTOS y MACOL and RAMON CATOC y PICAYO are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act [No.] 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and are hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to solidarily pay a Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP500,000.00). In Criminal Case No. 12194-D, accused RAMON CATOC y PICAYO is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act [No.] 9165 (illegal possession of shabu) and is hereby sentenced to Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Yearsand to pay a Fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 300,000.00). Considering the penalty imposed by the Court, [t]he immediate commitment of accused Jerry Santos and Ramon Catoc to the National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City is hereby ordered. Pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act [No.] 9165, the amount of PHP 100.00 recovered from accused Ramon Catoc representing the proceeds from the illegal sale of the transparent plastic sachet of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. Again, pursuant to Section 21 of the same law, representatives from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) is (sic) hereby ordered to take charge and have custody over the sachets of shabu subject of these cases, for proper disposition.43 In an Order dated 21 June 2005, the trial court elevated the entire records of the case to the Court of Appeals for automatic review in accordance with our ruling in People v. Mateo.44 On 29 November 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. In sustaining the trial court, the Court of Appeals ruled that the buy-bust operation conducted by the SDEU operatives was legitimate and regular.45 Furthermore, the testimonies of the appellants and their witnesses were said to have contained irreconcilable inconsistencies and that no ill motive for the alleged frame-up was put forth by the appellants.46 Appellants Santos and Catoc filed a Notice of Appeal assailing the appellate court's decision before the Supreme Court.47 In a Resolution48 dated 4 June 2007, the Court required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice. The parties manifested their intention not to file their supplemental briefs anymore, as their respective Briefs already encapsulated all the matters and arguments that support their positions. 49 In pleading for their innocence, appellants assign the following errors: I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II, OF THE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, WHEN THE LATTER'S GUILT WERE NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING [THAT] THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS CONSPIRED IN COMMITTING ILLEGAL SELLING AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in convicting them, as their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering that the prosecution failed to prove that a buy-bust operation took place and that their arrests without warrant were not legally effected. Appellants also maintain that there was no basis for the trial court's conclusion that a conspiracy existed between them. The arguments put forth by the appellants fail to persuade. Fundamental is the principle that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.50 After a careful evaluation of the entire records of the instant case, we find no error in the trial and the appellate courts' factual findings and conclusions. For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.51 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.52 In the present case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established. The prosecution witnesses PO3 Luna and SPO3 Matias consistently testified that a buy-bust operation did indeed take place, and the shabusubject of the sale was presented and duly identified in open court. PO3 Luna, being the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellants Santos and Catoc as the persons who sold the sachet containing a white crystalline substance,53 which was later confirmed by a chemical analysis thereof to be shabu.54 The relevant portions of PO3 Luna's testimony that detailed the events leading to the arrests of appellants are as follows: Q: Do you remember having been assigned as a poseur buyer on said date, March 8, 2003? A: Yes, sir. Q: Against whom was supposed to be the task that you are going to perform as a poseur buyer? A: Against Monching Labo, sir. xxxx Q: What was the basis of this planned operation against Monching Labo? A: Because we have been receiving reports that this certain Monching Labo has been selling illegal drugs along Dr. Sixto Avenue in Pasig, sir. Q: Are you trying to say that March 8 was not the first time that you received information regarding Monching Labo? A: Yes, sir. Q: But it was only March 8 that you decided to conduct a buy-bust operation against Monching Labo? A: Yes, sir. Q: Were there preparations made by your office or by you regarding this plan, buy-bust operation, to be conducted against Monching Labo? A: Yes, sir, we contacted an informant to confirm where Monching Labo sells illegal drugs. xxxx Q: What are you going to use in buying? A: Marked money, sir. Q: Did you prepare for that also? A: Yes, sir. Q: Were there other police personnel that were assigned, aside from you, to conduct this buy-bust operation against Monching Labo? A: Yes, sir, SPO3 Leneal Matias, PO1 Michael Espares and PO1 Michael Familara. xxxx Q: What were supposed to be the role of these other police officers that were going to accompany you particularly, Matias, Espares and Familara? A: They will act as back-up, sir. Q: You said you prepared for a buy-money, how much was this? A: One Hundred (PHP 100.00) Peso bill, sir. xxxx Q: Did you proceed, as plan, to the target area? A: Yes, sir. Q: And where was this, mr. (sic) witness? A: Along Dr. Sixto Antonio, Brgy. Rosario, Pasig City, sir. Q: What time did you reach that place? A: About 1:15 to 1:20, sir. Q: Of? A: In the early morning of 1:15 to 1:20 a.m., sir. Q: What else happened after you reached the place? A: When we were ten (10) meters away from the designated area, the informant pointed to us to two persons who were standing along Dr. Sixto Antonio Avenue, Rosario, Pasig City, sir. xxxx Q: Who are these two persons, if you know? A: According to the informant, he is Monching Labo, sir. Q: Meaning, one of them is Monching Labo? A: Yes, sir. Q: After one of them has been identified by your informant, what else did you do if any, mr. (sic) witness? A: The informant and I approached them, and I was introduced by the informant, sir. Q: How were you introduced? A: That I was a customer for shabu, and that I wanted to buy, sir. Q: To whom did he tell from these two persons that you were interested to buy? A: I was introduced to Jerry Santos, sir. Q: In other words, the other person is a certain Jerry Santos? A: Yes, sir. xxxx Q: After you were introduced as [an] interested buyer to said Jerry Santos, what else happened after that? A: He asked me how much would I buy, and he asked me for the money. And then, I told him just PHP100.00, sir. Q: And when Jerry Santos asked you for the money, did you give him the money? A: Yes, sir. Q: And after you gave him the money, what happened next? A: I saw Jerry handed the money to the other person, sir. Q: When you say other person, this is Monching Labo? A: Yes, sir. Q: And after Jerry Santos handed the One Hundred (PHP100.00) Peso bill to Monching Labo, what else happened, if any? A: Monching Labo took the PHP100.00 bill. After that, he put it inside his pocket, and then, he got something from his pocket and handed it to Jerry, sir. Q: And after this something was handed to Jerry Santos, what else happened? A: Jerry Santos gave to me what was given to him by Monching, sir. Q: And to your personal knowledge, what is that something that was given by Monching to Jerry Santos who, Jerry Santos in turn handed to you? A: That was the shabu I was buying which was contained in a plastic sachet, sir. Q: When you say contained in a plastic sachet, you mean there is only one (1)? A: Yes, sir. Q: After you received this one alleged plastic sachet of shabu from Jerry Santos, what else did you do, if any? A: I held Jerry Santos and introduced myself as a police officer, sir. Q: After that, what happened next, if any? A: My companions arrived and then, they also held Monching Labo sir. Q: What else happened after that, mr. (sic) witness? A: Police Officer Matias ordered Monching Labo to empty the contents of his pocket, sir. Q: And did Monching Labo comply? A: Yes, sir. Q: Would you know what Matias discovered after Monching Labo complied with his order to empty his pocket? A: Yes, sir, because he also recovered another plastic sachet, sir. Q: Who recovered? A: SPO3 Matias, sir. Q: Which came from the pocket of Monching Labo? A: