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 Baby. After conducting discreet
surveillance operations to verify the information, PO3 Josefino Callora of the PNP
and the informant met with Figueroa to order shabu on June 23, 2004.
A week later, on or about the 2nd of July 2004, the PNP conducted a buy-bust
operation after Figueroa made contact with the informant that the shabu is already
available and agreed to deliver the drug on the same day. During the said meet-up,
Figueroa showed the shabu to PO3 Callora. When PO3 Callora was about to hand
over the payment, Figueroa sensed the presence of police officers nearby and in
fear, ran away with her vehicle. Thus, the act (sale of shabu) was not consummated.
(Crim. Case No. 04-2433 version)
Note: There were two Informations (cases) filed against the accused-appellant
Jesusa Figueroa: Criminal Case No. 04-2432 on illegal possession, direct custody
and control of dangerous drugs; and Criminal Case No. 04-2433 on illegal attempt
to sell, give away, distribute and deliver dangerous drugs. Both are in violation of
Sec. 26, Art II of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002.
Figueroa was acquitted for Crim. Case No. 04-2432 for lack of evidence and was
convicted for Crim. Case No. 04-2433 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64 of
Makati. Figueroa sought a review of the decision of the RTC with the Supreme Court
but the latter remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for immediate review.
On October 25, 2007, the Court of Appeals assailed the Decision of the RTC and
affirmed the conviction of Figueroa. Figueroa appealed again with the Supreme
Court, this time, with a Supplemental Brief highlighting that the appellate court did
not tackle the issue regarding the irregularity of the buy bust operation led by the
PNP because it did not coordinate with the PDEA.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in the following issues:
a. By not holding that the PNP-led buy-bust operation irregular because of the
formers lack of prior coordination with the PDEA (under Sec. 86 of RA 9165);
b. By holding that there was a prior agreement between PO3 Callora and the
accused regarding the alleged sale of shabu; (Figueroa argues that the sale
transaction was borne between her and the informant. Hence, the informant
is the competent one to testify not PO3 Callora)

c. By giving weight and credence to the conflicting and contradictory

testimonies of PO3 Callora and P/Insp. Pepito Garcia that have direct bearing
on the elements of the offense charged; and
d. By finding the accused guilty of the offense of attempt to sell shabu as
provided under Sec. 26, Art. II of RA 9165.
Ruling:
a. Sec. 86 does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcers failure
to coordinate with the PDEA. The court noted that the said provision and
similar Internal Rules and Regulations are silent with regards to the
consequences of the failure of the PNP to coordinate with the PDEA in
conducting buy-bust operations.
b. The testimony of PO3 Callora regarding the conversations between the
informant and Figueroa is admissible and not a hearsay insofar as it
established that said information which led the PNP to prepare for and
proceed with the buy-bust operation. Under the doctrine of
independently relevant statements, hearsay rule does not apply
where only the fact that such statements were made is relevant and
the truth or falsity is immaterial.
Furthermore, the said conversation between the informant and Figueroa was
not necessary to prove the attempted sale of shabu, as said attempt to sell
was already clear from accused-appellant's actuations on July 2, 2004.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a
crime when the offender commences its commission directly by
overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance. In this case, the attempt to sell
shabu was shown by the overt act of Figueroa of showing the substance to
the poseur-buyer.
c. The alleged conflicting and contradictory testimonies of PO3 Callora and
P/Insp. Pepito Garcia (prosecution witnesses) are as what the Court of
Appeals said "referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon
the central fact of the crime, do not impair [the witnesses'] credibility" nor do
they overcome the presumption that the arresting officers have regularly
performed their official duties.
d. The SC denied Figueroas petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in convicting him in Crim. Case No. 04-2433 for violation of Sec. 26,
Art. II of RA 9165.