People vs. Linsangan

A buy-bust sale of prohibited drugs is established by the direct testimony of the poseur-buyer and corroborating officers, whose credibility is accorded great respect on appeal; the accused’s act of initialing marked money without counsel does not infringe the right against self-incrimination or the right to counsel because the marked bills are not the crime and initialing is not testimonial compulsion.

In early November 1987, police operatives of the Drug Enforcement Unit, Police Station No. 3, Western Police District, received reports of rampant drug pushing on Dinalupihan Street, Tondo, Manila. The suspect was described as a male about 20 years old, 5’5” in height, of ordinary build, who sold marijuana without regard to age. A buy-bust operation was planned for November 13, 1987, after a prior test-buy operation on Rizal Avenue resulted in an arrest and the arrested person confirmed sourcing marijuana from Dinalupihan Street.

The Buy-Bust Operation: On November 13, 1987, a buy-bust team composed of Patrolman Roberto Ruiz (team leader), Pfc. Eleazar Lahom, Patrolman Tomasito Corpuz, and Patrolman Jesus Saulog proceeded to Dinalupihan Street, Tondo. Before leaving, two ten-peso bills were marked with initials “T.C.” by Pat. Corpuz, who gave one to the confidential informant. The team, in civilian clothes, parked their owner-type jeep near Pampanga Street. Pat. Corpuz, wearing maong shorts and a white shirt, and the informant approached the accused, who sat by the gutter six meters away, wearing blue-and-green shorts and a sando. Pat. Lahom and Saulog remained in the vehicle, and Pat. Ruiz stood by the jeep to observe.

The Sale: The informant signaled the accused, who approached. They walked toward a wooden house. The informant said, “Kukuha ako,” asked the price, and told the accused he would buy P10 worth and his “compadre” (Corpuz) would also get P10 worth—totaling ten sticks at P2 each. The accused took the P20 from Corpuz and tucked it in his front waist. He briefly went inside the wooden house, emerged, and handed ten sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes to Corpuz. Corpuz received them with his right hand and simultaneously grabbed the accused, identifying himself as a policeman and warning him not to resist. Ruiz saw the prearranged signal and rushed over; the informant fled. After a brief struggle, the accused was subdued.

Seizure and Marking: Upon frisking Linsangan, Pat. Ruiz retrieved the two marked ten-peso bills (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) tucked in his waist. Ruiz had the accused sign his name on the bills. Later, at the station, the accused also placed his initials “C.L.” on each of the ten marijuana sticks. The sticks were sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division, where Carina Javier confirmed them positive for marijuana. Ruiz then booked the appellant and filed the case.

Defense Version: Linsangan denied the charge. He testified that around 10:30 a.m. on the same day, he was at a neighbor’s vendor stand buying breakfast when two men alighted from a jeep, asked if he was Carlito Linsangan, introduced themselves as policemen, frisked him, and took him away. He claimed the police fabricated the charge because he had previously refused to let Corpuz and Ruiz board his tricycle to chase someone. He presented a barangay certificate of good moral character and a neighbor, Emeterio Balboa, who corroborated the sudden arrest.

Trial Court’s Findings: The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible, rejecting the defense of frame-up. It noted that the arresting officers’ testimonies were categorical and consistent on material points, and that the accused’s supposed motive for fabrication—refusing a ride to armed policemen—was implausible. The trial court sentenced Linsangan to reclusion perpetua and a P20,000 fine.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Appellant argued that Pfc. Ruiz and Pat. Corpuz were motivated by ill feelings because he had denied them a tricycle ride, and their testimonies contained contradictions and inconsistencies.
• Source of the Marijuana: Appellant maintained that it was the informer, not the accused, who handed the ten marijuana sticks to Pat. Corpuz.
• Planted Evidence: Appellant contended that the marked money was planted on his person by the arresting officers.
• Constitutional Rights during Custodial Investigation: Appellant asserted that requiring him to initial the P10 bills without the assistance of counsel violated his right to counsel, right to remain silent, and right against self-incrimination while under custodial investigation.

• Presumption of Regularity and Credibility: The People countered that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect absent arbitrariness, and the minor inconsistencies noted did not impair the prosecution’s overall case.
• Implausibility of Frame-Up: The prosecution argued that the alleged ill motive—refusal to give a tricycle ride—was incredible for a lowly tricycle driver to defy armed policemen.
• Proof of Sale: The prosecution maintained that the direct testimony of the poseur-buyer and the corroborating officers established the sale beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense’s version did not overcome the positive identification.
• No Custodial Violation: The People submitted that initialing the marked bills was not a testimonial act and that possession of the bills was not the crime charged; thus, the right against self-incrimination and the right to counsel were not implicated.

