G.R. No. L-59438 February 28, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. JOSE SALONDRO, JR. y JAVIER, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Jose Salondro, Jr., was charged with selling a small plastic bag of marijuana dried leaves in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution’s evidence established that on December 2, 1980, Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU) operatives, acting on a tip, conducted a buy-bust operation on Sevilla Street, Binondo, Manila. Sergeant Guillemer and Patrolman Hidalgo positioned themselves and observed their informants approach Salondro. After a brief conversation, Salondro left and returned with a plastic bag, which he handed to an informant in exchange for two marked five-peso bills. The officers immediately arrested Salondro and recovered the marked money from his person. The confiscated leaves tested positive for marijuana.
The accused-appellant presented a different version. He claimed he was a stevedore who was accosted by four men, including a known informant named Natoy, near his home. He alleged that at gunpoint, they searched him, forced him to sign money taken from his pocket, and framed him by presenting the bag of marijuana. He argued the marked bills were part of his own money and that his constitutional rights were violated, resulting in a forced confession.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on allegedly planted evidence, which hinges on the credibility of the witnesses.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The ruling emphasized the well-settled doctrine that the trial court’s findings on witness credibility are entitled to great respect and are generally sustained on appeal unless strong and cogent reasons justify a departure. The Court found no such reason here. The testimony of Patrolman Hidalgo was clear, positive, and credible, detailing the sale and the recovery of the marked money. The Court noted the absence of evidence showing any ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely accuse the appellant, and they are presumed to have performed their duties regularly.
The Court dismissed the appellant’s defenses. The absence of ultra-violet powder on the marked bills was not fatal, as law enforcers are not limited to that method for identification. The claim of a forced extra-judicial confession was unsupported; the act of signing the recovered bills was not a confession but a mere acknowledgment that the items were taken from him. The Court found the defense testimony, primarily from the appellant and his mother, to be biased and less credible compared to the straightforward account of the police officer. The evidence of the sale, positively identifying the appellant as the seller, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed.