PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GAUDENCIO BAUTISTA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

From the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, Branch
XVIII, Tagaytay City, in Criminal Case No. TG-1715-91, finding the
accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 15, Art.
III of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as “The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972” and sentencing him to suffer “the supreme penalty of reclusion perpetua or life sentence together
with all its accessory penalties and fines” and also to pay a fine of
P25,000.00 in favor of the government (p. 38, Rollo), the accused-appellant
interposes this appeal.

The antecedent facts as found by the lower court reveal that on
April 2, 1991, the Tagaytay City police apprehended a certain Renato Litada and
received a tip from him that some­body at Barangay Mendez Crossing, Tagaytay
City was selling “shabu”, the popular name for the prohibited drug
methampe­thamine hydrochloride (p. 13, Rollo). Pat. Rolando Gatpandan with his companions conducted surveillance at the
area. The policeman further learned
from Renato Litada that Gaudencio Bautista, herein accused-appellant, was
selling shabu in that area and that he was then in the house of Rosalina
Gatpandan at Barangay Mendez Crossing (p. 18, Rollo).

Upon being so informed, Lt. Col. Dalmacio Cortez, the police
station commander, advised his men to form a team to conduct a buy-bust
operation at Mendez Crossing (p. 22, Rollo). The assembled group had five (5) members, namely, Cpl. Mario Villanueva,
Pat. Rolando (Rolly) Gatpandan, Pat. Rafael Aceron, Pat. Tirso Petil, and the
station commander (p. 13, Rollo).

Pursuant to the station commander’s instructions, the group
prepared marked money and thereafter proceeded on board a motor vehicle to the
house of Rosalina Gatpandan which was located at Mendez Crossing.

Cpl. Villanueva selected Tirso Petil and Rolly Gatpandan to act
as poseur-buyers because they were familiar with the place, being former
residents thereof. At that time, Cpl.
Villanueva was unaware that Pat. Rolly Gatpandan was related to the woman
Rosalina Gatpandan (p. 25, Rollo). The
pair, with two P100.00 bills of marked money in their possession, walked towards the house while the rest of
the group remained a short distance away. The two were in civilian clothes and carried short firearms
underneath their shirts (pp. 13 & 15, Rollo).

Rolly Gatpandan with his companion walked to the house of
Rosalina Gatpandan, who happened to be his second cousin (p. 95, Rollo). Rosalina opened the door and allowed them to
enter. She did not ask them anything
because, he surmised, she recognized him as a relative. After letting them in, she then went inside
the bathroom (p. 21, Rollo).

Tirso Petil remained standing by the door while Rolly Gatpandan
entered the house by himself (p. 16, Rollo). Rolly proceeded to the receiving sala where appellant Gaudencio
Bautista was. He approached the said
accused-appellant and asked the latter if he has shabu. Appellant said “yes” and the price
is P200.00 per foil. Rolly then
purchased one foil of the drug for P200.00 from appellant (p. 21, Rollo). From Tirso’s vantage point, he saw Rolly
hand over to Bautista the marked money. Thereafter, the accused-appellant got the shabu wrapped in foil from the
waist of his red short pants and handed it to Rolly (p. 16, Rollo).

After the transaction, the two policemen went out of the house
and met with the rest of the group who were just outside waiting. Tirso informed the station commander that he
was able to buy the shabu from appellant (pp. 27-28, Rollo). The
group then immediately entered the same house and arrest­ed the
accused-appellant (p. 16, Rollo). The
station com­mander searched the body of appellant Bautista and retrieved from
him the marked money, seven (7) other pieces of aluminum foil and a film box
both containing shabu (p. 16, pp. 23-24, and p. 28, Rollo). When tested, the material obtained from
appellant were verified and identified by the NBI as shabu (p. 17, Rollo).

