GR 98251; (August, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO CRUDA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Danilo Cruda was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended, and sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua and a fine. The information charged that on September 9, 1987, in Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, he willfully sold four cigarette sticks of marijuana. The prosecution’s evidence, based on a buy-bust operation, established that police officers, informed by assets Edgar Geronico and Allan Soriano that Cruda was selling marijuana, organized an operation. Pfc. Bienvenido Aguilar and P/Cpl. Rodrigo Santillana, along with the assets, went to Cruda’s house. The assets, posing as buyers, gave marked money to Cruda, who then handed over four sticks of marijuana. After the sale, Cruda was immediately arrested, the marked money was recovered, and the marijuana was submitted to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive. The defense version claimed that Cruda was merely called from his house, immediately handcuffed, and accused of selling marijuana without any buy-bust operation taking place.
ISSUE
The main issue raised by the accused-appellant focuses on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, specifically contesting the improbability of the buy-bust operation due to alleged lack of preparation (unrecorded marked money) and the use of detention prisoners as witnesses, and asserting that he was a victim of a frame-up.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. It ruled that there is no fixed procedure for buy-bust operations, and the speed of preparation did not compromise the accused’s rights. The use of detention prisoners as witnesses was justified as they had knowledge of the appellant’s activities, and there was no evidence of improper motive by the police officers, who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties. The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are entitled to great respect. The defense of frame-up was not sustained as it was a bare-faced assertion unsupported by the records, and the recanted testimony of asset Edgar Geronico was deemed unreliable. The prosecution successfully proved the illegal sale and presented the marijuana as evidence. However, the penalty was modified from Reclusion Perpetua to Life Imprisonment, as the latter is the correct penalty under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.