PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RANIEL MARTINEZ Y OCAMPO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

RANIEL MARTINEZ Y OCAMPO appeals from the Decision^[1]
of the court a quo declaring him guilty of unauthorized sale of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a derivative of a regulated drug
(amphetamine), in violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, of R. A. 6425.

The evidence for the prosecution: On 14 December 1989, in response to complaints by residents of
Palanan, Makati, that a certain Raniel Martinez was engaged in the rampant
selling of shabu in the area, Capt. Reynaldo H. Jaylo, Chief of the
Narcotics Section, Investigation Division, Western Police District, organized a
buy-bust team composed of Pfc. Antonio Habalo, Jr., as poseur-buyer, and Pfc.
Marlon Masangya and Pfc. Paterno Banawel, as backup, to catch Martinez
red-handed.

Accompanied by a confidential informant, the team proceeded to an
alley along Julio de la Cruz St. in Palanan, Makati where Raniel Martinez was
reportedly selling his prohibited wares. Pfc. Masangya and Pfc. Banawel positioned themselves some ten (10)
meters away from where Martinez stood while Pfc. Habalo, Jr., and the
confidential informant approached the suspect. The informant introduced Pfc. Habalo, Jr., as someone interested in
buying shabu. In response,
however, the suspect pulled the informant to one side and whispered to the
latter, “Mukhang pulis yata ‘yan.”
The informant answered “Hindi, bagong user lang.” Apparently
assured, Martinez faced Pfc. Habalo, Jr., and asked the latter if he was really
serious in buying drugs. Habalo
responded by handing the marked P100-bill1 to
Martinez who accepted it. In exchange,
Martinez pulled out an aluminum foil from his pocket and gave it to Habalo who
thereupon revealed his true identity. Raniel Martinez put up a futile struggle to escape but was subdued with
the help of Pfc. Banawel. Besides the
marked money, six (6) more aluminum foils were recovered from Martinez3 which, together with the one sold to Pfc. Habalo,
Jr.,4 yielded positive results for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu upon examination by the Forensic Chemistry
Section of the National Bureau of Investigation.5

On his part, the accused denied selling shabu to
the poseur-buyer and claimed he was framed-up by the police to avenge the death
of a civilian NARCOM agent whom accused and his brother Danny were suspected of
killing. Martinez contended that he was
resting in his room in their house at No. 4012 Julio de la Cruz St., in
Palanan, Makati, at about six o’clock in the evening of 14 December 1989 when
he heard the sound of the front door being “destroyed.” Some twelve
(12) policemen barged into the room, aimed their guns at him, and ordered him
to go downstairs where he was then mauled in front of his parents. His mother’s pleas for the police to stop
were unheeded. Finally, he was forced
to board a police vehicle and brought to the WPD Police Station where he was
detained. To lend support to his story,
accused-appellant’s parents, Edgardo and Priscilla Martinez, testified that
their son was indeed at home when the police barged in, not selling drugs in
some alley as the arresting team claimed.

The court a quo rejected the defense and labeled the
contradictions in the testimonies of the defense witnesses as veritable badges
of perjury.6

Martinez claimed that the intruders, numbering about twelve,7 barged into their house by destroying the front
door, all in five minutes;8 that they
entered his room saying, “Ikaw si Brandy, Ikaw ang pumatay sa
NARCOM agent;” and, that he was beaten up in front of his parents
whose pleas for the police to stop were ignored.9

However, according to appellant’s father, Edgardo Martinez (who
claimed to be resting in the sala when the incident occurred), only four
persons (three policemen and a photographer)10 entered
the house by merely opening the front door which was unlocked,11 and that they brought with them a big box
containing a weighing scale and aluminum foils which they passed off as those
of his son.12 Moreover, he denied hearing the
intruders accuse his son of killing a NARCOM agent.13

Presented to corroborate the version of appellant and his father,
Priscilla Martinez (appellant’s mother) actually made matters worse for the
defense when she denied her husband’s presence at the time of the intrusion
(which, according to her, happened between eight and nine in the evening)
claiming that the latter was at the market when the police barged in and not
resting in the sala as he claimed, and that he came in only when the policemen
were already in their son’s room.14 More
significantly, she denied seeing them beat up her son.15

Ester Halang and Gerardo Santos tried to corroborate the story of
the accused. However, we agree with the
court a quo that their rather belated appearance casts serious doubt on
their credibility.

