Ramon Chua Uy (hereafter RAMON ) appeals from the decision1 [Per Judge Benjamin J. Antonio; Original Record (OR), Criminal Case No. 16199-MN, 305-315; Rollo, 47- 57. All references to the record pertain to the said case, unless indicated otherwise.] of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 170, Metro Manila, in Criminal Cases No. 16199-MN and No. 16200-MN, which decreed him guilty of violating Sections 15 and 16 of Article III, R.A. No. 6425,2 [The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.] as amended, for the illegal sale of 5.8564 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," and possession of 401 grams of the same drug, respectively.

RAMON was arrested in the evening of 11 September 1995 by the elements of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Philippine National Police in Malabon, Metro-Manila, in the course of a buy-bust operation3 [Affidavit of SPO1 Alberto G. Nepomuceno, Jr., and Joint Affidavit of Arrest of SPO4 Eddie S. Regalado, PO3 Federico Ortiz and PO1 Joel E. Borda. OR, 3-5.] and a follow-up search of his residence, and was subsequently charged in three cases, namely, Criminal Case No. 16199-MN, Criminal Case No. 16200-MN and Criminal Case No. 16201-MN.

The accusatory portion of the Information4 [OR, 1-2.] in Criminal Case No. 16199-MN alleges:

The accusatory portion of the Information5 [Id., Criminal Case No. 16200-MN, 1-2.] in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN charges:

In Criminal Case No. 16201-MN, RAMON was charged with the illegal possession of "traces" of shabu found on three (3) plastic scoops and other drug paraphernalia which were seized from his supposed residence in a follow-up search.

No bail was recommended. When arraigned, RAMON pleaded not guilty in each case.6 [OR, 21.] During the pre-trial, the parties agreed on a joint trial and to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo.7 Joint Order of 21 November 1995, 1; OR, 21-22.] They also agreed on the marking of the exhibits for the prosecution.

At the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses SPO1 Alberto G. Nepomuceno, Jr., who acted as the poseur-buyer, and SPO4 Eddie Regalado, another member of the buy-bust team, as rebuttal witness. The defense presented RAMON and Maritess Puno.

The trial court summarized the prosecution’s evidence, thus:

RAMON’s version of the incident is also faithfully summarized by the trial court, thus:

Maritess Puno, the other defense witness, testified on the events which transpired during the follow-up search by the police of RAMON’s suspected house at No. 402 Gen. Vicente Street, San Rafael Village, Navotas, and on the fact that she knew RAMON.10 [TSN, 19 September 1996, 3-10; OR, 291-298.]

On rebuttal, SPO4 Regalado reiterated that the five (5) transparent plastic bags of "shabu" were indeed found inside RAMON’s confiscated attache case and that they recovered therefrom only P20-peso bills amounting to P2,200 and not P1,000-peso bills as RAMON claims.11 [TSN, 22 October 1996, 2-5; OR, 300-303.]

In its decision,12 [Supra note 1.] dated 10 December 1996, the trial court found credible the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and its evidence to have established beyond reasonable doubt the culpability of RAMON in Criminal Cases Nos. 16199-MN and 16200-MN. It acquitted him in Criminal Case No. 16201-MN. It then decreed:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s story of a legitimate buy-bust operation; declared that poseur-buyer SPO1 Nepomuceno creditably testified as to how the sale took place inside the white Toyota car of RAMON and that his testimony "was amply corroborated" by SPO4 Regalado. It held that RAMON’s entrapment and arrest were not effected in a haphazard way with the police undertaking "the rigors of planning" the buy-bust operation. The presumption that they regularly performed their duty was not rebutted by proof of any ulterior motive. It concluded that the prosecution has proved with certainty all the elements necessary for the crime of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and since RAMON was caught in flagrante delicto selling a regulated drug, his warrantless arrest was valid and the seizure of five (5) more packets of shabu weighing 401 grams (Exhibits "D" to "D-4") from the confiscated attache case of RAMON was justified and legal in light of the prevailing rule that an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any property found upon his person in order to find and seize things connected with the crime. The trial court also cited the confirmation by the NBI’s Forensic Division Chemist, Loreto F. Bravo, that the packets of shabu bought and seized from RAMON, was tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug (Exhibit "C").

The trial court was not convinced of RAMON’s claim of innocence and frame up. It doubted his tale that when arrested, he was just test-driving the car of a certain Arnold, and that he was carrying P132,000 in various denominations inside his attache case which the police did not account for. It also dismissed as trivialities RAMON’s attack on the existence and preparation of the buy-bust money and lack of prior surveillance, since a police report listing the names of the donors of the money used by the police to finance its anti-drug operation, the marking of the buy-bust money itself, and prior surveillance are not indispensable to the conduct of a buy-bust operation, as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven.

Unsatisfied, RAMON appealed from the decision. In view of the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN, the appeal is now before us.

In his Appellant’s Brief, RAMON submits that the trial court erred (1) in giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the evidence for the defense; and (2) in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of drug pushing and drug possession. He assails the credibility of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the buy-bust operation, contending that the price of P1,000 for a gram of shabu is "so exorbitant"13 [Citing the cases of People v. Tranca , 235 SCRA 455 [1994], and People v. Ong, 245 SCRA 733 [1995], where the price of shabu was only P100 for 1.1 grams, and P650 for one kilo, respectively.] as to be in credible and claims that the police officers only made it to appear that the price was exactly P1,000 per gram because there were P1,000-peso bills among the P132,000 which they got from his attache case. He insists that he is a legitimate garments businessman who need not resort to selling illicit drugs to make money; in fact, he was carrying his day’s collection amounting to P132,000 when accosted by the police in the evening of 11 September 1995. Thus, the female confidential agent/police informer should have testified in court to prove her claims against him.

Finally RAMON submits that without the testimony of NBI Forensic Chemist, the prosecution’s case "falls to pieces." Bravo’s testimony cannot be waived since only he could say whether the substance allegedly seized is indeed shabu, and also determine its actual weight upon which depends the penalty to be imposed. Thus, whatever he said in his report is hearsay and hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value. He insists that at the pretrial he did not waive the testimony of the chemist but only "stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s evidence."

In the Appellee’s Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), urges us to affirm RAMON’s conviction. It agrees with the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. The price of shabu at P1,000 per gram is not incredible. It was the price quoted by the informant, prompting the buy-bust team to prepare five (5) P1,000-peso bills which they actually paid to RAMON but later recovered. The Tranca and Ong cases14 [Supra note 13.] cited by RAMON cannot be relied upon because the price of shabu or any illegal drugs for that matter is determined by the law of supply and demand, not by law or jurisprudence. Besides, the amount of shabu sold to the poseur buyer in Tranca for P100 was only 0.06 gram; while in Ong, the price of P650 per kilo of shabu involved transactions done way back in March, 1993. It is then neither impossible nor improbable for the street price of shabu to reach P1,000 per gram in 1995 when the illegal sale was committed in this case since the price of illegal drugs are not fixed, but determined by its availability on the street and the demand of users. Secondly, RAMON’s avowal that he is a legitimate garments businessman who need not earn money the illegal way is purely self-serving, since the members of the Malabon Police Anti-Narcotics Unit caught him in the act of selling shabu to a member of the buy-bust team and further carried 401 grams more of shabu inside his attache case. Finally, the police informer need not be presented to establish the buy-bust since it was not she but the police who caught RAMON in the act of selling and possession of shabu. Her presentation is neither essential nor indispensable for RAMON’s conviction, since her testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.15 [Citing People v. Ballagan, 247 SCRA 535 [1995].]

On the non-presentation of Loreto Bravo, the NBI forensic chemist, the OSG argues that Bravo’s finding that the drugs seized from RAMON were indeed the regulated methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu, is not hearsay. Bravo did not testify anymore because the parties agreed during the pre-trial to dispense with his testimony. RAMON never objected to the order. Neither did he move to reconsider it. The facts thus stipulated and incorporated in the pre-trial order bound him.16 [People v. Abelita, 210 SCRA 497, 501-502 [1992].] Moreover, at the trial RAMON never raised the question of the non-presentation of the forensic chemist; what his counsel objected to was with respect to the presentation and identification of the shabu wherein defense objected to the irregular act of showing the confiscated drug to SPO1 Nepomuceno without laying the basis therefor.17 [TSN, 14 March 1993, 7-8, 12.] The defense counsel did not also object to the direct examination of SPO4 Regalado concerning the whereabouts and identification of the subject shabu.

We find no merit in this appeal.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted for the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan; it is a procedure or operation sanctioned by law and which has consistently proved itself to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, and unless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimony on the operation deserved full faith and credit.18 [People v. Gaco, 222 SCRA 49 [1993]; People v. Garcia, 235 SCRA 371 [1994].] As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary; moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.19 [People v. Alhambra, 233 SCRA 604 [1994].]

We, of course, are aware that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians.20 [People v. Pagaura, 267 SCRA 17 [1997]; People v. Bagus, 277 SCRA 157, 172 [1997].] But the defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties.21 [People v. Dichoso, 223 SCRA 174 [1993]; People v. Constantino, 235 SCRA 384 [1994]; People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 [1994].] Moreover, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.22 [People v. Lacabanes, 270 SCRA 193 [1997]; People v. Alegro, 275 SCRA 216 [1997]; Manalili v. Court of Appeals [1997]; People v. Enriquez, 281 SCRA 103 [1997].]

