GR 101189 90; (May, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101189-90 May 27, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Gilbert San Andres y San Juan, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Gilbert San Andres was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), for the alleged sale of two rolls of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 3.45 grams on October 26, 1989, in Morong, Rizal. An additional 12.18 grams of marijuana were allegedly found in his pocket. The prosecution’s evidence established that on October 25, 1989, Master Sgt. Angelito Manalo received information that appellant was selling marijuana. A surveillance and buy-bust operation were conducted the following day. Sgt. Alfredo Esguerra acted as poseur-buyer and purchased two foils of marijuana from appellant using a marked P20.00 bill. Upon the arrest signal, the arresting team apprehended appellant. A search yielded seven more foils of marijuana and the marked money. The seized items tested positive for marijuana. Appellant denied the charges, claiming he was given P20.00 by a companion to buy liquor, was arrested while watching people fish, and that no marijuana was found on him. He also challenged the prosecution’s timeline and the visibility of the alleged buy-bust due to distance.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the prosecution’s evidence, despite alleged inconsistencies in testimonies and the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer as a witness.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies regarding the time information was received and the distance from the arrest scene were deemed trivial and did not impair their credibility. The rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not weaken credibility was applied. The defense of bare denial could not overcome the positive testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have regularly performed their duties. Furthermore, the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was not fatal, as the testimonies of the other arresting officers who witnessed the transaction were sufficient and the poseur-buyer’s testimony would have been merely corroborative. Appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.