PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RENATO ARCEGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

For peddling twenty (20) hand-rolled sticks of marijuana and
having in his possession another one hundred forty (140) sticks more, accused
Renato Arcega y Viñas, alias “Ata Boy,” was sentenced to a life in
prison and to pay a fine of P20,000.00. He is now before us, asserting his innocence
and seeking a reversal.

The facts, as presented by the prosecution, follow: On 4 March 1990, at around 4:00 o’clock in
the morning, a team of six members of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Malabon
Police Station prepared for a “buy-bust” operation to entrap
accused-appellant Renato Arcega, a suspected drug pusher (TSN, 21 August 1990,
4; 28 August 1990, 12). Cpl. Eddie
Galang was the team leader, with Cpl. Eddie Regalado and Pat. Benjamin Sales as
two (2) of its members. From the
Malabon Police Headquarters, the team, together with a confidential informant,
who had arranged the transaction the day before (TSN, 28 August 1990, 6)
proceeded to Dulong Pilapil, Velasquez, Bgy. Tugatog, Malabon to survey the
area, ascertain the exact place where the accused-appellant could be found, and
map out where the members of the raiding team would position themselves. After some twenty (20) to thirty (30)
minutes, they retreated to the Tugatog Police Detachment to finalize the
details of their operation (TSN, 21 August 1990, 4).

Pat. Sales was designated the poseur-buyer and was, thus, handed the “buy-bust”
money, consisting of one (1) P20.00 bill, two (2) P10.00 bills, and two (2)
P5.00 bills (Exhibits G, H, I, J, K), the serial numbers of which were taken
down. The others would act as arresting
officers and back-up security (ibid.).

At around 6:00 o’clock that same morning, the raiding team
returned to Dulong Pilapil for the actual “buy-bust” operation. Pat. Sales, accompanied by the confidential
informant, went to the house of the accused-appellant and knocked on the
latter’s door (ibid., 5), while the others took their respective positions,
which were, more or less, fifteen (15) to thirty (30) meters away from where
the operation was to take place (TSN, 28 August 1990, 8; 20-21).

A few minutes passed and the door was opened by the
accused-appellant who was introduced by the confidential informant to Pat.
Sales as “Ata Boy.” After a brief conversation, Pat. Sales was asked
how many sticks he wanted to buy. His
reply was: “twenty (20) sticks
only (ibid., 13).” The accused-appellant went inside his house and
returned shortly after with twenty (20) hand-rolled sticks of marijuana in
hand, which he gave to Pat. Sales. After ascertaining that it was indeed marijuana, Pat. Sales, in turn,
paid the accused-appellant P50.00 therefor. Pat. Sales then gave the pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette
(ibid., 8; 13).

Upon seeing that signal, the apprehending team closed-in,
introduced themselves as police authorities, and arrested the
accused-appellant. Cpl. Regalado
frisked the accused-appellant and recovered from him the marked money. Meanwhile, Pat. Sales turned-over to Cpl. Galang,
their team leader, the twenty (20) sticks he bought from the accused-appellant
(TSN, 21 August 1990, 6). Then, the
accused-appellant, after being assured that the gravity of his offense could be
reduced if he cooperated (TSN, 28 August 1990, 10), voluntarily surrendered one
hundred forty (140) more hand-rolled sticks of marijuana packed in a Pritos
Ring plastic bag (TSN, 21 August
1990, 5-7). The accused-appellant was
thereafter taken to the Police Headquarters where he signed each of the one
hundred forty (140) sticks of marijuana cigarettes while Pat. Sales and Cpl.
Galang initialled each of the twenty (20) sticks (TSN, 28 August 1990, 2-3,
17).

The twenty (20) sticks    of
suspected marijuana cigarettes (Exhibits E, E-1 to E-19) as well as the other
one hundred forty (140) sticks (Exhibits F, F-1 to F-140) were then transmitted
to the Forensic Chemistry Section of the National Bureau of Investigation for
tests. “Microscopic, chemical and
chromatographic examinations made on the above-mentioned speciment gave
positive results for marijuana (Exh. C).”

For his part, the accused-appellant denied having sold
marijuana. He presented a different
version of the incident. He said that
on 24 March 1990, at exactly 4:00 a.m., he was awakened when their front door
was being forcibly opened by a group of men whom he thought at first were
thieves. They were asking for the house
of Eddie, his brother. However, after
pointing to the house of Eddie which was on the other side of street, he was
ordered to accompany them. They fetched
Eddie who was told that a certain Jack Johnson was inviting him. All of
them then proceeded to the house of Jack Johnson, who invited them to eat
porridge in an eatery in front of Arellano College. From there, the accused-appellant and his brother, Eddie, were
taken to the Malabon Police Station where the former was detained while the latter was allowed to go home. The accused-appellant was likewise “asked to sign the
marijuana which they (policemen) brought out (TSN, 2 October 1990, 1-7).”