Yes, sir. Q: After this, what did you do or, your team do to the two persons? A: We brought them to our office at the Headquarters for proper investigation, sir. Q: How about the two plastic sachets, the first one that was sold and the other one that was recovered by SPO3 Matias, what was your disposition about it? A: Right there and then at the place, we already placed the markings on the sachets, sir. Q: After that, what else did you do with these two sachets? A: We submitted the same to the laboratory for examination, sir. Q: Do you remember who delivered it personally? A: Yes, sir. Q: Who? A: I did, sir. Q: Did you come to know later the true identity of Jerry Santos and Monching Labo to whom you have transaction? A: Yes, sir. Q: Would Jerry Santos [be] the true name of this Jerry Santos you mentioned earlier? A: Yes, sir. Q: How about this Monching Labo, did you come to know what is his true name? A: Yes, sir. After we have brought him to the police station, that's when we discovered his real name, sir. Q: And what is his real name? A: Ramon Catoc, sir.55 The testimony of SPO3 Matias on the conduct of the buy-bust operation corroborated the above testimony of PO3 Luna on all material points and was equally clear and categorical. Also proven from the testimonies of both PO3 Luna and SPO3 Matias is the charge against appellant Catoc in Criminal Case No. 12194-D for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs). It was shown that appellant knowingly carried with him the plastic sachet of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation. On the other hand, the appellants' contention that no buy-bust operation took place was plainly anchored on the testimonies of both appellants, who both gave different versions of what transpired during the time and date in question; of Maria Violeta Catoc, sister of appellant Ramon Catoc; and of Eric Santos, the brother of appellant Jerry Santos. Both appellants chorused a single line - alibi. They strongly insisted that they were in their respective houses during the alleged operations. The singular reliance of the appellants on their alibis to argue their cases was misplaced. As observed by the trial court, the self-serving disclaimers of the appellants inspired less belief than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who had in their favor a presumption of regularity accorded to them by law.56 The respective alibis of appellants and their witnesses also contained irreconcilable inconsistencies that only weakened their worth. We uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. This presumption in favor of PO3 Luna and SPO3 Matias was not overcome. As testified to by the appellants, they did not know any of the policemen who arrested them, and it was only during the trial in open court that they came to know of the identities of the above-mentioned policemen.57 Thus, there was no indication that the police were impelled by any improper motive in making the arrests. In appellant Jerry Santos's testimony on the events leading to his arrest, he repeatedly changed his answer upon being asked why he voluntarily went with the five men who entered his house on the night in question. In his direct testimony, appellant Santos testified that he went with the men so that his mother's nervousness would not be further aggravated.58 During his cross-examination, he then stated that he voluntarily went with the men so as not to awaken his sleeping mother. 59 Upon being confronted with these statements, Santos then changed his answer again and stated that his mother was already awake at the time he went with the policemen. 60 More glaring than the above-mentioned inconsistencies, however, are the discrepancies in the testimonies of appellants Jerry Santos and Ramon Catoc on the manner in which they were taken to the police station and the circumstances of their first meeting. The very premise of their defense is that they were total strangers to each other; thus, they could not have been together at the time when they were arrested, much less were they in conspiracy with each other in the alleged commission of the crimes charged. Appellant Jerry Santos testified that after he was brought out of his house, he was placed in a tricycle and was then taken straight to the police station in Pariancillo Park, Pasig City.61 While in detention, he allegedly met Ramon Catoc for the first time.62 Appellant Ramon Catoc, on the other hand, gave an entirely contradictory account of the said events. Catoc narrated in his direct testimony that after the men took him and placed him in a tricycle, he was taken to a gasoline station along J. E. Manalo Street and was transferred to a parked van. Aboard the vehicle, he said, was appellant Santos, whom he claimed he saw and came to know for the first time.63 Even the testimony of defense witness Eric Santos, the brother of appellant Jerry Santos, contained some noticeable incongruity with the appellants' narration of events. As remarked upon by the Court of Appeals,64 Eric Santos testified that the arrest of his brother was made at 8:00 p.m. on 8 March 2003.65 The timeline of both the prosecution and the defense, however, puts the occurrence of the events in question between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. 66 The testimonies of Maria Violeta Catoc, sister of appellant Catoc, and Eric Santos, brother of appellant Santos, are also suspect. Without clear and convincing evidence, no credence can be accorded them. In all of the above instances, no satisfactory explanation was offered by appellants to resolve the conflicting accounts. No other evidence was likewise offered to buttress these testimonies, thereby weakening appellants' alibis, as against the candid and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. As consistently enunciated by this Court, the established doctrine is that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or within its immediate vicinity. The defense of alibi must be established by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence, the reason being that it is easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it can rarely be given credence. This is especially true in case of positive identification of the culprit by reliable witnesses, which renders their alibis worthless. Positive identification prevails over denials and alibis.67 What is quite important to note at this point is the fact that the defense failed to point out any single mistake or inconsistency in the testimonies of either policeman. Consequently, the respective rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals upholding the regularity and the legitimacy of the conduct of the buy-bust operation in this case are hereby affirmed. The claim of appellants that their warrantless arrests were illegal also lacks merit. The Court notes that nowhere in the records did we find any objection by appellants to the irregularity of their arrests prior to their arraignment. We have held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. It is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against him.68 Nevertheless, our ruling in People v. Cabugatan 69 provides that: The rule is settled that an arrest made after an entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, which states: SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. As we have already declared the legality of the buy-bust operation that was conducted by the police, it follows that the subsequent warrantless arrests were likewise legally effected. Furthermore, any search resulting from the lawful warrantless arrests was also valid, because the appellants committed a crime in flagrante delicto; that is, the persons arrested committed a crime in the presence of the arresting officers.70 As for appellants' contention that the trial court erred in finding the existence of a conspiracy, the same should also fail. Contrary to appellants' assertions,71 the findings of the trial court that they conspired with each other is limited only to the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 12193-D, and does not pertain to the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 12194-D. There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The same degree of proof necessary to prove the crime is required to support a finding of criminal conspiracy. Direct proof, however, is not essential to show conspiracy.72 It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. Proof of concerted action before, during and after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of design and objective is sufficient.73 As correctly held by the trial court, the act of appellant Santos in receiving the marked money from PO3 Luna and handing the same to appellant Catoc, who in turn gave a sachet containing shabu to appellant Santos to give the policeman, unmistakably revealed a common purpose and a community of interest indicative of a conspiracy between the appellants.74 In light of the foregoing, we rule that the guilt of appellants Santos and Catoc has been established beyond reasonable doubt. A determination of the appropriate penalties to be imposed upon them is now in order. Under the law, the illegal sale of shabu carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity and purity of the substance involved or shall act as a broker in any such transaction.75 On the other hand, the illegal possession of less than five (5) grams of said dangerous drug is penalized with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).76 In accordance with Section 98, Article XIII of Republic Act No. 9165, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code find limited applicability with respect to the provisions of the said Act. Section 98 reads: Sec. 