PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELIPE RAMOS Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an
appeal from the decision*
of the Regional Trial
Court of the National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 164, Pasig, Metro Manila,
in Criminal Case No. 1517-D of said court, finding the accused
guilty of violation of Section
15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00.

It appears that
on 8 March 1991, the police Narcotics Command based in Camp Crame, Quezon City,
received informa­tion that the herein accused-appellant Felipe Ramos y Cruz was
selling “shabu”, a regulated drug, in his residence at No. 3 Interior
Mamerto Street, Rosario, Pasig, Metro Manila. In view thereof, a police
team was immediately formed to
conduct a “buy-bust”
operation in order to entrap Ramos. Police Officer
Sol Otto was designated as the
buyer and was furnished with a marked hundred peso bill.

The police team
arrived at the place of the appellant at about 8:30 o’clock in the evening of
the same day. After finding that the
appellant was at home, the police informer and Police Officer Sol Otto knocked
on the door. The appellant peeped from
a window in the second floor of his house and moments later, he opened the
front door and bade the police informer and Sol Otto to enter. Inside his house, Sol Otto was introduced to
the appellant as a “user”
of “shabu” who wanted to buy some of the stuff. Sol Otto then told the appellant that he
wanted to buy P100.00 worth of “shabu” and gave the appellant the
marked hundred peso bill. The appellant took
the money and went to the second floor of his house. Upon his return, he gave a packet of
crystalline powder to Sol Otto who thereafter introduced himself as a Narcotics Command agent and placed
the appellant under arrest. Meanwhile,
the police informer stepped out of the house and gave the pre-arranged signal
to the other members of the police team who then entered the appellant’s house.^[1]

Sgt. Logan, a
member of the police team, placed the handcuffs on the appellant while Sgt.
Marino Gumabay took out the appellant’s wallet from his back pocket and
retrieved the marked hundred peso bill.^[2]

The packet of
white crystalline substance sold by the appellant to Sol Otto,^[3] was forwarded to the crime
laboratory of the Philippine National Police.^[4] Upon examination, the said packet was
found to contain methamphe­tamine hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.^[5]

Consequently,
Felipe Ramos y Cruz was charged before the Regional Trial Court of the National
Capital Region with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act committed as follows:

“That on or about the 8th day of March 1991 in the
Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized
by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver
and give away to another 0.07 grams of white crystalline substance positive to
the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) which is a regulated drug,
in consideration of P100.00.”^[6]

When arraigned,
the accused pleaded not guilty. At the
trial, he denied having sold “shabu” to the police operative. He testified that at about 8:30 o’clock in
the evening of 8 March 1991, while he was being given a manicure by Violeta Layson (Belmonte) and having a bottle of
beer with
his friend Joselito dela Cruz, in the sala of his house, he heard a loud knock
at the door. So, he went upstairs and
peeped through a window. He saw about 8 to 10 armed men inside his compound. He asked the armed men what they wanted and
also told them not to break the door as he was coming down to open it for
them. Immediately after he had opened
the door, the armed men barged into the house and searched his room, as well as
that of his son, for “shabu”, but they were not able to find
any. Thereafter, he was forcibly taken
to Camp Crame where he was detained. Five (5) days later, he was brought before an inquest fiscal where he
was informed of the charge against him.^[7]

His
testimony is corroborated by Violeta Belmonte, a beautician who claimed she was
giving the accused a manicure at the time. She declared, moreover, that the armed men introduced themselves as “NARCOM”
before
they entered the house of the accused Felipe Ramos.^[8] She also
affirmed that she executed a joint affidavit^[9] with
Joselito dela Cruz about the events that transpired in the evening of 8 March 1991
in the house of Felipe Ramos.

The
trial court, however, gave credence to the testimony of the Narcotics agents
since “their action sustain the presumption that they have performed their
duties in a regular manner and there is no
evidence and nothing to indicate that the poseur-buyer PO3 Sol Otto was
actuated by improper motives to falsely impute a serious and unfounded charge
against the accused,” and, accordingly, sentenced the accused to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. From that sentence, the accused has appealed
to this Court.

The accused-appellant seeks the reversal of the appealed
judgment, claiming that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not
sufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are implausible and conflicting.

