People v. Alegro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The appellant, Nida Alegro, was charged with selling methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") in violation of Section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 6425). The prosecution presented evidence that appellant was apprehended following a buy-bust operation conducted by PO2 Nicomedes Carandang and PO3 Faustino Remo on August 7, 1992. PO2 Carandang acted as the poseur-buyer, using a marked P100-bill. After the exchange, appellant was arrested. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite, in a Joint Decision dated June 22, 1993, found appellant Nida Alegro guilty of selling "shabu" and sentenced her to suffer life imprisonment and pay a P20,000.00 fine. Another accused, Oscar Bautista, was found guilty of possession of "shabu" in a separate case. The Petition: Appellant Nida Alegro appealed her conviction, arguing that the trial court erred in convicting her solely on the presumption of regularity and disregarding her evidence, and that the penalty imposed should be modified pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant solely on the presumption that the apprehending officers performed their duties regularly and brushing aside her evidence. Whether the penalty of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant should be modified pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant but modified the penalty imposed. The Court ordered the immediate release of the appellant as her period of detention had already exceeded the reduced penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction based on presumption of regularity and credibility of witnesses: The Court held that the story of the successful entrapment of the appellant was narrated with consistency by the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation. The trial court considered them trustworthy witnesses, noting their straightforward manner and demeanor on the witness stand, and the absence of any shown evil motive on their part to testify falsely against the accused. This assessment of credibility, made by the trial court which had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses, deserves the highest respect. As law enforcers, their narration is worthy of belief, and they are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the appellant's defense of denial or frame-up must fail, as such defenses are viewed with disfavor and can easily be concocted. Furthermore, Oscar Bautista, the co-accused and appellant's "kumpadre," confirmed in court that the "shabu" seized was bought from the appellant, negating the frame-up theory. The Court reiterated that knowledge by the accused that the poseur-buyer is a policeman does not deter them from selling "shabu," as drug pushers have become increasingly daring and operate openly, even selling to police officers. On the issue of penalty modification pursuant to R.A. 7659: The Court agreed with the appellant and the Solicitor General that the penalty of life imprisonment should be modified. The Chemistry Report indicated that the total weight of "shabu" taken from the appellant was 0.05 grams. Pursuant to R.A. 7659, which amended the Dangerous Drugs Act, the penalty for the sale of 0.05 grams of "shabu" is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed a penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor as the minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional medium, as the maximum. Since the appellant's period of detention since August 1992 had already exceeded this reduced penalty, the Court ordered her immediate release, unless detained for other causes.
Main Doctrine
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses prevail over a self-serving claim of frame-up, absent proof of intent by police authorities to falsely impute a crime. The penalty for selling a small quantity of shabu should be modified pursuant to R.A. 7659 and relevant jurisprudence.