PEOPLE VS.

CHUA UY The trial court gave credence to the

[G.R. No. 128046. March 7, 2000.] prosecution’s story of a legitimate buy bust
operation and testimony of witnesses
despite the non-presentation of the NBI
FACTS: Forensics Chemist who tested and
 A female confidential informant personally confirmed that substance found in the
informed the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the PNP accused possession is indeed shabu.
Malabon City that Ramon Uy (alias The accused interposed the defense of
Chekwa) asked her to look for a buyer of frame-up and alleged that the evidence was
shabu at a price of P1,000.00 per gram. merely ‘planted.’ He is GUILTY of illegal
possession of shabu.
 Acting on the given information, the
members of the unit subsequently planned
UY’S CONTENTIONS:
a buy-bust operation against the accused.
The confidential informant told Uy that there
The prosecution should present NBI Forensic
is a prospective buyer (to be delivered in
Chemist. His testimony cannot be waived since
front of Justice Hall of Malabon City). One
only he could say whether the substance allegedly
police acted as poseur buyer. Then, they
seized is indeed shabu, and also determine its
were able to obtain shabu from him.
actual weight upon which depends the penalty to
o Police yielded more shabu packets
be imposed. Thus, whatever he said in his report is
from his attache case hearsay and hearsay evidence, whether objected to
 When he was brought to the office for or not, has no probative value.
investigation, it was learned that there was
still an undetermined amount shabu that is ISSUES:
left at his home.
o SPO4 Regalado applied on the 1. W/N an agreement, during pre-trial, to
following day for a search warrant to dispense with testimonies of the Forensic
lawfully search the said premises of Chemist may be considered an admission
the accused for shabu. They were of findings of such chemist on contents of
able to obtain shabu. seized plastic bag – NO
 During pre-trial, the parties agreed on a
joint trial and to dispense with the 2. W/N the Forensics Chemist should be
testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. presented as witness – NO
Bravo. They also agreed on the marking of
the exhibits for the prosecution.
HELD:
UY’S VERSION
 He just got home from tending to his Petition DENIED. Ramon Chua Uy is GUILTY.
garments business and was carrying a
large amount of money, P132,000 to be  It may at once be noted that neither
exact from his collections for the sales of accused nor his counsel made express
the day. admission that the contents of the
 He said that he saw a white Toyota car plastic bags to “be marked” as Exhibits
outside his residence, the same being contain shabu.
offered to him for sale. o Based on the joint order, it is clear
 He allegedly refused but agreed to test- that accused and his counsel merely
drive the said car. It was then that he agreed to the marking of the
was allegedly stopped by the police and exhibits, and the clause “thereby
was ordered to give up his attaché case dispensing with the testimony of
and forcible taken to the police station. It forensic Chemist Bravo.”
was there that he was accused that said o Even granting for the sake of
case contained the illegal substance. argument that Uy admitted during
pre-trial order that the packs
TC DECISION: contained shabu, it still CANNOT be
used as evidence against
 him because the Joint Order was not standing by for possible assignment, a confidential
signed. informant arrived and told them at a person was
o When the prosecution formally selling marijuana at Interior Gov. Pascual St., San
offered in evidence what it had Jose, Navotas. They immediately proceeded to the
marked in evidence during the pre- said area where Ira positioned himself about ten
trial, Uy did not object to the (10) meters away from the point where the alleged
admission of Bravo’s Preliminary sale took place. Arevalo, accompanied by the
Report. confidential informant, acted as the poseur buyer.
After having been approached by Arevalo and the
 The issue of non-presentation of evidence confidential informant, appellant, who was later
of Forensic Chemist Bravo was never raised identified as Dandy de Jesus, left for a while, after
in the lower courts. This is for the first time, which he returned and handed three (3) tea bags of
on appeal. Marijuana to Arevalo. Upon seeing Arevalo handing
o Objection to evidence CANNOT be something in return to appellant, which actually was
raised for the first time on appeal; the marked money, Ira approached them and
when a party desires the court to arrested the latter. The findings of the Forensic
reject the evidence offered, he must Chemistry Section of the Bureau showed that they
so state in the form of objection. are positive to Marijuana.
Without such objection he cannot
raise the question for the first time ISSUE:
on appeal. WON the accussed-appelant is found guilty by
proof beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section
 The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.
the inadmissibility of certain documents
upon the ground of hearsay if not urged RULING:
before the court below CANNOT, for the It is a well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that the
first time, be raised on appeal.   findings of the trial court regarding the issue of
 Finally, as to the reports of Forensic credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are
Chemist Bravo, it must be stressed that as entitled to great respect and are accorded the
an NBI Forensic Chemist, Bravo is a public highest consideration by appellate courts. Deviation
officer, and his report carries the from the rule is allowed only when the
presumption of regularity in the performance circumstances of the case show that the trial court
of his function and duty. has overlooked facts, which will substantially alter
the results of its adjudication. Corollary to this, it
* BASICALLY – Just because the party agreed to has likewise been consistently ruled that credibility
dispense the testimony of the Forensic Chemist, he is a matter that is peculiarly within the province of
is already admitting that the item seized is shabu. the trial judge, who had first-hand opportunity to
* There was valid warrantless arrest and seizure in watch and observe the demeanor and behavior of
this case because he caught in flagrante delicto. witnesses, both for the prosecution and the
defense, at the time of their testimony.

The fact that he still returned with three (3) tea bags
People v. De Jesus of marijuana leaves after having been offered a
certain amount by the police officer shows his
FACTS: willingness to enter into a transaction with him. Ant
On or about September 26, 1989, in the that willingness, in turn, showed that he opted to
Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, he willfully, take the risk of being brought into the folds of law.
unlawfully, and feloniously sold, delivered and gave
away three (3) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves, It is also well recognized that the prosecution’s
a prohibited drug. Upon being duly arraigned, he decision not to present the confidential informant is
pleaded not guilty to the charge. At the trial, the not unjustified. Police informants work incognito; to
prosecution presented Efren Arevalo and Nemesio parade them in court would destroy their
Ira, both of the Navotas Police Station, as its usefulness. Therefore, his identity may remain
witnesses. Their testimony proved, and the trial confidential. There are strong practical reasons for
court found, that at around three o’clock in the such continued secrecy, including the continued
afternoon of September 26, 1989, they were health and safety of the informer and the
encouragement of others to report wrong doings to
the police authorities.

Finally, the defense of appellant constitutes a

combination of an alibi and denial, definitely the
weakest defense. Trite as it may appear to be, we
repeat all over that to serve as a basis for acquittal,
the defense of alibi must be established by clear
and convincing evidence. The requisites of time
and place must be strictly met. It must affirmatively
appear not only that the accused was at some
other place at the time of the perpetration of the
offense but also that the circumstances are such as
logically to generate the conclusion that it was
physically impossible for him to be present at the
scene.

Wherefore, the Supreme Court finds the accused

Dandy De Jesus guilty for violation of Section 4,
Article II of the Republic Act 6425.