GR 90019; (December, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 90019 December 8, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Wilfredo Fernandez y Bisco, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Wilfredo Fernandez y Bisco was charged with violating Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) for selling and delivering five sticks of marijuana cigarettes to a poseur-buyer for P20.00 on February 10, 1987. The Narcotics Control and Investigation Service (NCIS-WPD) had received reports about drug-pushing by a certain “Willy” at 1941 Maria Orosa St., Malate, Manila. After surveillance confirmed the accused was the pusher, a buy-bust operation was organized. Pat. Alfredo Sobrevilla was the poseur-buyer using a marked P20-bill. The team proceeded to the location, where Sobrevilla and a confidential informant approached the accused. After receiving the marked money, the accused delivered five sticks of marijuana cigarettes. He was immediately apprehended, and the marked money was found in his pocket. The seized items tested positive for marijuana. The accused denied the charges, claiming he was resting at home when arrested, and alleged the police demanded money for his release. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses despite the absence of the poseur-buyer and the confidential informant, and alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The testimonies of the police officers who witnessed the buy-bust operation were sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of the poseur-buyer and informant’s testimonies was not fatal, as the other officers positively identified the accused and saw the transaction. Minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies regarding whether the accused went into an alley or immediately produced the marijuana were trivial and did not affect the credibility of their essential narrative—that they saw the accused sell marijuana. The accused’s defense and his repudiation of his prior sworn statement were not credible. The lack of ill motive on the part of the police officers bolstered the prosecution’s case. The evidence conclusively proved the accused violated Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 .