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. - Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Thus, in determining the imposable penalty, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code shall not be applied. Under this article, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances.77 Since Section 98 of the Drugs Law contains the word "shall," the non- applicability of the Revised Penal Code provisions is mandatory, subject to exception only in case the offender is a minor.78 In the imposition of the proper penalty, the courts, taking into account the circumstances attendant in the commission of the offense, are given the discretion to impose either life imprisonment or death, and the fine as provided for by law. In light, however, of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been prohibited. Consequently, the penalty to be meted out to appellant shall only be life imprisonment and fine.79 Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 were properly imposed on appellants Jerry Santos y Macol and Ramon Catoc y Picayo in Criminal Case No. 12193-D for illegal sale of shabu. Likewise, the conviction of appellant Ramon Catoc y Picayo and the imposition of the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years imprisonment and the fine of P300,000.00 meted out by the trial court with respect to Criminal Case No. 12194-D for illegal possession of shabu, are affirmed. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 29 November 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01291, affirming in toto the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 70, in Criminal Case No. 12193-D and Criminal Case No. 12194-D, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs. G.R. No. 179940 April 23, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NORBERTO DEL MONTE y GAPAY @ OBET, accused-appellant. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Assailed before Us is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May 2007 which affirmed with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del Monte, a.k.a. Obet, guilty of violation of Section 5,3 Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." On 11 December 2002, accused-appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portion of the information reads: That on or about the 10th day of December 2002, in the municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.290 gram.4 The case was raffled to Branch 78 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan and docketed as Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02. When arraigned on 20 January 2003, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge.5On 17 February 2003, the pre-trial conference was concluded.6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented as its lone witness PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr., the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against appellant, and a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office 3/Special Enforcement Unit (SEU) stationed at the Field Office, Barangay Tarcan, Baliuag, Bulacan. The version of the prosecution is as follows: On 10 December 2002, at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant went to the office of the PDEA SEU in Barangay Tarcan, Baliuag, Bulacan and reported that appellant was selling shabu. Upon receipt of said information, a briefing on a buy-bust operation against appellant was conducted. The team was composed of SPO2 Hashim S. Maung, as team leader, PO1 Gaudencio Tolentino, Jr. as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Antonio Barreras as back-up operative. After the briefing, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to Poblacion Dike for the execution of the buy-bust operation. When the team arrived at appellant’s place, they saw the appellant standing alone in front of the gate. The informant and PO1 Tolentino approached appellant. The informant introduced PO1 Tolentino to appellant as his friend, saying "Barkada ko, user." PO1 Tolentino gave appellant P300.00 consisting of three marked P100 bills.7 The bills were marked with "GT JR," PO1 Tolentino’s initials. Upon receiving the P300.00, appellant took out a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it over to PO1 Tolentino. As a pre-arranged signal, PO1 Tolentino lit a cigarette signifying that the sale had been consummated. PO1 Barreras arrived, arrested appellant and recovered from the latter the marked money. The white crystalline substance8 in the plastic sachet which was sold to PO1 Tolentino was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan, for laboratory examination to determine the presence of the any dangerous drug. The request for laboratory examination was signed by SPO2 Maung.9 Per Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002,10 the substance bought from appellant was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The testimony of Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, Forensic Chemical Officer who examined the substance bought from appellant, was dispensed after both prosecution and defense stipulated that the witness will merely testify on the fact that the drugs subject matter of this case was forwarded to their office for laboratory examination and that laboratory examination was indeed conducted and the result was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.11 For the defense, the appellant took the witness stand, together with his common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza; and nephew, Alejandro Lim. From their collective testimonies, the defense version goes like this: On 10 December 2002, appellant was sleeping in his sister’s house in Poblacion Dike when a commotion woke him up. His nephew, Alejandro Lim, was shouting because the latter, together with appellant’s common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza, and a niece, was being punched and kicked by several police officers. When appellant tried to pacify the policemen and ask them why they were beating up his common-law wife and other relatives, the policemen arrested him, mauled him, punched him on the chest, slapped him and hit him with a palo-palo. He sustained swollen face, lips and tooth. His common-law wife was likewise hit on the chest with the palo-palo. The policemen then took appellant and his common-law wife to a house located in the middle of a field where the former demanded P15,000.00 for their liberty. The next day, appellant was brought to the police station. Amelia Mendoza identified PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Barreras as the police officers who manhandled them and who demanded P15,000.00 so that she and appellant could go home. The following day at 6:00 a.m., she said her child and cousin arrived with the P15,000.00. She was released but appellant was detained. She does not know why the police officers filed this case against appellant. What she knows is that they were asking money from them. Alejandro Lim merely corroborated the testimonies of appellant and Amelia Mendoza. On 8 March 2004, the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00. The dispostive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused Norberto del Monte y Gapay @ Obet GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of P5,000,000.00. With cost. The drugs subject matter of this case is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. The Branch of this Court is directed to turn over the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board within ten (10) days from receipt hereof for proper disposal thereof. 12 The trial court found the lone testimony of PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr. to be credible and straightforward. It established the fact that appellant was caught selling shabu during an entrapment operation conducted on 10 December 2002. Appellant was identified as the person from whom PO1 Tolentino bought P300.00 worth of shabuas confirmed by Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002. On the other hand, the trial court was not convinced by appellant’s defense of frame-up and denial. Appellant failed to substantiate his claims that he was merely sleeping and was awakened by the screams of his relatives who were being mauled by the police officers. