People vs. Figueroa (G.R. No. 186141, April 11, 2012)
Facts: On June 20, 2004, the PNP received a report from an informant about drug-pushing activities of accused-appellant Figueroa alias !ab"#$ %fter conducting discreet surveillance surveillance operations to verif" the information, PO& Jose'no (allora of the PNP and the informant met )ith Figueroa to order shabu on June 2&, 2004$ % )ee* later, on or about the 2 nd of Jul" 2004, the PNP conducted a bu"-bust operation after Figueroa made contact )ith the informant that the shabu is alread" available and agreed to deliver the drug on the same da"$ da"$ +uring the said meet-up, Figueroa sho)ed the shabu to PO& (allora$ hen PO& (allora )as about to hand over the pa"ment, Figueroa sensed the presence of police ocers nearb" and in fear, ran a)a" )ith her vehicle$ .hus, the act /sale of shabu )as not consummated$ /(rim$ (ase No$ 04-24&& version Note: .here )ere t)o 1nformations /cases 'led against the accused-appellant Jesusa Figueroa: Figueroa: (riminal (riminal (ase No$ No$ 04-24&2 on illegal possession, possession, direct direct custod" and control# of dangerous drugs and (riminal (ase No$ 04-24&& on illegal attempt to sell, give a)a", distribute distribute and deliver# dangerous dangerous drugs$ !oth are in violation of 3ec$ 2, %rt 11 of 5% 678 or the (omprehensive +angerous %ct of 2002$ Figueroa )as ac9uitted for (rim$ (ase No$ 04-24&2 for lac* of evidence and )as convicted for (rim$ (ase No$ 04-24&& b" the 5egional .rial (ourt, !ranch 4 of a*ati$ Figueroa sought a revie) of the decision of the 5.( )ith the 3upreme (ourt but the latter remanded the case to the (ourt of %ppeals for immediate revie)$ On October 28, 200;, the (ourt of %ppeals assailed the +ecision of the 5.( and armed the conviction of Figueroa$ Figueroa appealed again )ith the 3upreme (ourt, this time, )ith a 3upplemental !rief highlighting that the appellate court did not tac*le the issue regarding the irregularit" of the bu" bust operation led b" the PNP because it did not coordinate )ith the P+<%$ 1ssue: hether or not the trial court erred in the follo)ing issues: a$ !" not holding holding that the the PNP-led bu"-bust operation irregular irregular because because of the former=s lac* of prior coordination )ith the P+<% /under 3ec$ > of 5% 678 b$ !" holding that there there )as a prior agreement agreement bet)een PO& (allora and the accused regarding the alleged sale of shabu /Figueroa /Figueroa argues that the sale transaction )as borne bet)een her and the informant$ ?ence, the informant is the competent one to testif" not PO& (allora
c$ !" giving )eight and credence to the con@icting and contradictor" testimonies of PO& (allora and PA1nsp$ Pepito Barcia that have direct bearing on the elements of the oCense charged and d$ !" 'nding the accused guilt" of the oCense of attempt to sell shabu as provided under 3ec$ 2, %rt$ 11 of 5% 678$ 5uling: a$ 3ec$ > does not invalidate operations on account of the la) enforcer=s failure to coordinate )ith the P+<%$ .he court noted that the said provision and similar 1nternal 5ules and 5egulations are silent )ith regards to the conse9uences of the failure of the PNP to coordinate )ith the P+<% in conducting bu"-bust operations$
b. .he testimon" of PO& (allora regarding the conversations bet)een the informant and Figueroa is admissible and not a hearsa" insofar as it established that said information )hich led the PNP to prepare for and proceed )ith the bu"-bust operation$ Uner !"e o#!rine o$ inepenen!l% relevan! s!a!e&en!s, "earsa% rule oes no! appl% '"ere onl% !"e $a#! !"a! su#" s!a!e&en!s 'ere &ae is relevan! an !"e !ru!" or $alsi!% is i&&a!erial. Furthermore, the said conversation bet)een the informant and Figueroa )as not necessar" to prove the attempted sale of shabu, as said attempt to sell )as alread" clear from accused-appellantDs actuations on Jul" 2, 2004$
Uner !"e Revise Penal oe, !"ere is an a!!e&p! !o #o&&i! a #ri&e '"en !"e oener #o&&en#es i!s #o&&ission ire#!l% b% over! a#!s bu! oes no! per$or& all !"e a#!s o$ e*e#u!ion '"i#" s"oul prou#e !"e $elon% b% reason o$ so&e #ause or a##ien! o!"er !"an "is o'n spon!aneous esis!an#e. 1n this case, the attempt to sell shabu )as sho)n b" the overt act of Figueroa of sho)ing the substance to the poseur-bu"er$ c$ .he alleged con@icting and contradictor" testimonies of PO& (allora and PA1nsp$ Pepito Barcia /prosecution )itnesses are as )hat the (ourt of %ppeals said Ereferring to minor details, and not in actualit" touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair the )itnessesDG credibilit"E nor do the" overcome the presumption that the arresting ocers have regularl" performed their ocial duties$ d$ .he 3( denied Figueroa=s petition and armed the +ecision of the (ourt of %ppeals in convicting him in (rim$ (ase No$ 04-24&& for violation of 3ec$ 2, %rt$ 11 of 5% 678$
