G.R. No. 96548 May 28, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Joel Dag-uman, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Joel Dag-uman was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Ozamiz City for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425). The prosecution evidence established that on October 3, 1989, members of the Narcotics Unit conducted a buy-bust operation in Ozamiz City using a civilian informer as a poseur-buyer. The poseur-buyer, using marked money, bought six sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes from Dag-uman. The arresting officers immediately apprehended him and, upon search, recovered the marked money and an additional ten sticks of marijuana from his person. Laboratory examination confirmed the cigarettes were marijuana. Dag-uman appealed, claiming he was merely induced by two civilian informers to buy the marijuana for them and did not sell any. He also contended he should be credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting Dag-uman based on the prosecution’s evidence and rejecting his defense of inducement.
2. Whether the failure of the prosecution to present the poseur-buyers as witnesses is fatal to its case.
3. Whether Dag-uman should be credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error. The prosecution evidence, provided by police officers who directly witnessed the sale and arrest, was credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of inducement was rejected as inherently improbable and contrary to human experience. The Court upheld the presumption that the police officers regularly performed their official duties and noted the absence of any motive for them to falsely incriminate Dag-uman, whom they did not previously know.
2. The failure to present the poseur-buyers was not fatal. Their testimony would have been merely cumulative or corroborative, as the police officers who testified were direct participants and witnesses to the entire operation. Furthermore, the Solicitor General explained that one poseur-buyer had been killed and the other’s identity was being protected due to threats to his life.
3. The Trial Court correctly credited Dag-uman with only four-fifths (4/5) of his preventive imprisonment. Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, full credit is given only if the detention prisoner voluntarily agrees in writing to abide by the disciplinary rules for convicted prisoners, which Dag-uman did not do.
The Supreme Court MODIFIED the penalty imposed by the Trial Court, correcting it from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment, which is the penalty prescribed under R.A. No. 6425. In all other respects, the appealed judgment was AFFIRMED.