The incident occurred on 14 December 1989. However, while claiming to have witnessed
the atrocity committed by the police, Halang and Santos never came forward with
their account until they were suddenly presented as the last witnesses for the
defense on 7 June and 16 August 1991, respectively, or almost two years after
the alleged incident. It is curious to
note that Gerardo Santos did not even know that he would testify until two days
before his scheduled appearance on 16 August 1991.16 Although delay in the appearance of witnesses is
normally not counted against their credibility, we have so held only in cases
where the witnesses have reason to entertain fears of getting involved in the
case and of provoking reprisals from the accused.17 However, in the case at bench, Ester Halang and
Gerardo Santos did not even pretend to dread the consequences of appearing in
court. In fact, the only reason Santos
could offer for the delay was that he was too busy.18 To this, we can only say that we find it difficult
to believe that a witness would dally in coming forward with the truth on the
shallow pretext that he was too busy considering the seriousness of the charge
and the witness’ proximity to the supposed victim, being the latter’s next-door
neighbor.19 As it is, the delay only
succeeded in similarly engendering doubt in our minds as to the veracity of the
testimonies offered. Hence, the court a
quo was correct when it gave scant attention to the testimonies of Halang
and Santos. Besides, the trial judge is
considered the best arbiter of credibility in the absence of any reason for us
not to rely on his assessment.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it focused
unnecessarily on the discrepancies in the testimonies of the defense witnesses
which he would have us disregard for being of minor consequence.20 But, we cannot. For although it may seem trivial to accused-appellant, the overall effect
of the inconsistencies in the testimonies was to shatter the credibility of the
defense. While the yardstick to
determine whether an accused is really guilty or not is the strength of the
evidence presented by the prosecution, it is still of unquestionable advantage
for the defense if it can prod the trial judge into at least considering the
possibility that it might be telling the truth. For no matter how strong the evidence for the prosecution is, as
long as a reasonable doubt enters the mind of the trial judge as to the guilt
of the accused brought about by a credible defense, the judge is duty bound to
declare an acquittal. In the case at
bench, the defense failed to even project a credible version and, in the
process, only served to magnify the credibility of the prosecution. For unlike the witnesses for the defense,
those of the prosecution consisting of the arresting team of Pfc. Habalo, Jr.,
Pfc. Masangya and Pfc. Banawel, and NBI Forensic Chemist Nicanor Cruz, all
testified in a clear and direct manner on the actual occurrence of the sale in
an alley along Julio de la Cruz St., in Makati and that the substance delivered
was undeniably shabu. For which
reason, we affirm.

However, in view of the amendments introduced by R. A. No. 765921 on certain sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act, a
complete modification of the penalty imposed upon accused-appellant by the
trial court22 is called for.

As it now stands, a violation of Sec. 15, R. A. No. 642523 is penalized, in addition to an increased fine ranging
from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 with reclusion perpetua to death if
the shabu involved is 200 grams or more; otherwise, where the quantity
unlawfully sold, delivered or distributed is less, only a reduced penalty
ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal24 shall be imposed, minus the fine.

In this case, the amount of shabu confiscated per report
of the Forensic Chemistry Section of the NBI is less than a gram or only
0.8020.25 Hence, under Sec. 15 of R. A. 6425, in relation to
Sec. 20 thereof, as amended, the reduced penalty of prision
correccional to reclusion temporal should be imposed considering
that it is favorable to the accused.26

In People v. Simon,27 the
Court categorically declared that the component penalties of prision correccional,
prision mayor and reclusion temporal shall each be “considered
as a principal imposable penalty x x x of the total complex penalty x x x to
be imposed separately as determined by the quantity of the drug involved x x
x” and that the modifying circumstances shall be “used to fix
the proper period of that component penalty.” Thus, the Court directed
that the quantities (of the different drugs) enumerated in Sec. 20 of R. A. No.
6425, as amended, be “divided into three, with the resulting
quotient, and double or treble the same, to be respectively used as bases for
allocating the penalty proportionately among the three x x x periods
according to the severity thereof.”

