G.R. No. 109119 . August 16, 1994.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALICIA DE LA CRUZ CONSTANTINO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alicia de la Cruz Constantino was charged with selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu” in violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended. The prosecution evidence established that on June 3, 1992, at around 11:30 a.m., PO3 Manuel Panlaque received information from an informer about a lady drug pusher named Alicia in Kalookan City. With permission from their officer, PO3 Panlaque and PO3 Valentin Orosco conducted a buy-bust operation. PO3 Panlaque, acting as poseur-buyer, was provided with a marked P100 bill. Accompanied by the informer, he went to the accused’s house. The informer introduced Panlaque to the accused as interested in buying shabu. The accused asked “how much?” and upon being told “piso” (street parlance for P100), she went inside her house, returned, and handed over the shabu to Panlaque, who in turn gave her the marked money. After the sale, Panlaque gave a pre-arranged signal, and PO3 Orosco assisted in arresting the accused. The substance was confirmed by forensic chemist Sr. Inspector Tita Advincula to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused denied the charges, claiming she was framed. She testified that the policemen approached her looking for a certain “Nato,” and when she could not provide information, she was frisked, dragged to the police station, and threatened with detention if she did not cooperate.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article III of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence credible and upheld the trial court’s factual findings, noting that the minor inconsistencies in PO3 Panlaque’s testimony did not affect his credibility. The Court ruled that the absence of a prior surveillance or a written mission order did not invalidate the buy-bust operation, and the non-presentation of the informer as a witness was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The defense of frame-up was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. However, applying R.A. No. 7659 , which took effect after the commission of the crime but before the judgment by the trial court, and considering the quantity of shabu (0.01 gram), the imposable penalty under the second paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended, is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum. The decision of the Regional Trial Court was AFFIRMED with the modification of the penalty.