An Information dated April 5, 1991 was filed against appellant
Gaudencio Bautista setting out the charge against him, as follows:

“That on or about April 2, 1991 in the City of Tagaytay and
within the jurisdiction of this Hon­orable Court, the above-named Accused not
being authorized by law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and deliver to Pat. Tirso Petil and Pat. Rolando Gatpandan,
who acted as poseur buyer, P200.00 worth of Methamphethamine Hydrochloride,
commonly known as ‘shabu’, a regu­lated drug and is considered prohibited by
law, to the damage and prejudice of the government.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

As stated earlier, Bautista was found guilty by the lower court, hence, this appeal
with the following assignment of errors:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN GIVING FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE
TESTIMONIES OF PAT. TIRSO PETIL AND PAT. ROLANDO GATPANDAN, THE ALLEGED
POSEUR-BUYERS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THEIR TESTIMONIES ARE NOT CLEAR, CONVINCING
AND STRAIGHTFORWARD AND ARE FULL OF INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT SINCE LT. COL.
DALMACIO CORTEZ IS NOT ARMED WITH ANY SEARCH WARRANT NOR ANY WARRANT OF ARREST,
IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ARREST OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND THE ALLEGED SEIZURE
AND/OR CONFISCATION OF THE MARKED MONEY AND SHABU ARE ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL AND
X X X INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR

“THE HONORABLE COURT FINALLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
PROSECUTION MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.” p. 54, Rollo

The accused-apellant, in his first assignment of error, argues
that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of Pat.
Rolando Gatpandan and Pat. Tirso Petil regarding the surveillance of the
accused, preparation of the marked money, and the immediate antecedent circum­stances
that led to the buy-bust operation (p. 73, Rollo).

Assuming, arguendo, that the alleged inconsistencies exist, these
are on minor details which do not affect the case of the prosecution. Differences or discrepancies on minor
matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution’s evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses’ honesty
so long as there exists a basic agreement on the main points of the incident
(People vs. Bernardino, 193 SCRA 448, 451 [1991]). These inconsistencies even tend to strengthen rather than weaken
the credibility of the pro­secution because they erase any suspicion of
rehearsed testimony (People vs. Custodio, 197 SCRA 538, 544 [1991]). What is important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts and the respective
versions narrated sub­stantially coincide with each other to make a consistent
and coherent whole (People vs. Gadiana, 195 SCRA 211, 214).

Poseur-buyer, Pat. Rolando Gatpandan, clearly and positively
identified appellant Bautista as the shabu pusher in his testimony and that he (Pat. Gatpandan) was able to obtain the
drug from the appellant, thus:

“ATTY. BARZAGA:

Q. In what part of the house did you see
Gaudencio Bautista?

A. Inside the house, sir.

Q. Was it at the sala?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How far was he positioned from the
door?

A. Approximately three (3) meters.

x          x          x

Q.
And then you talked to the accused after that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you tell the accused.

A. I asked if he has (sic) a shabu.

Q. And on this, he answered yes?

A. Yes, sir.

ATTY. BARZAGA:

Q. And then you purchased already?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What exact words did you tell?

A. I asked him if he has (sic) shabu,
and he presented it to me.

Q. And did you talk about the price?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ask the quantity of shabu
which you will purchase?

A. I asked him how much is one (1) foil
of shabu.

Q. And what was his answer?

“A. He told me P200.00 per foil.

Q. So,
you bought one (1) foil of shabu?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And during this conversation between
you and the accused, Pat. Tirso Petil was approximately three (3) meters away
from you, will that be correct?

A. Yes, sir. (pp. 161-162, Rollo)

Pat. Tirso Petil, who accompanied Pat. Gatpandan to the house where
the buy-bust operation was conducted, fully corroborated the abovequoted
testimony of Pat. Rolando Gatpandan, as follows:

Q: Now, you actually saw the accused
selling shabu to Rollie Gatpandan?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You also actually saw Rollie
Gatpandan hand­ing the alleged marked money to the accused?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did the accused get the shabu?

