G.R. No. 83372; February 27, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARLON RUEDAS y TARA-TARA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Marlon Ruedas was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana. The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 19, 1985, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Lucena City based on a tip from a confidential informant. Posing as a buyer, the informant, accompanied by CIC Alberto Colambo, contacted Ruedas. Ruedas confirmed he had marijuana for sale, left briefly, and returned to hand over two tea bags of marijuana to the informer in exchange for P20.00. Colambo, positioned nearby, witnessed the transaction and gave a pre-arranged signal, but Ruedas fled. The seized items were later confirmed to be marijuana.
The defense presented alibi, claiming Ruedas was in Manila for employment at the time of the incident. A witness, a neighbor, testified she had not seen him since August 1985, as he had reportedly gone to Manila. The trial court convicted Ruedas of violating Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a P20,000 fine.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the testimony of the prosecution witness, CIC Colambo, and in rejecting the defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of CIC Colambo credible and sufficient to establish the illegal sale. Colambo positively identified Ruedas as the seller, having witnessed the transaction at close range in broad daylight. His testimony was detailed and consistent, corroborated by the forensic confirmation that the seized items were marijuana. The defense’s attack on Colambo’s credibility, based on the claim that the police initially asked the barangay captain to identify the suspect, was unavailing, as Colambo had already been informed of the suspect’s name by the informant and personally witnessed the sale.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene. The Court ruled that it was not impossible for Ruedas to have traveled from Manila to Lucena, given the available modern transportation. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by a credible witness. However, the trial court committed an error in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The law prescribes life imprisonment for the offense, which is distinct from reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly, the penalty was modified to life imprisonment, while the fine was sustained.