G.R. No. 127157 July 10, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JAIME MEDINA y BANAG, and VIRGILIO CARLOS, accused, JAIME MEDINA y BANAG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jaime B. Medina and accused Virgilio Carlos were apprehended on October 3, 1995 by members of the Narcotics Intelligence and Suppression Unit (NISU) for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without authority of law. Based on a complaint, they were brought for inquest. In their counter-affidavits, Carlos claimed he merely accompanied appellant, while appellant stated he was only supposed to buy the drug. Initially, only an information against appellant was filed. After a reinvestigation, an amended information was filed against both, alleging conspiracy in the unlawful sale of 306.71 grams of shabu. Only appellant was arraigned as Carlos remained at large. Appellant pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, established through the testimonies of police officers SPO1 Edwin Anaviso and PO3 Rolando Azurin, was that a confidential informant arranged a buy-bust operation. PO3 Azurin acted as poseur-buyer. On October 3, 1995, at the GQ Club and Restaurant parking lot, appellant approached Azurin, asked if the money was brought, gave a signal, and led him to a car where Carlos was seated. Carlos handed over a plastic bag containing shabu in exchange for the marked money. Upon Azurin’s signal, the backup team arrested both. Forensic examination confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Appellant denied the charge, claiming he was merely invited by Carlos to the restaurant and had no knowledge of the drug sale. He attempted to retract his earlier counter-affidavits, stating he signed the first without reading it and only read parts of the second. His wife corroborated his explanation regarding the affidavits.
The trial court found appellant conspired with Carlos, appreciated the aggravating circumstances of craft, fraud, or disguise, and sentenced him to death. The case is now on automatic review.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding a conspiracy between appellant and Virgilio Carlos.
2. Whether the trial court erred in maintaining the regularity of the buy-bust operation.
3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
1. On conspiracy and credibility: The Court found no reason to doubt the prosecution’s version. The testimonies of the police officers were consistent, coherent, and detailed. In contrast, appellant was an unreliable witness due to the drastic variance between his extrajudicial statements and his court testimony. His defense of being an innocent bystander was not credible. The absence of proof of ill motive on the part of the arresting officers bolstered the prosecution’s case. The trial court correctly found conspiracy based on appellant’s direct participation: he approached the poseur-buyer, asked for the money, gave the signal, and led the officer to the car where the transaction was consummated.
2. On the buy-bust operation: The Court upheld the regularity of the operation. Appellant provided no compelling reason to disbelieve the police officers’ testimonies. The operation was a legitimate entrapment, not an instigation.
3. On proof beyond reasonable doubt: The prosecution successfully established all elements of the illegal sale of a regulated drug: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object (shabu), and the consideration. The positive identification by the police officers prevailed over appellant’s denials.
However, the Supreme Court modified the penalty. The trial court erroneously appreciated the generic aggravating circumstance of craft, fraud, or disguise. The acts constituting the crime of sale of illegal drugs inherently involve craft and fraud; thus, these cannot be treated as separate aggravating circumstances. Furthermore, the imposition of the death penalty was improper. Under the applicable law ( Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended), the death penalty for sale of shabu is imposable only if the victim is a minor or the drug sold is the proximate cause of the victim’s death. Neither circumstance was present. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. The Court also noted that appellant’s false testimony under oath could subject him to separate charges for perjury and obstruction of justice. The decision of the trial court was AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.