GR 90803; (July, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Epifanio Armentano, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Epifanio Armentano, was convicted for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution established that on November 21, 1987, in Dumaguete City, a buy-bust operation was conducted. Pat. Wenefredo Noble, posing as a buyer, approached Armentano, who was seated outside a shoe repair shop. Armentano agreed to sell marijuana cigarettes. Noble handed him a marked five-peso bill, and in exchange, Armentano took two sticks of marijuana from a plastic bag handed to him by his wife. Noble then arrested him. Other team members searched Armentano, retrieved the marked bill, and found twenty-five grams of dried marijuana leaves in his pocket. His wife surrendered the plastic bag. The marijuana was field-tested and later confirmed by a forensic analyst. Armentano presented a different version, claiming he was forcibly taken by police, who planted the marijuana and marked bill on him. His wife corroborated his story, alleging the items came from a policeman. The defense also pointed to minor inconsistencies in the prosecution’s testimony and questioned the non-inclusion of the wife as a co-accused and the non-presentation of a certain Pfc. Alcoran.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the prosecution’s evidence, despite alleged contradictions, the non-inclusion of his wife as a co-accused, the non-presentation of a witness, and claims of illegal arrest and search.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not discredit their core assertion that Armentano was caught selling and possessing marijuana. The non-inclusion of his wife as a co-accused was irrelevant and a prerogative of the prosecution. The non-presentation of Pfc. Alcoran did not constitute suppression of evidence, as the defense could have subpoenaed him. The arrest was lawful as it was made in flagrante delicto (while the crime was being committed), and the subsequent search incidental to a lawful arrest was also valid. The constitutional presumption of innocence was overcome by the clear and convincing evidence of guilt. The penalties imposed were upheld.