G.R. No. 104277 July 5, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Bobby de Paz y Gaditano, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Bobby de Paz was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended) for selling marijuana. The Information alleged that on March 4, 1991, in Catbalogan, Samar, the accused willfully sold fifteen (15) sticks of marijuana cigarettes to PO1 Leo Letrodo, who acted as a poseur-buyer. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence established that a police team, including PO1 Letrodo, conducted a buy-bust operation. Letrodo, introduced by a confidential informant, contacted the accused, asked about the price of marijuana, and handed a marked P50.00 bill to the accused in exchange for fifteen sticks of marijuana cigarettes. Upon receiving the drugs and confirming they were marijuana, Letrodo signaled his team, who then apprehended the accused and recovered the marked money. The drugs were later confirmed by the crime laboratory to be marijuana. The defense presented a different version, claiming the accused was merely asked by a certain Emma Alcantara to buy marijuana for her from other individuals. After purchasing the marijuana for Alcantara, he was apprehended by the police officers, who then received the marijuana from Alcantara. The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine.

ISSUE

The primary issue involves the credibility of witnesses and whether the evidence sufficiently proves the accused’s guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the accused argued on appeal that there was instigation (which would be an absolutory cause) and that the prosecution’s version was uncorroborated and unreliable.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed on appeal, as the trial court is in a better position to observe witness demeanor. The Court found no reason to deviate from this rule, as the prosecution witnesses were police officers presumed to have performed their duties regularly, and no improper motive was shown for them to testify falsely against the accused. The defense of instigation was rejected; the Court distinguished instigation (where the idea originates from law enforcers) from entrapment (where law enforcers merely facilitate the commission of a crime by a person already predisposed to commit it). The buy-bust operation was a valid entrapment, as the accused was already engaged in drug-pushing, as indicated by police surveillance. The consummated sale was proven by the accused’s acceptance of the marked money and delivery of the marijuana. The law does not require proof of intent to sell or ownership of the drugs for conviction under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 . The accused was therefore guilty beyond reasonable doubt.