THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN RAMOS, JR., Y YABUT, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

On the basis of a
“buy-bust” operation, led by Cabanatuan City NARCOM District
Commander, Capt. Maximo Dilla, appellant Benjamin Ramos, Jr. was arrested and
charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 6245, Art. II, Sec. 4) in
Criminal Case No. 5128, before the Regional Trial Court^[1],
Third Judicial Region, Branch 29, Cabanatuan City, in an information filed by the City Fiscal,
as follows:

“that on or about the 17th day of May, 1986, in the City of
Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver and sell to another 2.5 grams of
dried marijuana leaves or Indian hemp.” (p. 16, Rollo)

Upon arraignment, appellant Ramos pleaded “not guilty.”
After trial, the court rendered its decision on March 3, 1989, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

“IN VIEW OF ALL the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered
finding the accused, BENJAMIN RAMOS, JR. y YABUT, guilty beyond reasonable coubt
(sic) of the crime of violation of Section 4, of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, to suffer
imprisonment of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
and to pay a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS, together with the
costs of these proceedings, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

“Let this be a stern warning and serve as a deterrent to tohers
(sic) who, in the future, may trifle with our dangerous drug law.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 20, Rollo)

From the judgment of conviction, Ramos appealed, assigning a
single error:

“THE COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF
VIOLATION OF SEC. 4 OF R.A. 6425 AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE, KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS
(DRUGS) ACT OF 1972.” (p. 1, Appellant’s Brief, p. 26, Rollo)

The Solicitor General summarized the People’s version thus:

“On May 17, 1986 at about 9:00 o’clock in the evening, a
civilian informant (whose identity was not divulged for tactical and security reasons)
went to the NARCOM Office in Bitas, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, with the
information that there was a person selling marijuana leaves or Indian Hemp at
the ‘Hang Out’ restaurant located at the diversion road in Cabanatuan
City. Upon hearing such information,
Capt. Maximo Dilla, the NARCOM District Commander, organized a team of
operation consisting of himself, Sgt. Danilo Maulon, AIC Francisco Cabiao and
the said informant. (TSN, p. 4, Dec. 9, 1986; p. 4, Dec. 3, 1986)

“The team, as planned,
would proceed to the place indicated by the informant for surveillance. Sgt. Maulon was designated by Capt. Dilla to
pose as a buyer and was accordingly given a marked P10.00 bill. Sgt. Maulon was directed to light a
cigarette once a purchase was made.

“The group proceeded to
the ‘Hang Out’ restaurant. Sgt. Maulon,
together with the informant, went inside, while Capt. Dilla and AIC Cabiao
positioned themselves in a strategic place where they could not be seen. While inside the restaurant, the informant approached
appellant, whispering to the latter that he had with him a man who wanted to
buy marijuana leaves, indicating Sgt. Maulon to be the buyer. After a brief conversation, appellant left
for a while and thereafter returned with a plastic teabag containing marijuana
which he gave to Sgt. Maulon. Sgt.
Maulon, after ascertaining that what was given him was indeed marijuana leaves,
gave the marked 10-peso bill to the appellant. Sgt. Maulon then lighted a cigarette to alert his teammates. Thereupon, Capt. Dilla and AIC Cabiao rushed toward the appellant, arrested him
and brought him to the NARCOM District Office for booking and investigation. (TSN, pp. 4-7, Dec. 9, 1986; pp. 5-7, Dec. 3, 1986)

“The plastic teabag
containing the marijuana leaves purchased by Sgt. Maulon was marked and sent to
the Phil. Constabulary Crime
Laboratory at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga for analysis. A chemical analysis of the specimen
conducted by Forensic Analyst Captain Marlene Salangad showed that the specimen (Exhibit ‘C,’ contents of the plastic teabag) was positive for marijuana. (TSN,
pp. 2-4, July 28, 1987).” (pp. 49-51, Rollo)

Before Us, Ramos denies any “buy-bust” operation,
claiming that the marijuana leaves were planted evidence, that he was arrested
because of a heated argument with the restaurant owner, Dr. Melvin Garcia, over
an alleged P30.00-unpaid account.

We find the prosecution’s version more credible. The prosecution was able to establish the
“buy-bust” operation through the testimonies of the arresting
officers, Sgt. Danilo Maulon and Airman First Class Francisco Cabiao, then
members of the Narcotics Command stationed at Cabanatuan City, who, as rightly
pointed out by the Solicitor General, are entitled to full faith and credence,
as they are presumed to have acted in the regular performance of official duty
(People v. Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988, 158 SCRA 85; People
v. Andiza, G.R. Nos. 71986-87, August 19, 1988, 164 SCRA 642 ).

Thus, Sgt. Maulon testified that he acted as the poseur-buyer to
whom Ramos sold marijuana leaves, which were placed in a plastic teabag, after
which he handed over to the latter a marked P10.00 bill (Exh. ‘A’) which he
subsequently identified, with serial number TX824409 (Exh. ‘A-1’) and the
signature thereon of Capt. M. Dilla (Exh. ‘A-2’) (TSN, pp. 5-6, Dec. 3, 1986).

AFC Cabiao testified that he witnessed the delivery by Ramos to
Sgt. Maulon of the plastic teabag containing the marijuana leaves after which
the latter handed the P10.00-marked bill to Ramos. (TSN, pp. 6-7, December 9, 1986).

