GR 102618; (October, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102618 October 12, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GAUDENCIO BAUTISTA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On April 2, 1991, the Tagaytay City police, based on a tip from an apprehended individual, conducted a buy-bust operation at Barangay Mendez Crossing. A team of five police officers was formed, with Pat. Rolando Gatpandan and Pat. Tirso Petil acting as poseur-buyers. They were given marked money and proceeded to the house of Rosalina Gatpandan, where the accused-appellant, Gaudencio Bautista, was reported to be selling shabu. Pat. Gatpandan entered the house, asked appellant if he had shabu, and purchased one foil for P200.00. Pat. Petil witnessed the exchange. After the transaction, the poseur-buyers reported to their team, who then entered the house and arrested appellant. A search of appellant’s person yielded the marked money, seven other foils of shabu, and a film box containing shabu, which were later confirmed by the NBI to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. An Information was filed charging appellant with illegal sale of a prohibited drug under R.A. 6425. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with a fine. Appellant appealed, assigning errors regarding witness credibility, the legality of the warrantless arrest and seizure, and the failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE
1. Whether the testimonies of the poseur-buyers were credible despite alleged inconsistencies.
2. Whether the warrantless arrest and seizure of evidence were legal.
3. Whether the prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
1. Yes. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the poseur-buyers were on minor details and did not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence. Such inconsistencies even tend to strengthen credibility by erasing suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Both witnesses gave clear, positive, and corroborating testimonies on the essential fact of the sale.
2. Yes. The warrantless arrest was valid under Section 6(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, as the arrest was made based on probable cause arising from the buy-bust operation. The station commander had sufficient grounds for the arrest, having received information directly from his men and having seen the purchased drug and the culprit. Requiring a warrant in such on-the-spot apprehensions would hinder law enforcement.
3. Yes. The prosecution proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the consistent and credible testimonies of the poseur-buyers, who positively identified appellant as the seller. Appellant’s defense of mere denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the prosecution witnesses, especially in the absence of proof of any improper motive on the part of the police officers. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, stating that the proper penalty for the offense is life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. The appealed Decision was AFFIRMED with this modification.