GR 97932; (December, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97932 December 23, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALIAS CRYSLER BABAC, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution evidence established that on April 6, 1989, a buy-bust operation was conducted in La Paz, Iloilo City. Staff Sergeant Francisco Allaga acted as a poseur-buyer and approached the appellant, alias Crysler Babac. After confirming his identity, Allaga handed P60.00 in marked money to Babac in exchange for marijuana. Babac left briefly and returned with a boy who delivered the marijuana to Allaga. Upon receiving the item, Allaga attempted to arrest Babac, but the latter fled. The seized substance was later confirmed by forensic examination to be marijuana.
The defense interposed alibi, claiming Babac was working at a rice mill the entire day of the incident. His mother and a co-worker corroborated his presence at work but did not establish the physical impossibility of him being at the crime scene. The trial court convicted Babac of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the prosecution’s evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appeal raised factual issues, and the Court found no compelling reason to deviate from the trial court’s factual findings, which are accorded great respect. The defense of alibi was weak, as the rice mill was near the crime scene, failing to prove the appellant’s physical impossibility to be present. The testimony of Sgt. Allaga was credible and presumed regular in the absence of proof of ill motive, which the defense failed to show.
The appellant’s flight after the incident, evidenced by his failure to appear during preliminary investigation and his arrest over a month later, further indicated guilt. The Court also rejected the argument regarding an unbroken chain of custody, noting the prosecution positively identified the seized marijuana and the slight delay in its laboratory examination was reasonably explained. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by law enforcers stands in the absence of contrary evidence.