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 10 March 2004.13 With the filing thereof, the trial court directed the immediate transmittal of the entire records of the case to us.14 However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,15 the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.16 On 28 May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but reduced the fine imposed on appellant to P500,000.00. It disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision dated March 8, 2004 of the RTC, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del Monte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of fine imposed upon him is reduced from P5,000,000.00 to P500,000.00.17 A Notice of Appeal having been timely filed by appellant, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records of the case to us for further review.18 In our Resolution19 dated 10 December 2007, the parties were notified that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice. Both appellant and appellee opted not to file a supplemental brief on the ground they had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in their respective briefs and the filing of a supplemental brief would only contain a repetition of the arguments already discussed therein. Appellant makes a lone assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM FOR FAILURE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF R.A. 9165.20 Appellant anchors his appeal on the arresting policemen’s failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. He claims that pictures of him together with the alleged confiscated shabu were not taken immediately upon his arrest as shown by the testimony of the lone prosecution witness. He adds that PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Antonio Barreras, the police officers who had initial custody of the drug allegedly seized and confiscated, did not conduct a physical inventory of the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest. Their failure to abide by said section casts doubt on both his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence adduced against him. At the outset, it must be stated that appellant raised the police officers’ alleged non-compliance with Section 2121 of Republic Act No. 9165 for the first time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v. Sta. Maria22 in which the very same issue was raised, we ruled: The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers’ alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.(Emphases supplied.) In People v. Pringas,23 we explained that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from him. In fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been compromised. We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. One example is that provided in Section 31 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court wherein a party producing a document as genuine which has been altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must account for the alteration. His failure to do so shall make the document inadmissible in evidence. This is clearly provided for in the rules. We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non- admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight – evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.24 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.25 All these elements have been shown in the instant case. The prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually happened and that the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. The poseur buyer positively identified appellant as the seller of the shabu. Per Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002 of Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, the substance, weighing 0.290 gram, which was bought by PO1 Tolentino from appellant in consideration of P300.00, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). In the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug taken from appellant, more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.26 The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.27Finding no compelling reason to depart from the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we affirm their findings. Appellant denies selling shabu to the poseur-buyer insisting that he was framed, the evidence against him being "planted," and that the police officers were exacting P15,000.00 from him. In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant’s plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail. 28 Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.29 For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.30 This, appellant failed to do. The presumption remained unrebutted because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive. The presentation of his common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza, and his nephew, Alejandro Lim, to support his claims fails to sway. We find both witnesses not to be credible. Their testimonies are suspect and cannot be given credence without clear and convincing evidence. Their claims, as well as that of appellant, that they were maltreated and suffered injuries remain unsubstantiated. As found by the trial court: The accused, on the other hand, in an effort to exculpate himself from liability raised the defense of frame-up. He alleged that at the time of the alleged buy bust he was merely sleeping at the house of his sister. That he was awakened by the yells and screams of his relatives as they were being mauled by the police officers. However, this Court is not convinced. Accused failed to substantiate these claims of maltreatment even in the face of his wife’s and nephew’s testimony. No evidence was presented to prove the same other than their self-serving claims.31 Moreover, we agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the witnesses for the defense cannot even agree on what time the arresting policemen allegedly arrived in their house. It explained: To elaborate, appellant testified that it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon of December 10, 2002 when he was roused from his sleep by the policemen who barged into the house of his sister (TSN, July 7, 2003, p. 2). His common-law wife, however, testified that it was 10-11 o’clock in the morning when the policemen came to the house (TSN, Oct. 13, 2003, p. 6). On the other hand, Alejandro Lim testified that he went to sleep at 11 o’clock in the morning and it was 10 o’clock in the morning when the policemen arrived (TSN, Feb.2, 2004, p. 6). He thus tried to depict an absurd situation that the policemen arrived first before he went to sleep with appellant.32 Having established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements constituting the illegal sale of drugs, we are constrained to uphold appellant’s conviction. The sale of shabu is penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Said section reads: SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. Under said law, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. For selling 0.290 gram of shabu to PO1 Tolentino, and there being no modifying circumstance alleged in the information, the trial court, as sustained by the Court of Appeals, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment in accordance with Article 63(2)33 of the Revised Penal Code. As regards the fine to be imposed on appellant, the trial court pegged the fine at P5,000,000.00 which the Court of Appeals reduced to P500,000.00. Both amounts are within the range provided for by law but the amount imposed by the Court of Appeals, considering the quantity of the drugs involved, is more appropriate. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May 2007, sustaining the conviction of appellant Norberto Del Monte, a.k.a. Obet, for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs. G.R. No. 175940 February 6, 2008 [Formerly G.R. Nos. 155361-62] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO, appellant. DECISION TINGA, J.: In dubio pro reo.1 Subject of this automatic review is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated 7 August 2006 which affirmed the Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 110, convicting appellant Anson Ong alias Allan Co of illegal sale and possession of shabu. Two separate Informations were filed before the trial court. In Criminal Case No. 97-0017, appellant was accused of illegal sale of shabu, thus: That on or about the 21st day of [April] 1997, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver 989.