G.R. No. 110163 December 15, 1997
EDUARDO A. ZANORIA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Eduardo A. Zanoria was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu with violation of Section 9, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for allegedly planting, tilling, cultivating, and culturing marijuana plants without authority of law on or before February 16, 1988, in Cebu City. He pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s evidence, presented through Sergeants Joel Absin and Hermes Recla of the 7th Narcotics Command (Narcom), established that on February 16, 1988, at around 5:00 a.m., a team arrived at a plantation site in Sitio Kabulihan, Cebu City, based on a report about a certain “Eddie” cultivating marijuana. They saw a person (later identified as Zanoria) emerge from a nipa hut, inspect the plants, and then return to the hut. The team apprehended him. After tactical interrogation, he allegedly admitted guilt and personally led the agents to the plantation site, where 3,500 full-grown marijuana plants were uprooted. Forensic tests confirmed the plants were marijuana.
The defense presented petitioner, his wife Expedita, and Barangay Captain Pedro Borres. Petitioner denied the charge, claiming he was forcibly taken from his house at 3:00 a.m. by armed men, brought to the mountains to help carry what he thought was grass, and later coerced into signing a waiver at Camp Lapu-lapu. He denied knowing about or owning the marijuana. His wife testified about a prior dispute with a neighbor, Eusebio Geonzon Jr., who had threatened them, implying a frame-up. Barangay Captain Borres corroborated the dispute but admitted the settlement record was unsigned.
The trial court found Zanoria guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to twenty years imprisonment and a P20,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate sentence of 12 years, 5 months, and 12 days as minimum to 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day as maximum, plus the fine. Petitioner assailed the appellate court’s decision, arguing inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses’ joint affidavit and their court testimonies.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction despite alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and in finding his guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals with MODIFICATION as to the penalty. The Court found no merit in petitioner’s claims.
The alleged inconsistency between the joint affidavit (stating petitioner “personally led us to the plantation site”) and the testimonies (that they saw him emerge from a hut and inspect the plants) was deemed impertinent. A careful examination showed the operation had two stages: first, the arrival and apprehension after seeing him inspect the plants, and second, after interrogation, he led them to the site. Thus, no fatal inconsistency existed.
The Court upheld the trial and appellate courts’ findings on witness credibility, noting that petitioner’s denial and claim of never having seen marijuana were incredulous and could not prevail over the positive identification by the Narcom agents. The defense failed to show any motive for the agents to falsely charge him. The testimony of petitioner’s wife did not corroborate his claim of being apprehended at his house, and the theory of a frame-up by Geonzon was unsupported.
Regarding the penalty, the Court found that the appellate court erred in imposing a minimum term below the statutory minimum of fourteen years and one day under Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty was an indeterminate sentence of fourteen (14) years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as maximum, plus a fine of P20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.