PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERT MALONZO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision rendered by Branch V of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila finding accused-appellant Robert Malonzo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime penalized under Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 1675, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, in an information which reads:

“That on or about October 10, 1988, in
the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law
to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did
then and there wilfully [sic] and unlawfully sell or offer for sale dried marijuana flowering tops,
which are prohibited drugs.

Contrary to law.”^[1]

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged against him.

The facts of the case are as follows:

At around 6 o’clock in the evening of October 3, 1986, Pat.
Magnaye, received a telephone call from an informant that there is an active
drug selling by appellant Malonzo at the “lungga” located at No. 600
Governor Forbes St., Sampaloc, Mla., which information he immediately relayed
to Capt. Cablayan, Chief of the Narcotics Control and Investigation Section,
Western Police District, Police Station I. A team was formed composed of Pfc. Francisco Maniquis, Pat. Rizal Papa
and Pfc. Valeriano Bautista, with instructions to conduct a surveillance on the
aforementioned place.

As a result of the surveillance, the team conducted a buy-bust
operation on October 10, 1986 to entrap the pusher. The team members contributed money consisting of four (4) P10.00 bills, one (1) P20.00 bill
and three (3) P5.00 bills which were all marked by Pat. Alferos with his
initials. Pat. Papa was then designated
as the poseur-buyer. The team then
proceeded to the “lungga” aboard a private owner-type jeep.^[2]

Upon reaching the corner of Fajardo and Gov. Forbes streets, the
team met the informant, who introduced Pat. Papa to the accused-appellant as an
addict.

Pat. Papa offered to buy one (1) gram of dried marijuana. Accused-appellant agreed to sell it to him
for the price of P75.00. He left and
then returned with the dried marijuana which he handed to Pat. Papa while the
latter in turn handed the money. At
this juncture, Pat. Papa and the other members of the buy-bust team apprehended
the accused-appellant and confiscated the marked money and the dried marijuana,
which was later turned over to police investigator Pat. Bautista who placed the
same inside a plastic bag and made the accused-appellant write his initials on
it.^[3]

Pat. Bautista requested for an analysis of the suspected
marijuana at the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section. Susan de Vera, a Forensic Chemist at the NBI conducted a
microscopic, chemical and chromatographic examination of the specimen submitted
consisting of flowering tops and found the same positive for marijuana.^[4]
A certification (marked as Exhibit “E”) was issued to this effect.

After trial, a decision was rendered by the court a quo, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime as pusher of Marijuana [sic] as penalized under
Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 2, (e-1), (f), (k), (m), and (o),
Article I of R.A. 6425 as amended by P.D. 1675, and penalized the accused
Roberto Malonzo y Velasco to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay the fine of Twenty Thousand
P20,000.00 Pesos, under Section 4, Article II, Republic Act 6425 as amended.

The dried marijuana flowering tops are confiscated in favor of the
State, to be turnover to the Dangerous Drugs Board, Manila and the Seventy Five
(P75.00) Pesos marked money be returned to the owner.

SO ORDERED.”^[5]

Aggrieved by the decision, accused Roberto Malonzo interposes the
instant appeal.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving weight
and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, disregarding the
theory of the defense and finding him guilty despite the insufficiency of the
evidence.

We are not persuaded.

The errors ascribed by appellant to the trial court are belied by
the testimony of Pat. Papa, whose testimony was corroborated by the other
members of the buy-bust operation team.

Settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court relative
to the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses as well as the witnesses
themselves are entitled to great respect and are generally sustained by the
appellate court^[6]
unless some material facts have been overlooked or misconstrued, as to affect
the results, which, however We do not find in the case at bar.^[7]

There are no attendant circumstances that would justify
nonadherence to the rule. In fact, the
trial court made a favorable observation on the behavior and deportment of the
witnesses. To quote the trial court:

“With the entrapment set were [sic] the police not only
witness [sic] but play a hand in its execution and with their own eyes
witnessed the sale and exchange of cash for the marijuana by the accused, as
against the denial of the accused, the positive testimony of the police shall
prevail. The plea of being a born-again
Christian notwithstanding, the Court taking into consideration the demeanor and
actuation of the witnesses finds the version narrated by the police believable
and in consonance with the realities of everyday life in the City of Manila,
and finds the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against the
accused more than enough to pass the requirements of beyond reasonable doubt
and warrants the conviction of the accused of selling marijuana.”^[8]

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, credence should
be given to the police narration of the incident as they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner.^[9] Moreover, no improper motive can be shown on
the part of the prosecution witnesses on why they would falsely testify against
appellant.^[10]

The allegation of the appellant that the buy-bust operation was a
frame up, is self-serving. Without any
supporting evidence or witnesses to support such allegation, the same cannot be
given credit.

The fact that the informer was not presented as a witness is of
no moment.^[11]
The informer merely provided the information which prompted the police officers
to conduct a surveillance on the appellant’s selling activities of
marijuana. The informer’s testimony is
merely corroborative of the testimonies of the police officers as to how they
came to know that appellant was selling marijuana. He was not an active participant in the buy-bust operation.

Moreover, accused-appellant’s entire defense is predicated on a
simple denial that he sold one (1) gram of marijuana to the police-buyer. That at the time the incident in question
took place, he was outside his house talking with a friend by the name of
German de Guzman, but appellant’s friend was never presented in court to
corroborate his allegation. At any
rate, in assessing the credibility of witnesses, greater weight is given to the
positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to the negative testimony
of the accused.^[12]

One thing more, appellant’s submissive stance right after his
entrapment and the absence of any protest on his part when arrested, cast doubt
on his alleged innocence.^[13]

WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused-appellant
Robert Malonzo to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the decision
appealed herefrom is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Rollo, p. 1.

^[2]
T.S.N., April 5, 1988, pp. 5-7, 10-16,
25-28.

^[3]
Id., at pp. 32-34.

^[4]
T.S.N., February 22, 1988, pp. 4-8.

^[5]
Decision, p. 5.

^[6]
People vs. Sarra, G.R. No.
78530, 183 SCRA 34, (1990).

^[7]
People vs. Villeza, No. L-56113, 127 SCRA 349, 360, (1984).

^[8]
Decision, pp. 4-5.

^[9]
People vs. Vocente, G.R. No.
80533, 188 SCRA 100, (1990).

^[10]
Ibid.

^[11]
People vs. Bernardo, G.R. No.
89542, 186 SCRA 876, (1990).

^[12]
People vs. Mostoles, No.
L-38644, 124 SCRA 906 (1983).

^[13]
People vs. Madarang, No.
L-70569, 147 SCRA 123, (1987).