G.R. No. 90452 October 19, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Mario Jaymalin, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On October 20, 1983, the INP Ifugao Command received information about a planned marijuana sale in Kiangan, Ifugao. A police team, including Lt. Pedro Dulnuan, Lt. Edgar Danao, and Cpl. Herman Kimmayong, was organized. Danao and Kimmayong acted as poseur-buyers, meeting the accused, Mario Jaymalin, at the St. Joseph School compound at around 8:30 p.m. Jaymalin approached them, asked if they were the contacted marijuana buyers, and upon affirmation, led them to a box containing marijuana buds. While negotiating the price, Jaymalin’s brother, Francisco, arrived armed with a rifle. Upon announcement of arrest, Francisco fled, fired his gun, accidentally hitting Mario, and then shot Lt. Dulnuan. Francisco was subsequently shot by other team members, surrendered, and died two days later. The seized box, containing about 7.5 kilos of marijuana buds, was taken to headquarters and later confirmed by a forensic chemist to be marijuana. The accused presented a different version, claiming he was merely looking for his daughter, took a shortcut through the school, met two persons asking for his brother’s house, and was caught in a sudden exchange of gunfire. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted Mario Jaymalin of drug pushing under RA 6425, as amended, and sentenced him to “reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment” and a fine of P20,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses pertained to minor details (e.g., clothes worn, handling of entrapment money, participation of informer) and did not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence. The Court noted that such minor inconsistencies are expected and may even suggest truthfulness. The Court rejected the accused-appellant’s argument that his conduct was inconsistent with human experience, stating that drug pushers have become increasingly casual and that what matters is the agreement and acts constituting the sale. The Court also upheld the identity and integrity of the seized marijuana, citing the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the failure of the defense to substantiate any irregularity. The fact that the deciding judge did not personally hear the witnesses but relied on complete transcripts was deemed not erroneous. The accused-appellant’s version of events was found to be palpably inventive and unbelievable against the positive evidence of the prosecution. However, the Court rectified the penalty, holding that “reclusion perpetua” and “life imprisonment” are not synonymous, as reclusion perpetua carries accessory penalties. Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, the proper penalty is life imprisonment. Thus, the modified penalty imposed is life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.