G.R. No. 84525 April 6, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTURO MAUYAO y LORENZO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The Narcotics Unit of the Western Police District conducted a buy-bust operation on April 20, 1987, at Leyte del Sur Street, Manila, based on phone calls reporting that a suspect named “Arthur” was selling marijuana. Pat. Ramon Alferos acted as the poseur-buyer, using two marked ten-peso bills to purchase five tea bags of marijuana from the accused-appellant, Arturo Mauyao, who also gave two additional sticks of marijuana cigarettes “as free.” After the exchange, Pat. Alferos arrested Mauyao. P/Sgt. Jimmy Carbonell, who witnessed the transaction from across the street, assisted in the arrest. The accused-appellant voluntarily surrendered a red clutch bag from his waist containing ten more tea bags of marijuana and four more sticks of marijuana cigarettes. The marked bills and other cash were recovered from him. The seized items were examined by the NBI and tested positive for marijuana. The accused-appellant denied the charges, alleging he was framed and extorted by the police after being taken from a neighbor’s wedding party. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine.

ISSUE

Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite alleged inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies, violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation, and failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (P/Sgt. Carbonell and Pat. Alferos) were minor and pertained to trivial details, such as who received the informant’s call or the exact distance the buy-bust team stopped from the accused-appellant’s location. These inconsistencies did not affect the credibility of the witnesses, who were law enforcers presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The Court held that the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana during a valid buy-bust operation. While the Court agreed that the accused-appellant’s signatures on the Receipt of Property Seized, Exhibit E, and the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report were inadmissible as they were obtained without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation, these documents were not factors in his conviction. His guilt was sufficiently established by the detailed testimonies of the apprehending officers and the physical evidence. The accused-appellant’s denial and claim of extortion could not prevail over the positive identification and evidence presented by the prosecution.