GR 112797; (July, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Nida Alegro y Villarin, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Nida Alegro was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite for selling P100.00 worth of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The conviction stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by PO2 Nicomedes Carandang (poseur-buyer) and PO3 Faustino Remo on August 7, 1992. The prosecution’s evidence included the marked money and the seized shabu weighing 0.05 grams. Alegro’s defense was frame-up or denial, claiming she was arrested only because the police failed to apprehend their true target, her sister Rita Alegro.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the apprehending officers and in disregarding her defense.
2. Whether the penalty of life imprisonment should be modified pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
1. The trial court did not err. The testimonies of the police officers were found credible by the trial court, given their straightforward manner and the absence of any showing of evil motive. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stands, and the defense of denial or frame-up, which is viewed with disfavor, must fail. This is bolstered by the testimony of co-accused Oscar Bautista, who confirmed the shabu was bought from appellant. The Court also noted that knowledge by the accused that the buyer is a policeman does not preclude the sale of narcotics.
2. The penalty should be modified. Pursuant to R.A. 7659 and the ruling in People v. Simon, the penalty for the sale of 0.05 grams of shabu is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional medium as maximum. As appellant’s period of detention since August 1992 had already exceeded this reduced penalty, her immediate release was ordered unless detained for another cause.