Case Digest: SU ZHI SHAN @ ALVIN CHING SO v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/SOLICITOR GENERAL 518 SCRA 48 (2007)

SU ZHI SHAN @ ALVIN CHING SO v . PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/SOLICITOR GENERAL 518 SCRA 48 (2007)

Even if no prior surveillance were made, the validity of an entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant, is not affected. A confidential informant reported Philippine National Police (PNP) that appellant Su Zhi Shan alias Alvin Ching So (Su Zhi Shan) was pushing drugs in Manila. The PNP Narcotics Group conducted a 10-day surveillance within the vicinity of his residence. As part of the surveillance, they conducted a test-buy operation, during which they gathered a substance, which later on was tested and found positive for shabu. Subsequently SPO1 Badua arranged a buy-bust operation. It was SPO1 Guste who acted as a poseur-buyer. During the operation SPO1 Guste, in exchange of boodle money, received a red plastic, which contained shabu. Then Su Zhi Shan was arrested. Su Zhi Shan denied the allegation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held that Su Zhi Shan was guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs and selling of illegal drugs and imposed death penalty as punishment. The case was forwarded to Court of Appeals (CA). The CA lowered the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua in the case of selling of illegal drugs, while it acquitted Su Zhi Shan in the case of illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Su Zhi Shan contended that the credibility of SPO1 Guste, was not part of test-buy operation as such is hearsay, since there was no surveillance conducted in the vicinity of the buy-bust operation.

ISSUE:

 
Whether or not the buy-bust operation is invalid

HELD:

PO1 Guste‘s testimony was not hearsay. He was the poseur-buyer who participated in the buy- bust operation. His testimony was corroborated by the Chief Inspector. PO1 Guste‘s account is likewise complemented by overwhelming documentary and object evidence, including his request for laboratory examination of the seized substance, the laboratory examination reports, the buy-bust money used, the pre-operational coordination sheet of the PNP Narcotics Group, the Booking Sheet/Arrest Report, and the substance obtained during the buy-bust operation and a photograph thereof. That the prosecution failed to present SPO1 Badua and the confidential informer does not weaken its case as the discretion to choose witnesses to be presented for the State and to dispense with the testimonies of witnesses who would only give corroboration rests on the prosecution. That no evidence was presented on the conduct of the surveillance and of the venue for the test- bust operation and that the surveillance was for the purpose of procuring the search warrant do not help Su Zhi Shan‘s case. For even if no prior surveillance were made, the validity of an entrapment operation, especially when the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant, as in the case at bar, is not affected.