G.R. No. 98423 -24 May 22, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Rafael Acuram, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Two separate informations were filed against appellant Rafael Acuram on August 9, 1989, stemming from an incident on June 20, 1989, in Bansalan, Davao del Sur. The first charged him with unlawful possession of 135.8 grams of marijuana leaves (violation of Sec. 8, Dangerous Drugs Act). The second charged him with the unlawful sale and distribution of one gram of marijuana leaves (violation of Sec. 4 of the same Act). He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s case, presented through three PC members (Sgt. Candelario Lahaylahay, Lt. Salome Jose, and CIC Manuel Peleño), established that an informant (“Tonton”) reported Acuram was selling marijuana. A buy-bust team was organized. On June 20, 1989, the team gave Tonton P150.00 to buy marijuana from Acuram. From a distance of 20-30 meters, the team saw Tonton transact with Acuram at the latter’s house. After Tonton returned with the marijuana, the team proceeded to Acuram’s house, where Acuram’s wife informed them more marijuana was in a basket of dried fish in the kitchen. The team found the marijuana, took pictures, and retrieved the buy-bust money from Acuram. Barangay Captain Doroteo Parawan was fetched to witness the inventory. The seized marijuana, totaling 135.8 grams, tested positive. Acuram executed a receipt acknowledging the confiscation. Acuram’s defense was alibi and denial. He claimed he was away buying bamboos during the incident and returned to find the PC team already in his house with the marijuana. His wife and the bamboo seller corroborated his alibi. The trial court convicted Acuram only for the sale of marijuana (Sec. 4), dismissing the possession charge as inherent in the sale, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine.

ISSUE

The core issue, as framed by the appellant’s assignment of errors, revolves around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the admissibility of the evidence, specifically: (1) whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were hearsay; (2) whether the marijuana evidence was admissible; and (3) whether the trial court erred in finding the prosecution’s version credible over the defense’s alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision in toto. The Court held:
1. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (Sgt. Lahaylahay and CIC Peleño) were not hearsay as they were eyewitnesses to the buy-bust operation. Their detailed and consistent accounts of witnessing the sale and the subsequent discovery of more marijuana were given full credence.
2. The marijuana evidence was admissible. The warrantless search and seizure were justified as incidental to a lawful arrest made after the team had witnessed the sale (“caught in the act”). The subsequent marking and handling of the evidence established a clear chain of custody.
3. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses. The trial court’s findings on credibility are accorded great weight and respect, and no facts were overlooked that would alter the case’s outcome. The testimony of Barangay Captain Parawan did not support Acuram’s claim of recent arrival but instead corroborated the prosecution’s timeline. The Court found the buy-bust operation to have been properly conducted.