In the cases at bar, our review of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses yields no basis to overturn the trial court’s findings on their credibility. As correctly noted by the trial court, there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. RAMON has not even tried to suggest any ulterior motive.

We are convinced that in the evening of 11 September 1995, an honest- to- goodness entrapment operation against RAMON was conducted by the team composed of the local Anti-Narcotics Unit’s Chief himself, Police Inspector Ricardo Aquino, OIC, SPO4 Eddie Regalado, PO Alberto G. Nepomuceno, PO3 Federico Ortiz and PO1 Joel Borda.23 [TSN, 14 March 1996, 6.] Nepomuceno, the poseur-buyer had not seen RAMON before, although he had previous background information about RAMON. Nepomuceno conducted surveillance on RAMON.24 [Id., 5-6.]

The price of P1,000 per gram of shabu paid by the "poseur-buyer" Nepomuceno to RAMON cannot be considered "so exhorbitant" as to render the account of the buy-bust improbable. In fact, in a buy-bust operation conducted by the policemen in Sampaloc, Manila on 5 July 1995, or more than a month earlier, P500 only fetched 0.395 gram of shabu,25 [People v. Juatan, 260 SCRA 532, 534-535 [1996].] which meant that the selling price then was already more than P1,000 for a full gram of shabu.

As to the buy-bust money, Nepomuceno categorically stated that after receiving the information from their informant, Police Inspector Ricardo Aquino, Chief of the Anti-Narcotic Unit, formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation "and prepared marked money worth P5,000 in P1,000 denomination and instructed [him] to act as poseur buyer in the operation." They photocopied (xeroxed) them and "got the serial numbers." After the operation, they submitted them to the prosecutor’s office.26 [TSN, 14 March 1996, 4-5, 6.] Nepomuceno underwent grueling cross-examination by defense counsel27 [TSN, 18 April 1996, 3-17; OR, 206-220; 16 May 1996, 2-20; OR, 222-241.] but he never wavered on his testimony on the conduct of the buy-bust operation. On cross-examination, Nepomuceno revealed that the source of their buy-bust money is Mayor Amado S. Vicencio.28 [TSN, 18 April 1996, 7-8; 16 May 1996, 210-211.]

The failure to present the informer did not diminish the integrity of the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution. Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police.29 [People v. Marcelo, 223 SCRA 24 [1993].] Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with since his or her narration would be merely corroborative, as in this case, when the poseur- buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug.30 [People v. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 [1994].]

On the other hand, RAMON only offered an unsubstantiated tale of frame-up. He did not even present his own driver named "Lolong" to corroborate his tale.

As against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that they caught RAMON in a buy-bust operation, supported by other evidence such as the packets of shabu sold by and seized from him, RAMON’s negative testimony must necessarily fail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative testimony, especially when it comes from the mouth of credible witness.31 [People v. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335 [1997].]

Since RAMON was caught in flagrante selling shabu, the trial court correctly ruled that his warrantless arrest and the seizure of his attache case containing more shabu was also valid and lawful.32 [People v. Sibug, 229 SCRA 489 [1994].] Besides, RAMON never raised, on constitutional grounds, the issue of inadmissibility of the evidence thus obtained.

We now address RAMON’s contention that since the NBI Forensic Chemist did not testify, his findings that the specimens submitted to him were indeed shabu and weighed so much, are hearsay and leave the evidence of the prosecution insufficient to convict. RAMON’s premise is that at the pre-trial he did not waive the Forensic Chemist’s testimony but only "stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s evidence." Indeed, the records disclose that during the pre-trial, conducted immediately after the arraignment on 21 November 1995, RAMON, duly represented by counsel de parte Atty. Gerardo Alberto,33 [OR, 15.] and the prosecution stipulated on the markings of the prosecution’s exhibits, and agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Loreto F. Bravo. Thereafter the trial court issued a Joint Order, which embodies its ruling granting the motion of the trial prosecutor for the joint trial of the two cases and the withdrawal of the motion for reinvestigation by RAMON’s counsel; RAMON’s plea of not guilty in each case; and the proceedings at the pre-trial. As to the latter, the Joint Order states:

It may at once be noted that neither RAMON nor his counsel made express admission that the contents of the plastic bags to "be marked" as Exhibits "D," "D-1," "D-2," "D-3," "D-4," and "E" contain methamphetamine hydrochloride. That RAMON agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bravo may not be considered an admission of the findings of Bravo on the contents of the plastic bag. Strictly, from the tenor of the aforequoted portion of the Joint Order, it is clear that RAMON and his counsel merely agreed to the marking of the exhibits, and the clause "thereby dispensing with the testimony of forensic Chemist Loreto E. Bravo" must be understood in that context.