Capt. Marlene Salangad, a forensic chemist at the PC Crime
Laboratory at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, testified that the contents
of the plastic teabag were positively found to be “marijuana, a prohibited
drug,” identifying in the course of her testimony the request for
Laboratory Examination (Exh. “D”), signed by Capt. Dilla, and the
Technical Report HB-167-8 (not Exh. “C,” Initial Laboratory
Examination Report, as erroneously stated in the RTC decision) (TSN, pp. 2-3,
July 28, 1987).

The defense did not present Dr. Melvin Garcia, the restaurant
owner, or Boyet Corpuz (TSN, p. 5, November 12, 1987) (not Boy Sanchez, as
stated in the RTC decision), the alleged companion of Ramos at the
restaurant/beerhouse to corroborate Ramos’ contention that he was arrested
because of a heated argument he had with Dr. Garcia. Neither did he present Danilo Martin whom Ramos had stated on
cross-examination, to be the owner of the mini-component allegedly confiscated
by the arresting officers (TSN, p. 3, December 9, 1987). Instead, the defense presented Samuel
Ancheta, Danilo Martin’s brother-in-law, who had testified as the
“owner” of the mini-component, and who claimed to have redeemed the
same from Sgt. Maulon, upon payment of P1,000.00 (TSN, p. 5, April 27, 1988).

The absence of these corroborative witnesses leads Us to conclude
that the defense version was simply a concoction devoid of any
credibility. Thus, We note the trial
court’s observation of “the direct and straight forward testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses” (People v. Aset, G.R. No. L-35781, January 28,
1980, 95 SCRA 553) as against the mere denials by the accused” (People v.
Alharico, et al., G.R. Nos. L-38339, L-38340, L-38341, October 10, 1980, 100
SCRA 280) (RTC decision, p. 9, Rollo).

The case of the prosecution is
clear and positive. Ramos was
caught in flagranti selling marijuana. As correctly pointed out by the trial court,
the “buy-bust operation” or entrapment, resorted to by the Narcotics
agents has long been recognized as an effective means of apprehending drug
peddlers. It is a procedure or
operation sanctioned by the Revised Penal Code, ( People v. Valmores, et al.,
G.R. No. 58635, June 28, 1983, 122 SCRA 922.) In the case of People v. Y.
Gatong-o, et al., G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 716, We defined entrapment as the “employment of such ways and means for the purpose
of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker” (also People v. Valmores, et al.).

“In entrapment, the idea to commit the crime originates from
the accused. Nobody induces or prods
him into committing the offense. This
act is distinguished from inducement or instigation wherein
the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator and the accused is
lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute
him. The instigator practically induces
the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a
co-principal.” (Ibid)

The fact that government witnesses made the purchase of marijuana
do not make them accomplices, for their only
purpose is to secure evidence to convict the violator. Their testimonies stand on the same footing as that of any other witnesses in the case
(U.S. v. Chiong-Chuico, et al., 11 Phil. 106).

Moreover, the Solicitor General has pointed out that the
arresting officers were not shown to have had any ulterior motive to falsely
accuse Ramos with a serious offense, but that they were simply bent on
apprehending violators of the law. The
presumption has always been that Narcom agents are performing their functions
when they conduct buy-bust operations and entrap and arrest violators (People
v. E. Ansing, G.R. No. 86641, April 26, 1991). The conviction of accused Ramos is therefore in order.

The defense attacks the
prosecution’s failure to present
as witness, Capt. Maximo Dilla. Suffice
it to say that it is up to the
prosecution to determine who should
be presented as witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of its necessity (People
v. M. Ruedas, G.R. No. 83372, February 27, 1991; Tugbang v. CA, et al., G.R.
No. 56679, June 29, 1989, 174
SCRA 424; People v. Somera, G.R. No. 65589, May 31, 1989, 173 SCRA 684; People
v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990, 184 SCRA 105).

The defense has also claimed that Ramos was maltreated by Sgt.
Maulon. This issue, as well as the
alleged confiscation of a mini-component/stereo cassette by Sgt. Maulon are irrelevant to the offense of which
Ramos was convicted.

Likewise, the defense claims that Tirso Y. Reyes did not hear the
case, but Judge Nathanael Gorospe (now Associate Justice of Sandiganbayan), and
therefore did not see the demeanor of the witnesses. We have ruled that “the fact that the Judge who heard the
evidence is not the one who rendered the judgment and that for that reason the
latter did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses during
the trial, but merely relied on the records of the case does not render the
judgment erroneous (Co Tan v. CA, et al., 101 Phil. 188).

One last observation, the penalty of “reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment,” among others, imposed by the trial court (p. 20, Rollo) is improper as
it is not the penalty provided by law for the offense. Under Section 4 of RA 6425, as amended by PD
1675, which become effective on February 17, 1980, the penalty for the sale, delivery or giving away to
another of a prohibited drug is life imprisonment to death,
and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. The penalty of reclusion perpetua,
a penalty provided in the Revised Penal Code which carries accessory
penalties, is-completely different from life imprisonment
(People v. Ruedas, supra; People v. Valmores, et al., supra;
People v. Nillos, G.R. No. 66161, January 30, 1984, 127 SCRA 207).

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cabanatuan City is AFFIRMED insofar as it imposed “a fine of
P20,000.00 together with the costs of these proceedings, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency,” but MODIFIED with respect to the main
penalty of “reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,”
which is changed to life imprisonment solely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and
Grino-Aquino, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Presided over by Judge Tirso Y. Reyes.