G.R. No. 101831 May 21, 1993
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROGELIO BALIDIATA y ASONG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rogelio Balidiata y Asong was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Law), as amended, for willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously selling and delivering thirteen (13) handrolled marijuana cigarettes worth P50.00. The prosecution evidence established that on May 29, 1991, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation in Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, acting on complaints of drug pushing. An informant pointed out the appellant. Posing as a buyer, Police Officer Pepito Gutierrez asked the appellant how many marijuana sticks he could buy for P50.00. The appellant left, returned with thirteen marijuana sticks inside a cigarette pack, handed them to Gutierrez, and received the P50.00. The appellant was then apprehended by the team. Forensic examination by the NBI confirmed the sticks were positive for marijuana. The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine.

ISSUE

The appellant raised the following assignments of error: (1) that the trial court gravely erred in arraigning him without assistance of counsel; (2) that it seriously erred in giving more credence to prosecution witnesses over the defense; (3) that it fatally erred in encouraging artificial entrapment; (4) that it manifestly erred in not construing the provisions of the Anti-Dangerous Drugs Act in case of doubt in favor of the accused; and (5) that it evidently erred in convicting instead of acquitting him.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. On the first issue, the Court found the claim of being arraigned without counsel to be a clerical error, as the trial court’s order indicated he was assisted by appointed counsel de oficio, and the issue was raised for the first time on appeal. On the second issue, the Court upheld the trial court’s credibility findings, respecting its superior position to observe witness demeanor and finding no reason to overturn its conclusions. On the third issue, the Court ruled that the entrapment was a lawful police tactic to catch a drug pusher in flagrante delicto, not an inducement to commit a crime, as the appellant was already engaged in selling prohibited drugs. On the fourth and fifth issues, the Court found no doubt in the appellant’s guilt, giving credence to the police officers’ testimony, which carried the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, and noting the absence of any ulterior motive for them to falsely charge the appellant. The conviction was sustained.