G.R. No. 103295 August 20, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rolando Salamat y De Guzman, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rolando Salamat was charged in three separate informations for (1) illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Criminal Case No. 10528-MN; (2) unlawful sale of shabu under Criminal Case No. 10529-MN; and (3) illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Criminal Case No. 10530-MN. He moved to quash the illegal possession charge, arguing it was absorbed by the sale charge, but the trial court deferred resolution. After a joint trial, the court acquitted him of illegal possession of drugs and firearms but convicted him for the unlawful sale of shabu, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution evidence established that on July 22, 1991, a police team, after securing a search warrant, conducted a buy-bust operation. Pat. Nepomuceno, acting as a poseur-buyer, bought P300 worth of shabu from appellant using marked money. After the transaction, appellant resisted arrest, ran into his house, and gunshots were fired from within. Appellant eventually surrendered and threw a gun on the ground. Searches of two houses yielded shabu and paraphernalia. Appellant denied the sale, claiming he was framed due to a prior dismissed case filed by the father of Pat. Nepomuceno, and asserted the confiscated items were not his.

ISSUE

The main issue hinges on the credibility of the prosecution witness, Pat. Nepomuceno, and whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of the unlawful sale of shabu based on his testimony.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that factual findings and credibility determinations are generally binding on appeal. Appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up were deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification and testimony of the police officer. The Court ruled that minor inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony regarding prior transactions did not undermine his credibility on the core fact of the sale. The legality of the search warrant was deemed irrelevant to the sale conviction, as the evidence for that charge was obtained from the buy-bust operation, not the search. The Court modified the penalty by deleting the phrase “or reclusion perpetua, together with all accessory penalties thereof” from the dispositive portion, clarifying that the penalty for the offense under Republic Act No. 6425 is life imprisonment, which is distinct from reclusion perpetua under the Revised Penal Code.