549 Phil. 443
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The second Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-66150, for selling dangerous drugs, which was raffled to Branch 120 of the same court, alleged as follows:x x x x
That on or about the 19th day of August 2002, in the City of Caloocan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, being a private person and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their [sic] possession, custody and control one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.07 gram which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive results of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu" which is a dangerous drug.x x x x[1]
The second case was consolidated with the first.[3]x x x x
That on or about the 19th day of August 2002, in the City of Caloocan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, being a private person and without being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously in consideration of the sum of one hundred pesos (P100.00), sell and distribute to PO3 Rodrigo Pagsolingan, who posed as buyer of one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.07 gram which substance when subjected to chemistry examination gave positive results of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu" which is a dangerous drug.[2]x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and the prosecution having established beyond an iota of doubt the guilt of Accused RICARDO FERNANDO Y MONTIAS, of the crimes charged, this Court hereby renders judgment as follows:On the accused's filing a Notice of Appeal,[14] the records of the case were forwarded to this Court.[15]Subject drug in both cases are hereby declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
- In Crim. Case No. 66149 for Viol. of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 this Court, in the absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby sentences aforenamed Accused to a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay the fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
- In Crim. Case No. 66150 for Viol. of Sec. 5, Art. II of the same Act this Court, in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, hereby sentences the Accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay the fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
This Court ends with a note that it is not exactly happy at seeing a small-time drug pusher, suffer the severe penalty for LIFE IMPRISONMENT for the sale of illegal drug consisting merely of 0.07 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, however, that is the imposable penalty under RA 9165, hence this Court has no option but to apply the same. Accused committed an offense in open defiance of the continuing and relentless campaign of the Government to rid society of the drug menace and its disastrous harmful social, economic and even spiritual effects, thus, he cannot escape the full clutches of the law. DURA LEX SED LEX.[13]
x x x PO1 delos Santos testified that there was a pre-arranged sign that the transaction was consummated, thus PO3 Pagsolingan made a signal by scratching his head. PO[3] Pagsolingan, however, declared that after the plastic sachet containing the white crystalline was delivered to him, he communicated the pre-arranged signal by placing a towel on his right shoulder.The case was referred to the Court of Appeals, following People v. Mateo,[18] for intermediate review of criminal cases imposing death penalty, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua.[19]
x x x x
Likewise, PO1 delos Santos testified that he recovered the plastic sachet containing the alleged shabu from the right pocket of the accused appellant.
x x x x
While, PO3 Pagsolingan stated that the buy-bust money and the plastic sachet were recovered by PO1 delos Santos from the left pocket of the accused.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the case at bar, x x x appellant failed to substantiate his defense of frame-up or "hulidap." No evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that the buy-bust operation was resorted to in order to harass, extort, or abuse him. Moreover, for the police officers to frame him up, they must have known appellant prior to the incident. This is clearly not the case here for appellant himself admitted that he does not know any of the police officers who arrested him prior to the incident.On elevation to this Court of the case which accepted the same,[23] both parties manifested that they were no longer filing supplemental briefs, proffering that their respective briefs filed before the Court of Appeals had already exhaustively discussed the pertinent issues.[24]
Anent his allegation that he was mauled by the police officers when he was arrested and during his incarceration, We likewise find the same to be without basis, considering that no medical certificate was presented by him to prove such claim. He did not even bother to present his mother in the witness stand to corroborate his claim. After all, he testified that [his] mother regularly visited him during his confinement, hence, she would have surely seen the injuries inflicted on him, if there was any. Moreover, he did not file any case, administrative or criminal, against the police officers concerned. When asked why he did not file any case against the police officers who allegedly mauled him, he simply answered that his mother failed to do so due to utter confusion. Such inaction by appellant runs counter to the normal human conduct and behavior of one who feels truly aggrieved by the act complained of.[22] (Underscoring supplied)
x x x Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution's evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses' honesty. These inconsistencies, which may be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, even tend to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. What is important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts and that the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole.[27] (Underscoring supplied)Particularly relevant to the case at bar is this Court's pronouncement in People v. Chang[28] that "[t]o secure a reversal of the appealed judgment, the inconsistencies should have pertained to the actual buy-bust itself — that crucial moment when the appellants were caught selling or in possession of shabu — not to peripheral matters."[29]
x x x [W]ell-settled is the rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the "buy-bust" operation. This Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings. Thus, it relies heavily on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court, which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct and manner while testifying. Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[34]While the accused, along with Anthony Villanueva, substantiated his defense of hulidap, their testimonies leave much to be desired. As the trial court observed:
x x x x
The defense of frame-up, like denial and alibi, has invariably been viewed by the courts with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted. It is a common and standard ploy employed by the accused in prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Being factual in nature, the tenability of this defense depends largely on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the testimonial evidence of the accused.[35]
True, in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, we also realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts — solely on the basis of policemen's allegedly rotten reputation — accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. Hence, for such defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing. x x x[36]
x x x x
x x x [I]n the absence of proof of motive for falsely imputing such a serious crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up. With nothing to substantiate such malicious accusation, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses because, being police officers, they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Certainly, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellant's unfounded allegations.[37] (Underscoring supplied)
x x x xA word more. Given the claim of the accused that on being accosted, a commotion ensued for less than 20 minutes within the view of bystanders nearby, why he did not present any of them should render the falsity of his defense more pronounced.
With respect to the charge for frame-up or "HULIDAP" [leveled] by the Accused against his arresting officers, the same was not accorded any evidentiary value by this Court since Accused could not even identify this so called police officer who deprived him of his ring and earring. x x x
In the same breath, this Court discards as shallow the charge for attempted extortion cast by the Accused against PO1 DELOS SANTOS since he (accused) himself conceded that this particular matter including the amount being demanded was brought up by PO1 DELOS SANTOS to his mother who in turn relayed the information to him. In fine, the detail of this alleged attempt to extort money from the Accused's mother was only told by the latter to her son, thus hearsay evidence. x x x [38]
x x x x
Regarding the corroborative testimony offered by defense witness, ANTHONY VILLANUEVA, the same was given scant consideration by this court being the usual kind one could expect from one's friend and co-worker for the past five (5) years. Besides, it is doubtful if he indeed witness[ed] the incident considering that according to this ANTHONY VILLANUEVA, at the time of the incident he was fixing the tables at the place where the birthday party of his father was to be held and per statement of the Accused the venue of the party was at the vacant lot at the back of VILLANUEVA's house which could not be seen in front. x x x
x x x x
Withal, if we were to believe the declaration of the Accused, it is not possible for ANTHONY who was said to be at the back of their house to see the actual apprehension of the Accused.[39] (Underscoring supplied)