People v. Darisan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Drug Enforcement Unit of the Makati City Police received an informant's tip regarding appellants Lourderico Darisan and Pilar Gauang's drug-pushing activities. A buy-bust operation was conducted where PO2 Vicente Barrameda, posing as a buyer, purchased shabu from the appellants using marked money. Upon arrest, two more sachets of shabu were found in Darisan's possession, and two more in Gauang's possession. The sachets were confirmed to contain shabu. Procedural History: Appellants were charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. They pleaded not guilty and presented alibi as their defense. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment for illegal sale and a prison term for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The Petition: Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's reliance on the testimonies of the police officers, alleging inconsistencies that indicated falsehood. They argued that their guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the guilt of the appellants for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were reliable despite alleged inconsistencies. Whether the essential elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were sufficiently proven. Whether the penalty imposed for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was correct, specifically regarding the mandatory fine.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the appeal, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification regarding the penalty for illegal possession. Appellants Lourderico Darisan y Ortiz and Pilar Gauang y Gayas were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the reliability of testimonies: The Court reiterated the settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, as they are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence to the contrary. The Court found no evidence of irregularity in the conduct of the buy-bust operation or any improper motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the buy-bust team composition, the informant's arrival time, the exact street of the operation, and the markings on the money were deemed minor and not material to the establishment of the elements of the crimes. The testimonies of PO2 Barrameda and PO2 Costa were found to be unequivocal, definite, straightforward, and consistent in material respects with each other and with other evidence. The RTC, having the advantage of observing the witnesses' demeanor, found their testimonies credible, and the Supreme Court saw no cogent reason to deviate from this finding. The defense of alibi was dismissed as it is a common defense ploy and easily concocted, especially when faced with proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs: The Court affirmed that the prosecution successfully proved all the essential elements for both offenses. For illegal sale, it was established that the transaction took place and the corpus delicti (the illicit drug) was presented in court. The appellants were positively identified as the sellers. For illegal possession, it was shown that the appellants were in possession of shabu, such possession was not authorized by law, and they were consciously aware of their possession. The marked money and the seized shabu were duly presented and identified. On the penalty for illegal possession: The Court found that the RTC and CA incorrectly imposed only a penalty of imprisonment for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165. While the imprisonment term was correct, the mandatory fine provided by the law was omitted. Section 11(3) explicitly states that for quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" less than five grams, the penalty includes imprisonment and a fine ranging from ₱300,000.00 to ₱400,000.00. Therefore, the penalty for illegal possession was modified to include the mandatory fine.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, emphasizing the credibility of police officers as witnesses and the established elements of the offenses. It also modified the penalty for illegal possession by imposing the mandatory fine.