People v. Said Sariol y Muhamading
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 5, 1987, a confidential informant reported to Captain Benjamin de los Santos of the Narcotics Investigation Unit that a person known as 'Muslim' was engaged in the illegal trading of marijuana in San Juan, Metro Manila. A buy-bust operation was organized, with Patrolman Pedro Tan acting as the poseur-buyer, furnished with two marked five-peso bills. At approximately 3:00 p.m., Patrolman Campita and the informant approached the accused, Said Sariol y Muhamading, alias 'Muslim', near Jennie's Bakery. The informant introduced Campita as a buyer. The accused left briefly and returned with a plastic bag containing dried marijuana, which he delivered to Campita in exchange for the marked money. Upon a pre-arranged signal, other NARCOM agents rushed in and arrested the accused. The accused, after consenting to a body search, yielded the marked money and another small plastic bag containing marijuana, which he voluntarily produced after interrogation. Procedural History: The accused was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, a fine of P20,000.00, and costs. The confiscated marijuana was ordered turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant assigned as errors the trial court's giving weight to the prosecution's improbable testimonies and disregarding the defense evidence, and its failure to acquit him due to insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and disregarding the evidence for the defense. Whether the trial court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED. The conviction of the accused-appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act is sustained.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of credibility of prosecution witnesses and sufficiency of evidence: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conviction, finding that the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. The testimonies of the NARCOM agents, who conducted the operation, were clear, adequate, and corroborated by the forensic chemist's report and documentary evidence, including the receipt for the marijuana, the marked money, and the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report. The Court reiterated that a bare denial by the accused cannot prevail over positive identification by credible witnesses testifying on affirmative matters. The Court also noted that the prosecution witnesses, being law enforcers, are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary, and no improper motive was shown. The appellant's claim of maltreatment was deemed inconsequential as no extrajudicial confession was extracted, and his conviction was based on other evidence. The argument that the sale of marijuana for a measly sum of P10.00 in broad daylight was improbable was dismissed as a standard defense that has not been accorded much credence in similar cases, as the amount involved does not negate the existence of drug trade. On the issue of failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the prosecution had substantially and convincingly proven the commission of the crime and the arrest of the accused. The accused-appellant's apprehension was a direct result of the buy-bust operation, initiated by information from a confidential informant. The Court held that the non-presentation of the confidential informant was within the discretion of the prosecutor, and if the defense believed the informant could exculpate the accused, they could have called the informant themselves. The fact that the accused signed procedural documents like the Receipt of Property Seized, Booking and Arrest Report, and the Statement of Rights, even if allegedly without counsel and after maltreatment, did not prove his innocence or guilt concerning the crime charged, as these documents pertained to post-arrest procedures. The Court concluded that the appellant failed to show any error in the trial court's conviction, as the evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Main Doctrine
The positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses during a buy-bust operation, corroborated by physical evidence, is sufficient to overcome a bare denial, even if the amount involved is small. The failure to present a confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as the discretion to present witnesses lies with the prosecutor.