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug. Contrary to law.4 In Criminal Case No. 97-0018, appellant was charged with illegal possession of shabu allegedly committed as follows: That on or about the 21st day of April 1997, Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Anson Ong alias "Allan Co," did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control 988.85 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug without the corresponding license. Contrary to law.5 Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the two cases ensued. The operative facts are narrated by prosecution witnesses who comprised members of the buy-bust team. Sometime in April 1997, Col. Zoila Lachica (Lachica) was tipped off by a female walk-in informant that a group, led by a Chinese national, was engaged in drug trafficking in Pasay City. Upon verification of said information, a meeting took place between Lachica and the informant where the latter was able to arrange a drug deal with appellant in the vicinity of Heritage Hotel. 6 Lachica then instructed Investigator Oscar Coballes (Coballes) to prepare the boodle money consisting of four P500.00 bills and five P100.00 bills placed on top of nine (9) bundles of paper cut to the size of the peso bills. These bills were then submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for ultraviolet powder dusting.7 Before lunchtime on 21 April 1997, Lachica organized a team and planned the conduct of a buy-bust operation. The twelve-man team was composed of Lachica, Coballes, Police Supt. Edgar Danao (Danao), P/Inspector Rolando Montes (Montes), PO3 Manuelito Lagradilla (Lagradilla), SPO2 Wilfredo Saballa (Saballa), SPO3 Pardo, SPO2 Pedro Tan, the confidential informant, and other civilian agents. Danao acted as the team leader with Montes assisting him. Saballa was designated as the poseur-buyer and the other members of the team were tasked to secure the area. 8 After lunch, the group proceeded to the parking lot of San Juan de Dios Hospital onboard four (4) vehicles, including a motorcycle driven by Lagradilla. At about 3:00 p.m., they reached the parking lot where Danao conducted the final briefing and then deployed his men strategically between the premises of Heritage Hotel and Copacabana Hotel.9At 4:00 pm, Saballa and the informant went to Heritage Hotel while the other team members strategically posted themselves within the hotel premises.10 Fifteen minutes later, Saballa and the informant left Heritage Hotel and proceeded to the adjacent Copacabana Hotel where he waited at the main entrance of the lobby. Suddenly, a black Honda Civic car with Plate No. ULN 766 arrived and parked along the driveway near the front entrance. 11 The informant approached the car while Saballa was left behind holding the black bag containing the boodle money.12 Upon signal by the informant, Saballa came up to the right front door. Saballa showed the contents of the bag to the driver of the car, who was later identified as appellant. He then handed the bag to him.13 Instantaneously, a man approached the car, took the boodle money from appellant and ran away.14 Coballes ran towards the driver’s side and poked his gun at appellant. Appellant tried moving the car but Coballes stood in front and blocked it. Appellant was then ordered to open the door. Coballes saw a red bag containing white crystalline substance inside the car and took it into custody. 15 Meanwhile, Lagradilla chased the man who took the boodle money around the parking area of Copacabana Hotel.16 While on the run, Lagradilla saw the man throw the money inside a passing white Toyota car driven by a certain Chito Cua (Cua). Instead of pursuing the man, Lagradilla blocked the white Toyota car and arrested Cua.17 Appellant presented an entirely different account of the incident on 21 April 1997. Appellant, who apparently does not know English and Tagalog was assisted by an interpreter, narrated that he is a resident of Chuan Chow, People’s Republic of China. Upon the suggestion of Lau Chan, appellant decided to go to the Philippines to start a clothing business. In the morning of 21 April 1997, appellant told Lau Chan that he wanted to go to Baclaran. Lau Chan, who himself was planning to go to the casino at Heritage Hotel, asked appellant to meet up with him. Appellant tried calling Lau Chan on this cellphone but the latter was not answering. This prompted appellant to go to Heritage Hotel to look for Lau Chan. At around 4:00 p.m., appellant was walking along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue towards the direction of the Light Rail Transit when he noticed a commotion in front of the hotel and saw some men carrying guns. Fearing for his safety, appellant decided to walk faster but someone stopped him and poked a gun at him. He was made to board a white car in which he met Cua for the first time. They were then brought to Camp Crame for questioning. It was Cua who translated the questions propounded by the police officers to appellant. He was informed by Cua that he was arrested for failure to show any document regarding his stay in the country. During arraignment however, he learned that he was being charged of possession and sale of shabu. Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible as against the bare and self-serving assertions of appellant, the trial court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the 11 February 2002 Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the herein accused ONG POK PIW a.k.a. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) offenses for Violations of Section 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act [No.] 6425, as amended in relation to Section 20 and 21 of Article IV of said law and hereby imposes on him the penalty of two (2) RECLUSION PERPETUAS in these cases and a fine in the total amount of P200,000.00 in these cases without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" in Criminal Case No. 97-0017 for Violation of Section 15 of Republic Act [No.] 6425, as amended, weighing 989.05 grams and the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" in Criminal Case No. 97-0018 weighing 988.85 grams are hereby declared confiscated in favor of the government. The PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City or its duly authorized representative which has custody and possession of said regulated drugs are hereby directed to immediately cause the delivery and transportation thereof to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition in accordance with law. The Chief of said office is further directed to inform this Court within 20 days from receipt hereof of the action taken thereon. The period during which the herein accused was under detention during the pendency of these cases shall be credited to him in full provided he agreed to abide by strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail. SO ORDERED.18 An appeal was directed to this Court. However, in a Resolution19dated 20 February 2006, the case was transferred to the Court of Appeals in light of our pronouncement in People v. Mateo.20 On 7 August 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision affirming with modification the trial court’s ruling, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110, Pasay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 97-0017 and 97-0018 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification. As modified, the fine is increased to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for each offense or a total of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00). SO ORDERED.21 In finding appellant guilty, the appellate court strongly relied on the testimonies of the police officers and dismissed the imputed inconsistencies in their statements as being minor. At the core of this appeal is the issue of whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant. Appellant primarily questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He claims that their testimonies were tainted with inconsistencies which even the trial court had noted in its decision. Appellant relies on said observation to support his acquittal based on reasonable doubt. He asserts that his conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Brief,22 insists that all the elements of sale and illegal possession of shabu were duly established by the prosecution. It avers that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabuto the poseur-buyer in a legitimate buy-bust operation.23 Moreover, when the poseur-buyer and Coballes opened the door of appellant’s car, they saw a red bag on the floor containing white crystalline substances which were later tested and found positive for the presence of shabu.24 The OSG contends that the opinion of the trial court with respect to the actuations of the prosecution witnesses on the stand did not affect its judgment of conviction because the trial court lent full faith and credence to the collective testimonies of the police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with law.25 For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.26 The prosecution seeks to establish the presence of these elements through the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The innocence or culpability of appellant thus hinges on the issue of credibility. It is an oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case. 27 This case falls under the exception. In determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation, the "objective test," as laid down in People v. Doria,28 is utilized. It has been held that it is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation—from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy- bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. 