G.R. No. 105689 February 23, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO GONZALES y LAYSON, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rolando Gonzales y Layson was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended) for the unlawful sale and delivery of dried marijuana leaves. On November 26, 1991, a buy-bust team was formed at the Dona Ata Police Sub-Station in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, after receiving information about public marijuana sales at P. Deato Street. PO3 Renato Florano acted as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to the location, where Florano approached appellant, handed him a ten-peso bill, and stated his intent to buy marijuana. Appellant received the money, entered a house, and returned three minutes later with marijuana. Florano then identified himself as a police officer, arrested appellant, and recovered the buy-bust money from appellant’s pocket. The seized substance was confirmed by the NBI to be marijuana. At trial, the prosecution presented PO3 Florano, PO3 Frederico Patag, and NBI Forensic Chemist Julieta Flores. The defense presented appellant as its sole witness, who claimed he was arbitrarily picked up by police officers, forced to admit to selling marijuana, and brought to the police station. The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 172, convicted appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the credibility of the prosecution’s principal witness and whether guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court upheld the credibility of PO3 Renato Florano’s testimony, which was found direct, clear, and consistent. The Court reiterated that the findings of the trial court on witness credibility are entitled to great respect. The testimony of a lone prosecution witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected appellant’s claim that it was unbelievable he would sell marijuana to a known police officer, noting that drug pushers sell to anyone, and the agreement and acts constituting the sale are what matter. The Court also found no merit in the claim of irregularity in the buy-bust operation, stating there is no fixed procedure for such operations and that the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The appealed judgment was affirmed.