GR 103394; (September, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103394 . September 2, 1994.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT REYES y NAVARRO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Robert Reyes y Navarro, was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for selling and delivering methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation in Marikina on January 9, 1991. The prosecution’s evidence established that after surveillance, a team led by Pat. Antonio Lumacang conducted the operation. Lumacang, acting as the buyer, approached the appellant, used the street term “bato,” and handed over a marked P100 bill. The appellant handed over a foil containing suspected shabu and, upon his arrest, three additional foils were found in his possession. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was shabu. The appellant denied the charge, claiming he was illegally arrested inside his house without a warrant and that the evidence was planted.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the nature of the evidence warrant a reversal of the conviction. A secondary issue involves the proper penalty to be applied following the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659 .
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the specific location of the arrest (e.g., “near their house” versus “at Roces Street”) were deemed minor and did not affect the core narrative of the buy-bust operation. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that such minor discrepancies can even bolster credibility by indicating unrehearsed testimony. The marked money was properly admitted as evidence, being integral to the entrapment. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence of improper motive on the part of the arresting officers.
Regarding the penalty, the Court applied the favorable provisions of R.A. No. 7659 retroactively under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. The law reclassified the penalties based on the quantity of shabu involved. For the minuscule quantity of 0.07 grams seized from the appellant, the prescribed penalty is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence from life imprisonment to an indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum. The fine and forfeiture of the drugs were sustained.