GR 100230; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 100230 November 8, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Raul Gerona y Goc-ong, Gregorio Diano, Jr. y Aracayan, and Concordio Bihag, alias “Cordio” (At-Large), accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused Raul Gerona, Gregorio Diano, Jr., and Concordio Bihag were charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for selling and delivering approximately 50 grams of marijuana to a poseur-buyer on April 28, 1990, in Cebu City. Gerona and Diano pleaded not guilty; Bihag remained at-large. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found Gerona and Diano guilty and sentenced them to “reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment” and a fine. Gerona later withdrew his appeal. Diano appealed, contesting the trial court’s credibility assessments. The prosecution evidence established that Sgt. Ricardo Inding, acting as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, approached Gerona and Diano to buy marijuana. Gerona took the marked money and gave it to Diano, who handed it to Bihag. Bihag then gave a bundle of marijuana to Diano, who passed it to Gerona, who then delivered it to Inding. Upon Inding’s signal, other officers rushed in, but Bihag escaped. The defense claimed that Inding transacted directly with Bihag at a store, and that Gerona and Diano were merely bystanders who were rounded up after Bihag fled.
ISSUE
The sole issue is the credibility of witnesses—specifically, whether the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimony of prosecution witness Sgt. Ricardo Inding over the denials of the accused.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are accorded great respect and are generally not disturbed on appeal. The detailed testimony of Sgt. Inding, a police officer presumed to have performed his duties regularly, positively established the accused’s participation in the sale. Their presence during the negotiation and delivery indicated conspiracy. The defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification. The penalty prescribed by law for the offense is life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua, as these are distinct penalties. The judgment is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).