• Credibility and Ill Motive: Whether the trial court erred in not finding that the prosecution witnesses were motivated by ill feelings and that their testimonies were fraught with contradictions.
• Identity of the Seller: Whether the trial court erred in not finding that it was the informer, not the accused, who handed the marijuana sticks to the poseur-buyer.
• Planted Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in not holding that the marked money was planted evidence.
• Custodial Rights: Whether the trial court erred in not holding that the accused’s constitutional right to counsel, right to remain silent, and right against self-incrimination were violated when he was required to initial the marked bills without counsel.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.

• Credibility and Ill Motive: The trial court’s assessment of credibility was accorded great respect and was not shown to be arbitrary. The alleged inconsistencies in the affidavit of arrest concerned minor details that did not detract from the overall probative value of the prosecution’s evidence. The claimed ill motive—that the accused refused to let the policemen ride his tricycle—was found incredible, as a tricycle driver would not likely defy armed officers.
• Identity of the Seller: The positive, categorical testimony of Patrolman Corpuz, the poseur-buyer who personally received the marijuana sticks from the accused, was believed over the accused’s bare denial. The trial court gave more credence to the law enforcers’ declarations, as they were presumed to have performed their official duties regularly.
• Planted Evidence: The defense of planted evidence was not substantiated and could not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers’ duties. The trial court’s rejection of the frame-up theory was upheld.
• Custodial Rights: The initialing of the marked P10 bills without counsel did not infringe the right against self-incrimination or the right to counsel. Possession of marked money is not a crime; the offense prosecuted was the sale of marijuana. The marked bills were real evidence, and the act of initialing was not testimonial compulsion. The conviction rested on the credible testimony regarding the sale itself, not on the presence of initials on the bills.
• Penalty: The penalty of reclusion perpetua was erroneous. Pursuant to Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 21, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the proper penalty for the sale of marijuana is life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000, not reclusion perpetua. Accordingly, the penalty was modified.

• Presumption of Regularity in Official Duties — Law enforcers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; this presumption applies to buy-bust operations and can prevail over the accused’s uncorroborated denial of the sale.
• Assessment of Credibility of Trial Court — The trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly shown to be arbitrary or plainly mistaken.
• Non-Testimonial Character of Marked Money — The act of requiring an accused to initial marked money retrieved from his person does not violate the right against self-incrimination or the right to counsel during custodial investigation because the possession of such money is not itself a crime, and the initialing is not testimonial in nature. The prosecution remains for the sale of prohibited drugs, established by ocular testimony.
• Buy-Bust Operation as Valid Arrest — A buy-bust operation is a valid form of entrapment, and the testimony of the poseur-buyer and the apprehending officers regarding the transaction is generally sufficient to sustain a conviction, provided it is credible and consistent on material points.

• “His conviction was not based on the presence of his initials on the P10-bills, but on the fact that the trial court believed the testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually engaged in selling marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party.” — This passage encapsulates the ratio that the prosecution’s case did not hinge on the accused’s marking of the bills and thus no custodial rights were infringed.
• “That is as it should be for as law enforcers, they are presumed to have performed their official duties in a regular manner… Their task of apprehending persons engaged in the deadly drug trade is difficult enough without legal and procedural technicalities to make it doubly so.” — Frequently cited to emphasize the weight given to police testimony in drugs cases and the policy against overly technical constructions that hamper law enforcement.

• People vs. Caldito, 182 SCRA 554 — Followed; stands for the principle that the trial court’s assessment of credibility is entitled to great respect unless clearly arbitrary.
• People vs. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47 ; People vs. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762 ; Mejia vs. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 — Applied; these cases established that the act of initialing marked money does not violate the right against self-incrimination because possession of marked money is not a crime.
• People vs. Tan, 145 SCRA 614 — Applied; held that the trial court’s decision to credit the positive declarations of the police over the accused’s denial is proper.
• People vs. de Jesus, 145 SCRA 521 ; People vs. Ale, 145 SCRA 50 — Applied; applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by law enforcement officers.

• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended — Defines and penalizes the sale, delivery, administration, or distribution of prohibited drugs; served as the basis for the criminal charge.
• Section 21, Article IV, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — Prescribes the penalty for the offense charged; applied to correct the penalty from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.
• Article III, Section 12, 1987 Constitution (Right to Counsel and Custodial Investigation Rights) — Invoked by the accused; the ruling clarified that initialing marked bills is not a testimonial act and does not trigger the right to counsel.
• Article III, Section 17, 1987 Constitution (Right against Self-Incrimination) — Held inapplicable to the initialing of the marked money because the possession of such money was not the crime charged.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concurred.