Case Digest: SU ZHI SHAN @ ALVIN CHING SO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/SOLICITOR GENERAL

SU ZHI SHAN @ ALVIN CHING SO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/SOLICITOR GENERAL

518 SCRA 48 (2007), SECOND DIVISION

A confidential informant reported to the Philippine National Police (PNP) that Su Zhi Shan, alias Alvin Ching So (Su Zhi Shan), was selling prohibited drugs in Manila. The PNP Narcotics Group thereafter 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.

SPO1 Badua subsequently 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 containing a shabu. Su Zhi Shan was then arrested. Su Zhi Shan denied the allegations against him.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Su Zhi Shan guilty of illegal possession and selling of illegal drugs. It imposed death penalty as punishment. The Court of Appeals lowered the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, Su Zhi Shan avers that the testimonies of SPO1 Guste were mere hearsay.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the testimonies of SPO1 Guste should be given credence

HELD:

SPO1 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. SPO1 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.