29 In People v. Ong30 and Cabugao v. People31 where the "objective test" was also applied, chasmic deficiencies that similarly marked the prosecution evidence led to the absolution of the accused. In Ong, also involving Chinese nationals as accused, the prosecution evidence on the buy-bust operation was outrageously complete as the confidential informant who had sole knowledge of how the alleged illegal sale of shabu was initiated and how it was carried out was not presented as a witness.32 In Cabugao, the prosecution witnesses could not agree on the reason that prompted them to conduct the buy-bust operation. While the first witness testified that the tip came from their informants, the second witness maintained that no informer was involved in the operation. 33 In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution failed to prove all the material details of the buy- bust operation. The details of the meeting with the informant, the alleged source of the information on the sale of illegal drugs, appear hazy. Lachica declared that he met the informant for the first time a week before the buy-bust operation: Q Do you recall Mr. Witness when that walk-in informant visited your office? A I cannot recall the exact date but as far as I can remember she visited before the operation was conducted. FISCAL And you are referring to the operation on April 21, 1997? A Yes, sir. COURT How many days prior to the date of operation did that alleged walk-in informant go to your office? A I cannot remember the exact date but I think more or less one week before. More or less 1 week.34 But Coballes testified that the informant reports to their office every now and then, thus: COURT A moment counsel, this informant, was he an employee of your office or an informant working for your office? WITNESS A He is an informant working from our office. COURT When you say informant working in your office, is he receiving salary from your office as a regular employee or he reports or he goes to your office every now and then? A He reports in our office every now and then.35 Coballes related that the informant was present during the briefing held before lunch on 21 April 1997: Q Now when Col. Lachica called you, aside from you and some members of your office, are there any other persons present? A Yes sir, our informant. Q Now how do you know that this person is an informant? A He was introduced to us by our chief, Col. Lachic[a], sir.36 while Lagradilla denied seeing the informant at the meeting: COURT In that briefing, was there a mention of an informant or an asset? WITNESS A Col. Lachica mentioned of a certain asset. COURT Was that asset present during the briefing at the headquarters? A Asset was not present[,] sir.37 Despite being the designated poseur-buyer, Saballa testified that he had no knowledge of how much shabu he was going to buy. Q How much shabu are you going to purchase? A One (1) kilo, Your Honor. Q How much is one kilo worth? A I am not aware of the price, Your Honor. Q How much is one kilo worth? A I do not know the price they have agreed, Your Honor. Q You are supposed to be the poseur buyer and you do not know how much shabu you are going to buy? A I do not know, Your Honor.38 The actual exchange of the bags containing shabu and the boodle money was not clearly established. The presentation of shabu before the Court could have shed light on the identity of the object of the sale. Unfortunately, the presentation of the shabu purportedly confiscated from appellant was dispensed with at the instance of the defense counsel.39 Coballes testified that he saw Saballa hand the boodle money to appellant in exchange for a wrapped object presumed to be shabu.40 On the contrary, the ultraviolet dusting of the boodle money was conducted but appellant was found negative for fluorescent powder. 41 As between the prosecution witnesses’ account that it was appellant to whom the boodle money was passed and who was driving the black Honda Civic car during the alleged buy-bust operation and appellant’s denial that he owned and drove said car, we are inclined to believe appellant. The prosecution failed to present the purported driver’s license confiscated from appellant. In fact, they reasoned that it was missing.42 On the other hand, the defense presented a certification from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Philippine Motor Association stating that appellant’s name does not exist in the LTO’s file of licensed drivers and has not been issued a Philippine International Driving Permit43 by the Automobile Association of the Philippines. Further rendering the prosecution’s version dubious is the escape of another alleged cohort of appellant. Lagradilla, who was specifically tasked to block or run after any escaping suspect, failed in this regard. During the alleged buy-bust operation, he was positioned in such a manner that a firewall was blocking his vantage point.44 Instead of using his motorcycle, he chased the suspect on foot.45 Moreover, it is quite difficult to imagine how one suspect can easily escape notwithstanding the presence of at least twelve (12) police operatives in the vicinity. The witnesses’ hesitation in answering questions on the stand, as aptly observed by the trial court,46 only compounded their lack of credibility. Lachica, who was the Chief of the Criminal Investigation Division of the NCR-CIDG, cannot seem to recall the vital parts of the buy-bust operation such as the composition of the buy-bust team, the strategic location of the team members, the presence of the name of the other accused, Cua,47 and how much of the boodle money was recovered.48 Moreover, he denied any participation in the conduct of the buy-bust operation: Q You said you supervised the planning of this operation. Did you not say that? A No Your Honor[,] what I said is that I gave instruction to Col. Danao and we planned out the operation and our procedure, the [over-all] team leader will be the one to provide or make some arrangement[s] pertaining to the police operation.49 However, Coballes insisted that Lachica was present all throughout the operation, thus: ATTY. ZULUETA And so, in your testimony February 13, 2000[,] you narrated to the Court that Col. Lachica led this operation? A Yes, sir. Q He was with you on the parking lot to brief you on your operation? A Yes. Q And he was with you all throughout the operation? A He was at the Heritage Hotel. Yes. Q Mr. Witness[,] you as police officer[,] do you know the penalty for perjury? A I know that perjury is punishable but I don’t know the penalty. Q Did you know that Col. Lachica appeared before this Court and testified in this Hon. Court on July 29, 1999 and he testified that he did not conduct the actual operation but it was Col. Danao? A He was with us and Col. Danao at the Heritage Hotel at the time. Q Will you still maintain that, who is lying now, Col. Lachica or you? A Col. Lachica and the rest stayed at the Heritage Hotel considering that the buy-bust operation was at the Heritage Hotel. Q And yet, Col. Lachica said that as lone Chief of the Criminal Investigation Division he only gave instruction to Col. Danao. The question is[:] do you still maintain despite that [sic] testimony that Col. Lachica was present during the operation? A I do.50 Lachica denied having heard of the name of appellant until he was arrested: Q Will you tell the Court[,] do you know a certain Anson Ong alias Allan Co? A During April? Q Before April? A No, I don’t remember that I encountered a name Anson Ong but after the operation conducted by Edgar Danao[,] I read the name of Anson Ong as the arrested person. 