GR 106098; (December, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106098 December 7, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Danilo Gonzales y Baron, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Danilo Gonzales y Baron was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). On August 6, 1991, the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Enforcement Unit of the Makati Police Station received confidential information that Gonzales was selling shabu at Ponte St., Tejeros, Makati. A buy-bust team was organized, with Policewoman Elizabeth Mendoza as the poseur-buyer, furnished with two marked one hundred peso bills. The team proceeded to the area. Mendoza approached Gonzales, asked to buy “P2.00 of bato” (meaning two decks of shabu for P200), and gave him the marked money. Gonzales gave her a plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. Upon Mendoza’s pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Gonzales. The marked bills and another plastic bag containing a similar substance were found on his person. Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was shabu. Gonzales denied the charges, claiming the police raided his residence without a warrant, found no drugs or marked money, and instead took money belonging to his live-in partner. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.
ISSUE
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible despite minor inconsistencies, which were deemed natural and even reinforced their credibility. The defense of denial and frame-up was weak and insufficient to overcome the positive testimonies of the police officers, especially in the absence of proof of ill motive. The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the police officers in the buy-bust operation. The warrantless arrest was lawful as the accused was caught in flagrante delicto, and the subsequent search was valid as an incident to a lawful arrest.