Even granting for the sake of argument that RAMON admitted during the pre-trial that Exhibits "D" to "D-4," inclusive, and Exhibit "E" contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, the admission cannot be used in evidence against him because the Joint Order was not signed by RAMON and his counsel. Section 4 of Rule 118 of the Rules of Court expressly provides:

Put in another way, to bind the accused the pre-trial order must be signed not only by him but his counsel as well. The purpose of this requirement is to further safeguard the rights of the accused against improvident or unauthorized agreements or admissions which his counsel may have entered into without his knowledge, as he may have waived his presence at the pre-trial conference;36 [REGALADO, Florenz, D., Remedial Law Compendium, vol. 2 (7th revised ed.), 423.] eliminate any doubt on the conformity of the accused to the facts agreed upon.37 [PAMARAN, Manuel, The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure Annotated, 1998 ed., 391.]

Nevertheless, RAMON cannot take advantage of the absence of his and his counsel’s signatures on the pre-trial order. When the prosecution formally offered in evidence what it had marked in evidence during the pre-trial, RAMON did not object to the admission of Bravo’s Preliminary Report (Exh. "B"), Final Report (Exh. "C"), another Final Report (Exh. "F"), and of the plastic bags (Exhibits "D" to "D-4" inclusive, and "E").

When asked to comment on the exhibits formally offered, RAMON’s counsel merely stated:

In its offer of the exhibits, the prosecution explicitly described what the foregoing exhibits was and the purposes for which they were offered, thus:

In addition to the foregoing admission by RAMON of the prosecution’s exhibits, he likewise never raised in issue before the trial court the non-presentation of Forensic Chemist Bravo. RAMON cannot now raise it for the first time on appeal. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.40 [FRANCISCO, VICENTE J., 1 The Revised Rules of Court, Vol. 1, Part II, 1997 ed., 405.] The familiar rule in this jurisdiction is that the inadmissibility of certain documents upon the ground of hearsay if not urged before the court below cannot, for the first time, be raised on appeal.41 [Id., citing People v. Quijano, et al., 52 O.G. 6956.] In U.S. v. Choa Tong42 [22 Phil. 562, 564 [1912]; also cited in Francisco, supra.] where the defense counsel did not object to the form or substance of a laboratory report that the specimen submitted was opium, the Court ruled that "[t]he objection should have been made at the time the said analysis was presented."

In People v. Dela Cruz,43 [229 SCRA 754, 763 [1994].] the Court rejected the appellant’s contention that the biology report of the NBI forensic chemist was inadmissible for being hearsay because the forensic chemist was not presented in court, and held, noting that the report was not objected to as such in his comments or objections to the prosecution’s formal Offer of Evidence, that "[e]very objections to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the ground for objection shall have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall be considered waived.

Finally, as to the reports of Forensic Chemist Bravo, it must be stressed that as an NBI Forensic Chemist, Bravo is a public officer, and his report carries the presumption of regularity in the performance of his function and duty. Besides, by virtue of Section 44, Rule 130, entries in official records made in the performance of office duty, as in the case of the reports of Bravo, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. We are also aware that "the test conducted for the presence of ‘shabu’ (infrared test) is a relatively simple test which can be performed by an average or regular chemistry graduate" and where "there is no evidence... to show that the positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (‘shabu’) are erroneous... coupled with the undisputed presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, said results" may "adequately establish" that the specimens submitted were indeed shabu.44 [People v. Tang Wai Lan, 276 SCRA 24, 33 [1997].]

In sum, in Criminal Case No. 16199-MN we are convinced that the prosecution’s evidence more than proved beyond reasonable doubt all the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.45 [People v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 87 [1997].] The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money successfully consummated the "buy-bust" transaction between the entrapping officers and the accused.46 [Id.] What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.47 [People v. Castro, 274 SCRA 115 [1997].]

There is also no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 16200-MN was proven beyond reasonable doubt since RAMON knowingly carried with him more than 400 grams of shabu without legal authority at the time he was caught during the buy-bust operation. The penalty imposed, namely, reclusion perpetua and fine of P500,000 is in order pursuant to People v. Simon.48 [234 SCRA 555 [1994].]

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 170, in Criminal Case No. 16199-MN and Criminal Case No. 16200-MN, is hereby affirmed in toto.

Costs de oficio.

Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.