Under the foregoing directive, since the amount of shabu
involved in the instant case is only 0.8020 gram, the proper imposable
component penalty is prision correccional to be applied in its medium
period, in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,28 the maximum shall be taken from the medium period
of prision correccional, which is two (2) years, four (4) months and one
(1) day, to four (4) years and two (2) months, while the minimum shall be taken
from the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor, the range
of which is one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from finding
accused-appellant RANIEL MARTINEZ Y OCAMPO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Sec. 15, Art. III, of R. A. No. 6425 is AFFIRMED, with the modification
that he is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months
of arresto mayor maximum as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional medium as maximum. Costs against accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Cruz, (Chairman), J., on leave.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Manuel M. Cosico, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Br. 136,
dated 20 November 1991; Rollo, pp. 19-24; Original Records, pp. 288-294.

2 Exh. “H,” Original Records, p. 126.

3 Exhs. “G-1” to “G-4,” “G-6” and
“G-7.”

4 Exh. “G-5.”

5 Exh. “F,” Original Records, p. 125.

6 See Decision, pp. 5-7; Original Records, pp. 292-­294.

7 TSN, 29 January 1991, pp. 27-28.

8 Id., pp. 27-28.

9 Id., pp. 13-14.

10 TSN, 22 February 1991, p. 3.

11 Id., pp. 3, 14.

12 Id., pp. 7-8.

13 Id., p. 14.

14 TSN, 16 April 1991, pp. 4, 6-7.

15 Id., p. 7.

16 TSN, 16 August 1991, p.
6.

17 People v. Competente, G. R. No. 96697, 26 March 1992, 207 SCRA
591, 596; People v. Aguiluz, G. R. No. 91662, 11 March 1992, 207 SCRA
187, 195; People v. Pacia, G. R. No. 69543, 14 June
1990, 186 SCRA 529, 534; People v. Punzalan, G. R. No. 54562, 6 August
1987, 153 SCRA 1, 12; People v. Medrano, G. R. No. 55831, 31 May 1982,
114 SCRA 335, 340; People v. Delfin, Nos. L-15230
and 15979-81, 31 July 1961, 2 SCRA 911, 918-­919; People v. Villamin, 64
Phil. 880, 885 (1937).

18 TSN, 16 August 1991, p.
6.

19 Id., p. 5.

20 Brief for Appellant, p. 9; Rollo, p. 48.

21 An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws,
and for Other Purposes.

22 x x x the Court finds the accused, Raniel Martinez Y
Ocampo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the information,
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos [P20,000.00]
(Decision dated 20 November 1991, p. 7; Rollo, p. 24).

23 As amended by Sec. 14, R. A. No. 7659.

24 As amended by Sec. 17, R. A. No. 7659, the second paragraph of Sec. 20,
R. A. No. 6425 reads as follows:

Otherwise, if
the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall
range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending
upon the quantity (underscoring ours).

To correct the
overlapping error which consists in the imposition of reclusion perpetua both
as the maximum of the penalty where the amount of drugs involved is less than
the quantities specified and as the minimum where the quantity involved is
equal to or more than the amounts specified, the Court in People v. Simon
categorically stated:

x x x we hereby hold that the penalty
to be imposed where the quantity of the drugs involved is less than the
quantities stated in the first paragraph shall range from prision
correccional to reclusion temporal, and not reclusion
perpetua (underscoring ours).

25 Exh. “F,”
Original Records, p. 125.

26 Sec. 22, The Revised Penal Code.

27 G. R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994.

28 Using the first part of Sec. 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law as
explained in the majority opinion in People v. Simon.