PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO GONZALES Y LAYSON, ACCUSED APPELLANT.

Appellant Rolando L. Gonzales was charged before the Regional
Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172 with violation of Section
4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972 as amended, in an
information which reads:

“That on or about the 26th day of November, 1991 in
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO3 RENATO
FLORANO y PEREZ, who posed as buyer, dried marijuana leaves, knowing the same
to be a prohibited drugs (sic).

Contrary to law.” (Rollo, p. 3)

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and
trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

The facts of the
case as summarized by the Solicitor General are as follows:

“On November 26, 1991, at about 3:20 pm, an information was
received at the Dona Ata Police Sub-Station, Valenzuela, Metro Manila that
marijuana was being sold publicly at P. Deato Street, Marulas, Valenzuela,
Metro Manila.

“A ‘buy-bust’ team was then formed by SPO 4 Jacinto Cruz,
composed of prosecution witness PO3 Renato Florano, SPO 1 Enrique Dabu and Pat.
Arnel Rosete. PO2 Florano was to act as
the poseur-buyer.

The buy-bust team then proceeded to P. Deato St. Marulas,
Valenzuela, Metro Manila and arrived thereat at about 3:30 pm. There they saw appellant Rolando Gonzales
conversing with two other persons.

PO3 Florano approached appellant and told the latter that he
(Florano) wanted to buy marijuana, at the same time handing to appellant one
ten-peso bill.

After receiving the money from PO3 Florano, appellant went inside a
house located in a compound and returned three minutes later with the
marijuana. PO3 Florano then introduced
himself as a police officer, called his other companions and arrested appellant
and the two persons earlier seen talking with appellant. The money previously given to the appellant
was recovered from his right pocket.

The marijuana confiscated from appellant was submitted to the
National Bureau of Investigation for examination and found to be positive for
marijuana.” (Rollo, pp. 119-120)

At the trial, the prosecution presented three (3) witnesses,
namely PO3 Renato Florano, PO3 Frederico Patag and NBI Forensic Chemist Julieta Flores. PO3 Florano testified on the events of the
buy-bust operation which culminated in the arrest of appellant while Flores
testified on the results of the chemical examination she conducted on the
contents of the plastic bag handed by appellant to Florano which she found
positive for marijuana. Patag merely testified on the investigation he conducted on appellant after
the latter’s arrest.

The defense on the other
hand, presented accused-appellant
as its sole witness, who presented a totally
different version of the circumstances surrounding his arrest.

Appellant’s version of the events that led to his arrest purports to show that at about 3:30
p.m. on November 26, 1991, while he was alone outside the front yard of their house at P. Deato Street, Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro
Manila, police officers led by PO3 Florano picked him up and made him board an
owner-type jeepney owned by PO1 Dabu. Aboard the jeepney
were two persons allegedly earlier
apprehended by the group of
Florano.

Appellant claims that on
the way to the police sub-station, said
police officers forced him to admit that he sold marijuana to the two (2) other persons aboard the
owner-type jeepney, which he allegedly
refused to do. The police officers, however, persisted on their demand and because of his continued refusal to admit, brought him to the
police station where he was charged with the violation of Section 4,
Article II of RA No. 6425.

After trial, judgment was
rendered convicting the accused of the crime charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court finds the
accused guilty of violation of Section 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of P 20,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the costs. The
marijuana subject of this case is ordered confiscated in favor of the
government.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 12)

Appellant appeals from the aforementioned decision of the court a
quo and assigns the following errors:

I

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION’S PRINCIPAL WITNESS PO3 RENATO
FLORANO WAS SO INCONSISTENT WITH
HUMAN EXPERIENCE THAT IT CANNOT SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION.

II

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.”
(Rollo, p. 30)

Appellant assails the credibility of the testimony of PO3 Florano
considering that it was the only basis for his conviction. Appellant contends that it is highly
unbelievable that he would readily sell marijuana to PO3 Florano who is known
to him to be a police officer. The ease
with which Florano allegedly bought marijuana from him, renders the former’s
testimony suspect. The foregoing
circumstances, appellant claims, are so inconsistent with human experience and
the natural order of things and therefore cannot be made the basis for a
judgment of conviction.