A: On his waist.

Q: Did
he get it from his pocket?

A: He was wearing shorts, colored short
pants.

Q: And where did he place the two
hundred peso bills after receiving the same?

A: He just held them.

Q: After that, what you do, together
with Rollie Gatpandan, was to
get out of the house of Rosalina, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.” (pp. 86-87, Rollo)

There can be no doubt that the sale of the prohibited drug indeed
occurred. There was delivery of the
shabu by appellant to the poseur-buyer and receipt of payment of the purchase
price by appellant-seller from the poseur-buyer.

As regards the second assignment of error to the effect that the seizure and confiscation of the
marked money and shabu was illegal as no search warrant nor warrant of arrest
was issued, this case demonstrates a valid warrantless arrest under Section
6(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The accused makes much of the fact that the two poseur-buyers did
not immediately make the arrest right after the purchase was effected but
instead reported the completion of the buy-bust transaction to the station
commander who then entered the house with the group and was the one who
actually searched and arrested the accused-appellant. Appellant argues that the
arresting officer, Lt. Col. Dalmacio Cortez, did not have any warrant nor any
personal knowledge of the sale of the shabu.

An early decision of this Court has held that peace officers may
pursue and arrest without warrant any person under circumstances reasonably
tending to show that such person has committed, or is about to commit any crime
or breach of the peace. Probable cause
for an arrest without warrant is such a reasonable ground for suspicion
supported by circumstances strong in themselves as to warrant a reason­able man
in believing the accused to be guilty (U.S. vs. Santos, 36 Phil. 853, at 854-855 [1917]).

More than sufficient grounds can be found in the present
case. The station commander got his
information directly from his own men, and he saw for himself the presence of
the purchased drug and the culprit from whom the prohibited drug was
purchased. To say that he is now re­quired
to secure a warrant to arrest the perpetrator of the crime is to unduly limit
the power of our police in enforcing the laws of the land. To require search warrants during the
on-the-spot apprehensions of drug pushers would make it extremely difficult, if
not impossible, to contain the crimes committed by these persons (People vs.
Tangliben, 184 SCRA 220, 226 [1990]).

For his defense, the accused-appellant interposed a mere denial
of the crime charged, consisting of
his lone testimony. No other evidence was offered to corroborate
it, despite a string of opportunities offered him (p. 35, Rollo). Appellant did not present his girl
friend Rosalina Gatpandan in whose house the offense was committed. Mere denials consti­tute self-serving
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. Moreover, as between a positive and
categorical testimony which has the ring of truth on one hand and a bare denial
on the other, the former is generally held to prevail (People vs. Abonada, 169
SCRA 530, 538 [1989]).

There is nothing on record which indicates that the police
operatives who entrapped accused-appellant were actu­ated by improper motive
against appellant Bautista, consider­ing the seriousness of the offense charged
(People vs. Olivares, 186 SCRA 536, 546
[1990]). Credence can be given to the
narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, who as police
officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the
absence of proof to the contrary. As
such, their testimonies should be entitled to full faith and credit (People vs.
Boholst, 152 SCRA 263, 270 [1987]). Indeed, the lower court found the prosecution presented its case
“with such flawless and indubitable credibility, worthy of the full faith
and credence of any impartial arbiter” (p. 37, Rollo).

For these reasons, We find it unnecessary to discuss the third
assignment of error.

At this juncture, this Court reiterates the ruling that life
imprisonment as penalty for illegal sale of drugs is not synonymous with reclusion
perpetua which carries accessory penalties (People vs. Madriaga, 211 SCRA
698, 716 [1992]). The proper penalty
that ought to have been imposed by the lower court in its Decision should
simple read life imprison­ment without any reference to reclusion perpetua
and its accessory penalties.

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED, with
modification in the dispositive portion by deleting the term reclusion
perpetua and reference to its accessory penalties.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Romero, Melo, and Vitug, JJ., concur.