51 On the other hand, Montes alleged that the name of appellant was mentioned during the briefing held in the office: FISCAL VIBANDOR Q Mr. Witness, on April 21, 1997, you said that you will conduct a buy-bust operation against whom? WITNESS A Against Anson Ong. FISCAL VIBANDOR Q Now, when for the first time did you come to know that you are going to conduct [buy- bust] operation against Anson Ong? A During our briefing at the office. xxx Q And who were present during that briefing? A All of us except for Lagradilla because he was sent out to get his motor bike, it was only Col. Danao, myself, Coballes, Saballa, Tan and [a] civilian asset.52 According to Coballes, he was instructed by Lachica to prepare the boodle money to be submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for powder dusting: Q You want to impress us Mr. Witness, that a week or before the day that you first met the informant you were instructed by Colonel Lachica to prepare buy-bust money? WITNESS A Yes, sir.53 Lachica’s million-peso estimate of the drug deal is certainly higher than the P250,000.00 amount stated by Coballes. Ironically, Lachica cannot recall the exact amount or denomination of the boodle money he himself had provided for the operation: Q According to you[,] there will be a drug deal. Do you know how much shabu is involved in this drug deal as arranged by your lady informant? A I cannot recall the exact amount or quantity but the deal is more than one million. x x x54 Q Who provided the buy bust money for this buy-bust operation? A I was the one who provided the buy-bust money, the boodle money. FISCAL Q How much money did you provide? A I cannot remember the exact amount because the money used in that operation is boodle money. Q And to whom did you give this money that will be used in this [buy-bust] operation? A I think Agent Coballes. Q Do you recall in what denomination were these [buy-bust] money given? A I cannot remember.55 While the presentation of the boodle money, as a general rule, is not indispensable in the prosecution of a drug case, the material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the non-presentation of the buy-bust money raise reasonable doubts on the occurrence of a buy-bust operation.56 It is indeed suspicious that vital pieces of evidence, such as the boodle money and the driver’s license were lost while in the custody of Coballes who unfortunately passed away during trial. Certainly, the failure to present vital pieces of these evidence cast doubt on the veracity of the buy- bust operation. Another baffling point is the dismissal of the criminal case against Cua, the alleged accomplice of appellant. The prosecution witnesses testified that the boodle money was found in his possession. This fact was confirmed by the presence of fluorescent powder on Cua’s hands. The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. While appellant’s defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishe a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants' innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.57 Suffice it to say, a slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.58 With the failure of the prosecution to present a complete picture of the buy-bust operation, as highlighted by the disharmony and incoherence in the testimonies of its witnesses, acquittal becomes ineluctable. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02256 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Anson Ong a.k.a. "Allan Co" is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him on the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate release from prison is ordered unless he is being held for some other valid or lawful cause. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this Decision forthwith and to INFORM this Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually released from confinement. Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED. Quisumbing,Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur. G.R. No. 171310 July 9, 2008 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. SANNY CABACABA y GAYOSO, Appellant. DECISION QUISUMBING, J.: This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated December 15, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00302. The appellate court affirmed the Decision2 dated October 12, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Case No. Q-02-112846 finding appellant Sanny Cabacaba guilty for violation of Section 5,3 Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The antecedent facts in this case are as follows. On October 18, 2002, according to PO2 Jaime Ocampo’s testimony, his superior formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation at No. 138 Ermin Garcia Street, Barangay Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City after an informant had reported that appellant Sanny Cabacaba had been selling drugs at said address. PO2 Ocampo was designated as poseur buyer, with PO2 Jerry Sanchez and PO1 Glyn Fallorin as back-up. As poseur buyer, he was given one ₱200 bill with Serial Number D977936 and a ₱100 bill with Serial Number DF747795.4 Both bills were recorded in their pre-operation logbook. He marked said bills with his initials "JO."5 The police team and the informant left the police station and arrived at Ermin Garcia Street at 7:00 p.m. According to PO2 Ocampo, he and the informant proceeded to a house at 138 Ermin Garcia Street. They asked the appellant to sell to them shabu worth ₱300. Appellant then handed over two sachets of shabu to PO2 Ocampo who then gave appellant the marked money. PO2 Ocampo examined the contents of the two sachets. After determining that they contained shabu, he tapped the shoulder of appellant. This was a signal to his two companions on the look-out that the sale of shabu had just been consummated.6 As his men rushed to the place of the transaction, PO2 Ocampo got hold of appellant. The latter was able to break free from him and run into the house in front of which the sale took place. The police ran after appellant who was then collared by PO2 Ocampo inside the house. Two persons sitting on a sofa were searched like appellant. The search on one of them, who was identified as Elena Blancha, yielded a sachet of shabu. The other male person yielded no contraband. In the body search conducted on appellant, the police recovered both the ₱200 and ₱100 bills earlier received by him from PO2 Ocampo. PO2 Ocampo testified that the accused and Elena were live-in partners. In his defense, appellant testified that on October 18, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. he was attending the birthday party of the daughter of his neighbor, Elena Blancha. At around 9:30 p.m., five armed men entered Elena’s house and searched four persons including appellant and Elena. Nothing was found in their possession. After a while, however, a police officer waived a plastic sachet he said he found on top of a TV set. The armed persons then brought all four of them to the Araneta Center Police Block 5 in handcuffs.7 According to appellant, the police asked each of them to give ₱10,000 in exchange for their release. Afterwards, only appellant was detained. Appellant testified that he believed that his companions had given the police some cash. Another witness for the defense, Conrado de Guzman, 8 testified that on October 18, 2002 at around 6:00 p.m., he was walking along an alley of Ermin Garcia Street, when he met four policemen armed with armalites walking toward him. He stepped aside to give way to them. After two had passed him, however, the two others returned and grabbed him. Those persons brought him to the house of his neighbor, Elena Blancha. He saw the police officers searching the house. He also saw four persons inside that house, including Elena Blancha and the appellant, both of whom were residents of the house. He did not know the identity of the other two. Later on, a police officer cried, "Ito na ang hinahanap natin!" All five of them were brought afterwards to the police station where each one of them was interrogated inside an investigation room. After an hour, according to de Guzman, he was released.9 On cross-examination, de Guzman stated that the arresting officers told him that arresting bystanders was part of their operations. De Guzman further testified that he was a neighbor and acquaintance of the appellant.10 On October 12, 2004, the trial court convicted the appellant. Its decision reads as follows: After a review of the evidence, the court inclines towards the moral guilt of the accused. Police Officer Ocampo testified positively and unwaveringly that he purchased P300.00 worth of shabu from the accused. The accused, whose shoulder was tapped by Police Officer Ocampo as a pre-arranged signal to his companions, suddenly ran away towards a house when someone shouted, as Police Officer Ocampo and his companions were rushing in, that "Mga parak yan!" Against this strong testimonial evidence, the defense evidence is lacking in coherence, naturalness and consistency. For example, Sanny said a children’s birthday party was going on at the time of his arrest inside Elena’s house. If this is true, the court finds it impossible that defense