GR 123076; (March, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123076 ; March 26, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EVELYN PATAYEK y CALAG and ARLENE GOYA y TAYA, accused-appellants.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted against appellants Evelyn Patayek and Arlene Goya based on a tip from a concerned citizen. Posing as a buyer, SPO1 Modesto Carrera met with the appellants at Bermuda Hills, Baguio City. After negotiations, appellant Evelyn Patayek obtained a black bag from appellant Arlene Goya and delivered it to Carrera. Upon confirming the contents as marijuana, Carrera handed over marked money and signaled the arrest. The appellants were apprehended, and forensic examination confirmed the three bricks inside the bag were marijuana, weighing approximately three kilos.
The appellants denied the charges, claiming they were framed. They testified that they were on their way home from visiting a relative when a man picked up a bag under a tree. They were then forcibly taken by armed men in a jeep, accused of owning the bag, assaulted, and brought to the NARCOM office where they were forced to hold the marijuana and extorted for money. They asserted the entire incident was a fabrication.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the appellants for the illegal sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, particularly SPO1 Carrera. The defense of frame-up was rejected as it was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found no ill motive for the police officers to falsely accuse the appellants, and the detailed testimony of the poseur-buyer on the consummated sale was credible. The elements of illegal sale—the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery—were all established. The presentation of the informant was not indispensable for conviction. The recovery of the marked money from appellant Goya further corroborated the sale. However, the penalty was modified. The trial court erred in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to reclusion perpetua, which remains an indivisible penalty despite Republic Act No. 7659 specifying its duration. Appellants were thus sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to each pay a fine of P500,000.00.