After a meticulous perusal of the record of the case, the Court is
convinced that the herein accused-appellant, Felipe Ramos y Cruz, had committed
the crime imputed to him. The
testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution has
established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The crime of illegal sale of regulated drugs
requires merely the consummation of the sale transaction whereby the accused
hands over the drug upon agreement with the buyer to exchange it with money.^[10] In the present case, prosecution
witness Sol Otto, a policeman who acted as the “poseur-buyer” in the
“buy-bust” operation, positively identified the accused-appellant as
the person to whom he gave the marked money and who gave him, in exchange, a
packet of white crystalline powder which, upon examination, was found to
contain “shabu”, a regulated
drug. His testimony reads as follows:

“Q:   When you said you proceeded to the area, what
place are you referring to?

A:    To
the residence of Felipe Ramos.

Q:   And
what happened when you reached the place of Felipe Ramos?

A:    Our
CI introduced me to Felipe Ramos sir, as a buyer-user.

Q:   And
you said you were introduced by your confidential informant. To (sic) what particular place were you
introduced?

A:    Inside
his house, sir.

Q:   And
what transpired inside the house of Felipe Ramos when you were introduced?

A:    I
told him that I would buy shabu worth P100.00.

Q:   And
what happened when you said you are going to buy shabu worth P100.00?

A:    He
received the money, then after he received the money from me, he went upstairs
and got the shabu and he gave it to me, sir.

Q:   When
you said he gave it to you, what did he give to you?

A:    The
shabu, sir.

Q: I am showing to you Exhibit ‘D’ for the
prosecution placed in a transparent plastic bag containing the word Evidence
and tell the Honorable Court how is this related from (sic) the shabu that was
given to you by Felipe Ramos?

A:    (Witness examining
Exhibit ‘D’) That was the same I bought from Felipe Ramos, sir (sic).

Q:   And
after this was given to you by Felipe Ramos, Exhibit ‘D’ for the prosecution,
what did you gave him in return, if there be any?

A:    I
have given him first, sir, the 100-peso bill before he gave me the shabu.

Q:   And
after the shabu was given to you, what transpired next, if there be any?

A:    I
introduced myself, sir, as a Narcom
agent.”^[11]

Since there is
nothing in the record to suggest that the said NARCOM agent was compelled by
any motive other than to accomplish his mission to entrap and capture a drug
pusher in the execution of a crime, credence should be accorded his testimony
for it is presumed that he has regularly performed his duty in the
absence of convincing proof to the contrary. And in this respect, the bare denial of the
accused-appellant that he had sold “shabu” to the law-enforcer cannot
overcome the clear, positive and convincing evidence of the prosecution. His claim of being framed, in the absence of
clear and convincing evidence that the prosecution witnesses were vindictive or
overzealous, cannot also rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties.

The discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
pointed out by the accused-appellant in his brief, refer to minor details which
do not militate against their credibility. As the Court has repeatedly stated, the witnesses testifying on the same
event do not have to be consistent in every detail as differences in
recollection or viewpoints or impressions are inevitable. Total recall or perfect harmony is not
required. As long as the witnesses
concur on material points, slight differences in their remembrance of the
details do not reflect on the essential veracity of their testimony.^[12]

The appellant’s
protest that he was arrested and searched without a warrant is a feeble
afterthought. It appears that he
was validly arrested while actually committing a crime and he was validly
searched incidental to such arrest.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should
be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED, with
costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Apolonio R. Chavez,
Jr.

^[1]
pp. 4-8, tsn Paraiso, session of October 7, 1991

^[2]
Exhibit E; also pp. 5-6, tsn Tesorero, Session of September 12, 1991

^[3]
Exhibit D

^[4]
Exhibit A

^[5]
Exhibit C

^[6]
See Information, p. 1, Original
Records

^[7]
Tsn Baiza, session of November 5, 1991, pp. 3-7

^[8]
Tsn Tesorero, session of November 12, 1991, pp. 2-7

^[9]
Exhibit 1, Original Records, pp. 36-37

^[10]
People vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 91646, 212 SCRA 748, 754; August 21, 1992

^[11]
Tsn Paraiso, session of October 7, 1991, p. 7

^[12]
See People vs. Alaban, G.R. No. 97431, September 28, 1992