Appellant likewise assails the validity of the buy-bust
operation given that it was
allegedly conducted solely at
the instance of PO3 Florano who acted as the poseur-buyer and the arresting officer at the same time. It is further claimed that there was no evidence presented showing the regularity of such operation. Appellant points to the fact that no documentation was
ever presented showing that the operation was authorized by
a superior officer.

It is evident, therefore,
that the resolution of this case hinges on the issue of
credibility. Once again, we reiterate the well-entrenched rule that the findings of the
trial court regarding the issue of credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest consideration
by appellate courts (People v.
Quilaton, 205 SCRA 279 [1992]). The
matter of assigning values to declarations on the witness stand is best and most
competently performed by the trial judge,
who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the
declarant’s demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed
in a more competent position to
discriminate between the true and false representations (People v. Babac,
204 SCRA 968 [1991]).

In the case at bar,
the trial court, after evaluating the
evidence before it, found the testimony of PO3 Florano credible and convincing, as follows:

“The prosecution has only one witness here, PO3 Renato Florano
whose testimony in Court tally in details with his statement (Exs. G, G-1, G-2)
although in the said statement of Florano, it is said that the accused handed
to him the marijuana leaves. His
testimony is credible and positive and it satisfies the Court beyond reasonable
doubt to convict the accused.”

We find no compelling
reason to overturn the findings of the trial court. After a careful reading of the records, the Court finds the
testimony of PO3 Florano regarding the buy-bust operation, which resulted in
the apprehension, prosecution and subsequent conviction of appellant to be
direct, clear and forthright. Being
totally untainted by contradictions in any of the material points, it deserves
credence. Appellant’s contention that
Florano’s testimony on the buy-bust operation is uncorroborated is of no
moment.

Well-settled is the rule
that the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as it is credible and
positive, can prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt (People v.
Abelita, 210 SCRA 497 [1992]).

Appellant therefore
cannot discredit the testimony of
PO3 Florano. Aside from the clear and convincing evidence
presented by the prosecution, nothing in the records tend to show that the
police officers were actuated by improper motives in apprehending
accused-appellant. Police officers are
presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of evidence
showing the contrary.

Appellant’s claim that it
was impossible for him to have sold marijuana to PO3 Florano knowing him to be
a police officer is patently without merit. Aside from its lack of corroboration,
appellant’s contention is a
matter which can be so easily contrived, for
all that appellant has to do is to affirmatively declare knowledge of the
identity of the peace officer/poseur-buyer and seek refuge in this self-serving
contention. On the other hand, PO3 Florano’s testimony is to the effect that appellant is a stranger to him (Florano)

Even assuming arguendo
that said knowledge and/or
recognition of Florano by appellant is true, what matters in drug-related cases
is not the existing familiarity
between the seller and the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting
the sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs (People v. Jaymalin, 214 SCRA 685
[1991]). Drug pushers, especially small
quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to anyone who can pay for the same, be
they strangers or not (People vs.
Madriaga, 211 SCRA 711 [1992]).

The fact that appellant
returned with the plastic bag of
marijuana after receiving a certain amount from the police officer who acted
as poseur-buyer shows his willingness
to enter into a transaction of selling and delivering the prohibited drug. This willingness in turn,
shows that he opted to take the risk of being brought into the folds of the law.

Equally untenable is appellant’s assertion regarding the irregularity of the buy-bust
operation for allegedly having been
conducted solely at the instance
of PO3 Florano. There is no
fixed procedure for conducting buy-bust operations (People v. Cruda, 211 SCRA
125 [1992]). Contrary to the submission
of the appellant, we cannot see how the procedure adopted by the police
officers in this case can nullify the end results of said buy-bust operation or
defeat the application of the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties as earlier
stated. The records show no
irregularity in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation which may exculpate the accused. If a police operation has
to be conducted immediately, as
in this case, time is of the essence. Consequently, not every contingency could be anticipated and provided
for. What is important is the fact that
the rights of the accused-appellant, from
the moment of his apprehension to filing of the information against him
were shown to have been fully protected.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

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