People v. Dela Cruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Romeo Dela Cruz y Meda was charged with violation of Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, for allegedly selling, giving away, and delivering two foils of dried marijuana leaves on September 11, 1987, in Pasay City. Procedural History: Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented Patrolman Pedro Serafico, who testified that he conducted a surveillance operation and posed as a buyer. He claimed that the accused handed him two foils of suspected marijuana after receiving a twenty-peso bill. Forensic Chemist Neva Gamosa testified that the specimen examined was positive for marijuana. Cpl. Apolinario Lammatao and Patrolman Norman Reyes corroborated Serafico's testimony regarding the buy-bust operation and the arrest. The defense presented the accused, who denied the sale and claimed he was forced to point to a known peddler. Defense witness Orlando Miranda testified that the seller was one Berto, not the appellant. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The Petition: The accused appealed, assigning several errors, including the trial court's finding of entrapment instead of instigation, the existence of a sale, the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the admissibility of seized property, and the failure to give credence to defense witnesses.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was entrapment instead of instigation. Whether the trial court erred in stating that there was a sale of marijuana. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses despite alleged contradictions and inconsistencies. Whether the trial court erred in admitting and giving credence to the receipt of property seized. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence and weight to the testimonies of the accused and his witnesses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of entrapment versus instigation: The Court reiterated the distinction between entrapment and instigation. Entrapment involves resorting to means to trap a lawbreaker, while instigation involves inducing the commission of the offense. The Court found that the police merely furnished facilities for the commission of the crime, and there was no showing that the accused was induced to sell marijuana. The ease with which the sale was consummated suggested it was customary for the accused to sell the substance on demand, negating instigation. The Court cited established jurisprudence that it is no defense that facilities were placed in the perpetrator's way or that the act was done at the solicitation of decoys seeking to expose the criminal. On the existence of a sale of marijuana: The Court held that the failure to present the twenty-peso bill used in the buy-bust operation did not negate the crime. Citing People v. Gatongo and People v. Teves, the Court stated that the crime is consummated by the delivery of the prohibited drug, even without the marked money, as long as the police officer went through the motions of a buyer and the offer was accepted. The marijuana delivered by the accused was presented as evidence, which was sufficient. On the credibility of prosecution witnesses and alleged inconsistencies: The Court addressed the alleged contradictions regarding the denomination of the money and the wrappers of the marijuana. It noted that while Lammatao could not recall the denomination, Serafico, the poseur-buyer, positively identified it as a twenty-peso bill. Regarding the wrappers, the Court reconciled the testimonies by explaining that three foils were involved: two were handed by the accused to Serafico during the buy-bust, and a third was found on the accused's person after his arrest. The Court deemed these matters as collateral and not affecting the commission of the crime itself, which was consummated upon delivery of the marijuana. On the admissibility of the receipt of property seized: The Court clarified that the marijuana presented in evidence was seized during the buy-bust operation and lawful arrest, not during any custodial investigation. Therefore, it was admissible. The Court emphasized that the accused's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the positive identification of the seller by the poseur-buyer and the laboratory examination of the seized marijuana, independent of any extra-judicial confession or evidence gathered during investigation. On the weight given to defense witnesses: The Court deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, stating that the trial judge is in a better position to observe the demeanor and conduct of witnesses. The Court found no reason to depart from the trial court's findings, noting that the prosecution witnesses, being law enforcers, are presumed to have regularly performed their duties and were not shown to have improper motives. The Court also found it implausible that police officers conducting a buy-bust operation would arrest the wrong person if the defense witness's claim of another seller (Berto) were true.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the prosecution to present the marked money used in a buy-bust operation does not negate the existence of the crime charged, especially when the prohibited drug was delivered by the accused to the poseur-buyer and the same was presented in court as evidence. Furthermore, inconsistencies on collateral matters such as the denomination of the money used or the specific type of wrapper for the prohibited drug do not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses or the commission of the crime.