G.R. No. 89542. June 27, 1990.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BENJAMIN BERNARDO y MARIANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on September 7, 1988, the NARCOM in Zamboanga City, acting on a tip, conducted a surveillance and a “test-buy” operation. Sgt. Romeo Dayag, accompanied by an informant, purchased three sticks of marijuana from a certain “Benjie” along Cabatangan Road. The items were confirmed as marijuana by the crime laboratory. The following day, September 8, a buy-bust operation was conducted. Sgt. Dayag acted as poseur-buyer and again approached “Benjie” at a sari-sari store, purchasing six sticks of marijuana for marked money. Upon Dayag’s pre-arranged signal, backup NARCOM agents arrested “Benjie,” who was later identified as accused-appellant Benjamin Bernardo. The forensic chemist confirmed all nine sticks were marijuana.
The accused interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at a farm three kilometers away during the alleged transaction on September 8. He testified that NARCOM agents forcibly seized him from his home later that evening while he was watching television, manacled him, and dragged him away after pointing a rifle at his mother. He alleged he was mauled, denied food and water, and extorted for money at the headquarters. The trial court convicted him of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the testimony of the poseur-buyer, despite the defense of alibi and allegations of frame-up.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The resolution of the case hinged on the credibility of Sgt. Dayag’s testimony, which the Court found straightforward, spontaneous, and convincing. The trial judge, who personally observed the witness’s demeanor, accepted his account, and the Supreme Court consistently defers to such factual findings on credibility. The accused’s arguments were unavailing. His claim that drug peddling would not occur in a public place in broad daylight was untenable; the transaction occurred at twilight, and such exchanges are done swiftly. The failure to apprehend him during the initial test-buy was not fatal, as explained by the Solicitor General to avoid suspicion of planting evidence. The non-presentation of the informant was inconsequential, as Dayag’s positive identification of the accused as the seller was sufficient. The accused failed to attribute any ill motive to the NARCOM agents for testifying falsely against him. His defense of alibi was weak, as he did not demonstrate it was physically impossible to be at the crime scene, and his allegations of maltreatment and frame-up were unsupported by evidence, such as a formal complaint to the fiscal. The evidence on record firmly established his guilt.