GR 97146; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97146 May 8, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Nelson Collantes y Catapungan alias “Boy,” accused-appellant.
FACTS
An information was filed against appellant Nelson Collantes for violating Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425). It alleged that on August 22, 1989, in Zamboanga City, he unlawfully sold six sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes to Sgt. Pedro S. Mamuad. The prosecution evidence established that a confidential informant reported Collantes’s drug-pushing activities to NARCOM agents. After surveillance and a test buy on August 21, 1989, where Sgt. Mamuad bought three sticks of marijuana from Collantes, a buy-bust operation was conducted on August 22, 1989. Mamuad acted as poseur-buyer, approached Collantes, and bought six sticks of marijuana for P10. Upon Mamuad’s pre-arranged signal, his NARCOM companions arrested Collantes. The marked money was recovered from Collantes’s pocket, and the seized items tested positive for marijuana. The Regional Trial Court convicted Collantes and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine.
ISSUE
The main issue is the credibility of the law enforcement agents who conducted the buy-bust operation, specifically whether the prosecution proved Collantes’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite alleged inconsistencies in testimonies and the non-presentation of the confidential informant.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded great weight and respect. The alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies (e.g., whether a flashlight or matchbulb was used, where the marked money was found) were deemed minor and insubstantial, not affecting their credibility. The non-presentation of the confidential informant was justified to preserve their cover for future operations, and the fiscal has discretion in determining witnesses. The presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duty was not overturned. The Court found no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings and upheld the conviction for selling marijuana cigarettes in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.