witness Arnel did not see any child or children attending the party; did not see any birthday balloon that Sanny said festooned the occasion; and did not see any neighbor of theirs accompanying their kids and partaking of food and holding a program. Arnel only saw inside Elena’s house two men, whom he does not know, together with Sanny and Elena. He could not have failed to mention the balloons, the children and the food and drinks, if indeed there was a party there. Sanny testified that Elena’s husband was out buying liquor at that time. He said that Elena is his neighbor. As it turned out, when Arnel testified, Sanny is living-in with Elena in the same house. Indeed, if Sanny’s defense theory is true, the "husband" of Elena would have testified here. Any husband would naturally feel great indignation that during a peaceful, festive gathering of children on the occasion of his 4-year old daughter’s birthday, the police would suddenly barge in, rifle through everything in the house, arrest his wife, and charge her "falsely" of possession of shabu which carries a 12 to 20 years’ penalty. It is in fact surprising that according to Sanny, not a neighbor of Elena went to the party. This is most unusual because even among squatters, when there is a party, particularly a children’s party, there will be a lot of women in attendance, accompanying their little kids, acting as helpers in the preparations, etc. ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Sanny Cabacaba y Gayoso GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 for selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.04 gram and he is hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The drugs involved in this case are ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) thru the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) for proper legal disposition. SO ORDERED. October 12, 2004. (SGD.) JAIME N. SALAZAR, JR. Judge11 On appeal, the issues presented for determination were: I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED- APPELLANT WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED. II. THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.12 The Court of Appeals held: UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the decision appealed from must be, as it is hereby AFFIRMED, in toto. With the costs of this instance to be taxed against the accused-appellant. SO ORDERED.13 On February 20, 2006, in view of the penalty of life imprisonment imposed on appellant, the records of the case were elevated to this Court for review.14 Both parties manifested that they waived their rights to file supplemental briefs, as their arguments had been already discussed in their previous briefs.15 Briefly stated, the issues for our resolution now are: (1) Was there a valid arrest on the accused? and (2) Was the accused’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt? Appellant argues that at the time of his arrest, he had not committed, was not committing, and was not about to commit any crime. Hence, he contends that none of the circumstances justifying an arrest without a warrant under Section 516 of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court was present.17 Appellee for its part, points out that time and again, a buy-bust operation has been held as a legitimate mode of apprehending drug pushers. Although appellant was previously under surveillance, no search warrant was needed in this case since the buy-bust operation conducted was an entrapment and not a search.18 We agree with the appellee. This Court has already ruled repeatedly that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law.19 An arrest made after entrapment does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a), of the Rules of Court.20 On the second issue, appellant argues that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution falls short of the quantum of proof required for a conviction. Although the testimony of a police officer should ordinarily be accorded full faith and credence, still it cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys.21 Appellee for its part, maintains that the elements of violation of Section 5, Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 has been proven.22 Again we cannot agree with the appellant. Important in a prosecution for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place and the presentation in court of the corpus delicti,23 which has two elements: (1) proof of the occurrence of a certain event and (2) a person’s criminal responsibility for the act.24 Here, the prosecution has adequately shown that an illegal sale of drugs took place between the police and the appellant in a valid entrapment scheme. The prosecution actually presented during the trial of the case, the illegal substance and the payment seized from the appellant’s possession. In a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, usually a case becomes a contest of credibility between the accused and the police, the witnesses and their testimonies. Generally this Court relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying. 25 The factual findings by the trial court are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.26 We find no justifiable reason to deviate from this rule in the case before us.27 The reasoning of the decision by the Court of Appeals, penned by Justice Dacudao, deserves full consideration, as we quote it as follows: Case law teaches that the defense of frame-up is frowned upon as it can easily be concocted, even as it is commonly employed by the accused as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by some improper motive, or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies with respect to the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. Without proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, as in this case, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his claim of having been framed. This teaching equally applies to the accused-appellant’s allegation on extortion. Moreover, in the prosecution of the offense for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, what is essential is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. It suffices to show that the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; that such possession is not authorized by law; and that the accused has freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. Hence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain away the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. This, the accused herein, under the circumstances heretofore related, miserably failed to do.1avvphi1 Nor is it necessary to establish how the accused-appellant and the informant met, or how the police officer was introduced to the accused-appellant. Drug dealers are known to sell their goods even to strangers. They ply their wares [wherever] prospective customers are found. They have indeed become increasingly daring and openly defiant of the law. Indeed, in this case the police officers were able to prove the factuality of the transaction between PO2 Ocampo and the accused-appellant, and they were moreover able to present in court the substance seized from the latter which, after chemical examination, was found to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. PO2 Ocampo’s testimony was coherent, straightforward and candid even under intense cross-examination by the defense counsel. It bears the badges of truth, such that it is extremely difficult for a rational mind not to find it credible. The constitutional presumption of innocence can be accorded to the accused only in the absence of evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the case at bench, that constitutional presumption cannot be upheld, in the face of the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence for the prosecution irresistibly pointing to the conclusive culpability of the accused-appellant.28 We are in agreement that the facts of this case, as gleaned from the records, fully support the decision of the court a quo. Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive and, generally, will not be reviewed on appeal. 29 Thus we see no valid reason to overturn the findings of the courts below that have undergone meticulous scrutiny, and we sustain the judgment both of the trial court and the appellate court that appellant is guilty as charged beyond reasonable doubt, hence his sentence to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000 must be sustained. WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 15, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00302 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice WE CONCUR:
10-08-13 RE: Fine V Baca (09-A827), Fine V Baca (09-1250), and Fine V Baca (10-A24) at The Supreme Court of The United States - October 2009 Term Journal - Validity, or Lack Thereof