GR 97306; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIO TUBORO Y ACUNIN, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On March 7, 1990, acting on a tip, a police team conducted a buy-bust operation in Mandaluyong. Patrolman Antonio Dimain acted as poseur-buyer and was given marked money. Dimain approached the accused-appellant, Mario Tuboro, asked to buy marijuana, and Tuboro handed over a plastic bag of marijuana. Dimain gave the marked bills, introduced himself as a policeman, handcuffed Tuboro, and with backup officers, arrested him. The NBI confirmed the substance was marijuana. Tuboro was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). At trial, Tuboro denied the charge, claiming he was a student framed by the police. He alleged he was accosted while on an errand, brought to Fort Bonifacio, mauled, and forced to admit to selling marijuana while being videotaped. The Regional Trial Court convicted Tuboro and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine. Tuboro appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal sale of marijuana based on the prosecution’s evidence and in not giving credence to his defense of frame-up.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The trial court’s factual findings, including the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, are accorded great respect. Minor inconsistencies in police testimonies do not weaken the case but indicate truthfulness. The illegal sale was consummated when Tuboro delivered the marijuana to the poseur-buyer in exchange for money. The defense of frame-up was rejected, as police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, and no improper motive was shown. The claim of denial of counsel during custodial investigation was immaterial, as the conviction relied on eyewitness testimony, not any extrajudicial statement. However, the penalty imposed was improper; the law mandates life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua. Thus, the penalty was modified to life imprisonment. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.