G.R. No. 105283 January 21, 1994
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO MACASA y NAVARRO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Romeo Macasa was charged with confederating with a certain Elmo Reyes in selling 0.97 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops on March 11, 1990, in Antipolo, Rizal, in violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 . Only Macasa underwent trial as the charge against Reyes was dismissed. He was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, a fine of P20,000, and costs.
The prosecution evidence established that a civilian informer tipped Sgt. Ceferino Avendaño about illicit drug trade at Peñafrancia, Antipolo. A police team, with Pat. Carlito Reyes as the designated poseur-buyer using a marked P10 bill, went to Macasa’s residence. Pat. Reyes knocked, and Macasa opened the door. Reyes stated he wanted to buy marijuana. Macasa went inside, returned with one tea bag of marijuana, handed it to Reyes, and received the marked money. Reyes then held Macasa, and the other team members arrested him. A subsequent inspection of Macasa’s house yielded ten more tea bags of suspected marijuana. Macasa claimed Elmo Reyes supplied him the marijuana. The police then invited Elmo Reyes for investigation. Laboratory examination confirmed the tea bags contained marijuana.
The defense version, presented by Macasa, claimed that when the police team arrived, he recognized Sgt. Avendaño. The police asked about Elmo Reyes’ whereabouts, and he directed them to Reyes’ house about 70 meters away. A search of his house yielded nothing. He and Reyes were brought to the police station, where marijuana leaves and money were allegedly foisted on him. The trial court found the prosecution’s positive testimonies more credible than Macasa’s bare denial.

ISSUE

The appeal raised the following issues, which collectively challenge the propriety of the conviction:
A. Whether the prosecution evidence was full of material inconsistencies and incredible, creating reasonable doubt.
B. Whether the testimonies of prosecution witnesses showed instigation, exempting accused-appellant from criminal liability.
C. Whether the lower court erred in not giving weight to the testimony of the accused-appellant.
D. Whether the lower court erred in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty.
1. On the alleged inconsistencies: The Court held that minor discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses (e.g., whether Pat. Reyes alone or with Sgt. Avendaño was the poseur-buyer, and details of the exchange) do not undermine credibility but indicate veracity. Perfect dovetailing of testimonies might suggest fabrication. The Court also rejected the argument that drug deals require secrecy, noting peddlers often sell recklessly to anyone, even in public. The minimal consideration (P10) or absence of actual money delivery does not negate the consummated sale.
2. On the non-presentation of the informer: The testimony of the police informer is not indispensable for a successful prosecution, especially given the positive and candid testimony of the poseur-buyer, Pat. Reyes. The informant’s testimony would be merely corroborative.
3. On the claim of instigation: The Court brushed aside this belated and contradictory defense, noting that the police conducted a buy-bust operation, a form of entrapment where the criminal intent originates from the accused. The officers merely confirmed Macasa’s illegal activity without inducing him to commit a crime he would not otherwise commit. The ready supply of marijuana belied the claim of instigation.
4. On the credibility of the accused-appellant’s testimony: The trial court’s factual findings on witness credibility are generally not disturbed on appeal. The lone, credible testimony of a prosecution witness is sufficient to convict in drug cases. The Court also noted a letter written by Macasa from his cell, which admitted he sold the marijuana and indicated he would have admitted involvement if there had been plea-bargaining.
5. On the penalty: The trial court erred in imposing reclusion perpetua. The correct penalty for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended, is life imprisonment.
WHEREFORE, subject to the modification of the penalty from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.