G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICK NICOLAS y AQUINO AND LYNDON ILAW y PEREZ, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Nick Nicolas and Lyndon Ilaw were charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, for illegally selling and distributing shabu. The prosecution evidence established that on March 10, 1990, based on a CIS report, Sgt. Marcelino Gamboa led a buy-bust operation on Amado Street, Dagupan City. Marked money was used, and through a poseur-buyer informant, Sgt. Gamboa gave the marked bills to Ilaw, who passed them to Nicolas. Nicolas then handed over two decks of shabu to Sgt. Gamboa. Upon arrest, the marked money was recovered from Nicolas. Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.06 grams. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 15 of R.A. 6425 (sale of regulated drugs) and sentenced each to life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine. The accused appealed, claiming the buy-bust operation was a frame-up, that the marked money was never presented in court, and that there were inconsistencies in Sgt. Gamboa’s testimony regarding the whereabouts of the marked bills. They also argued the non-presentation of the informant was fatal to the prosecution’s case.

ISSUE

The main issue is the credibility of the prosecution witnesses versus the defense, specifically concerning the validity of the buy-bust operation, the handling of the marked money, and the non-presentation of the informant.

RULING

The Supreme Court sustained the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the trial court’s findings on witness credibility are entitled to great respect, and no material facts were overlooked. The testimony of Sgt. Gamboa, the sole prosecution witness, was found to be straightforward, spontaneous, and convincing, sufficient to convict. The alleged inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the marked money were minor and did not impair his credibility. The non-presentation of the informant was not fatal, as the identity of such informants is often kept confidential for their safety and utility, and Sgt. Gamboa’s testimony provided direct evidence of the sale. The defense of frame-up was deemed inherently weak and unsupported by clear evidence. However, the Court corrected the penalty applied. Since the shabu weighed only 0.06 grams (less than 200 grams), the applicable penalty under the amended law (R.A. 7659) is prision correccional to reclusion temporal. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the proper penalty is prision correccional in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and twenty (20) days of arresto mayor maximum as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium as maximum. The Court noted that since both accused had been detained since March 10, 1990, they had already served the maximum term imposed, and ordered their immediate release unless held for another lawful cause.