No other witness stood for the accused-appellant.

After evaluating the contradictory versions, the Trial Court^[1]
rejected the accused-appellant’s affirmations and rendered a judgment of
conviction, with the following disposition:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered
finding the accused Renato Arcega y Viñas guilty beyong reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 and sentenced to
suffer life imprisonment to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the costs of this
suit.

“x x x   x x x

“SO ORDERED.”

Feeling aggrieved by the Decision of the Trial Court, the accused-appellant, now,
before us, reaffirms his innocence and
faults the Trial Court for convicting him despite
material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, and in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding
the insufficiency of evidence adduced by the prosecution (Rollo, 32;
Appellant’s Brief, 1).

To support the foregoing position, the accused-appellant points
out the following circumstances:

1. Cpl. Regalado testified that they received
information regarding his (accused-appellant’s) address, more or less, two (2)
months prior to the actual “buy-bust” operation (TSN, 28 August 1990,
5). Yet, Cpl. Regalado later said that
they were not able to secure a search warrant since their “confidential
informant was not able to get the exact address of the area” (ibid.).

2. Cpl. Regalado stated that they arrived at
4:00 o’clock (in the morning) and left after conducting a twenty (20) to thirty
(30) minute surveillance (ibid., 6). In
another instance, he declared that after returning to the house of the
accused-appellant at 4:00 o’clock in the morning and finding the same still
closed, he, together with the confidential informant, knocked on the door,
which was opened by the accused-appellant himself (ibid., 7).

3. Cpl. Regalado testified that the
accused-appellant, after being arrested for the sale of twenty (20) sticks of
hand-rolled marijuana, voluntarily surrendered one hundred forty (140) more
sticks (ibid., 9). Pat. Sales, however,
said that after the arrest, the accused-appellant was brought to the police
headquarters (ibid., 16).

4. The confidential informant is admittedly a
user of marijuana (ibid., 7) and thus, his information is highly questionable,
if not incredible.

The Court is not persuaded.

The alleged material inconsistencies are more apparent than
real. Although the Anti-Narcotics Unit
of the Malabon Police received information regarding the drug-pushing activities
of the accused-appellant and his address two (2) months before the actual
“buy-bust” operation, the exact address was never given. This is very clear from the
cross-examination of Cpl. Regalado, to wit:

“ATTY. ZAPANTA

“Q: In fact, you have a complete
knowledge as to the resident (sic) or
to the house of this Ataboy?

“WITNESS:

“A. We do not know the complete
address of the accused.

x x x                                                      x x x                                                          x
x x

“A. We were not able to request for
search warrant (since) our CI (confidential informant) was not able to get the exact address of that area because there
were not (sic) numbers.” (ibid.,
5) (underscoring supplied).

The testimony of Cpl. Regalado regarding the time of the incident
is likewise unrefuted and does not conflict in any way with the facts, as
presented by the prosecution as a
whole. The place was undisputably
surveyed at 4:00 o’clock in the morning, while the actual “buy-bust”
operation commenced later, at around 6:00 o’clock that same morning. Thus:

“ATTY. ZAPANTA

“Q: You returned at the same house
at 4:00 o’clock and the house was still
closed?

“WITNESS

“A: Yes, Sir.

“Q: And your poseur-buyer, together
with the CI (confidential informant) knocked at the door and the door was
opened by the accused?

“A: Yes, sir, he was “bagong
gising.”

“COURT

“Q: Around what time was that?

“A: It is already 6:10 in the morning, Your
Honor (ibid., 7; underscoring, supplied).

By and large, the “material inconsistencies” asserted
by the accused-appellant which allegedly create grave doubts are, on the
contrary, too minor, trivial and inconsequential to affect the credibility of
the prosecution witnesses, the inconsistencies having been fully and
sufficiently explained during trial by the witnesses themselves, and their
explanations having been accepted by the Trial Court. Besides, it has been held, time and again, that minor
inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not
destroy the witnesses’ credibility, but even enhance their truthfulness as they
erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony (People v. Payumo, G.R. No. 81761,
July 2, 1990, 167 SCRA 64, and a host of cases mentioned therein).

The accused-appellant likewise makes capital of the fact that Pat.
Sales made no mention of the surrender of an additional one hundred forty(140)
hand-rolled sticks of marijuana and concludes that the said one hundred forty
sticks are planted evidence to ensure his conviction. This simply does not hold water. There is just no reason for the law enforcers to plant one hundred forty
(140) sticks of marijuana to ensure the accused-appellant’s conviction
considering that the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto
as a result of the “buy-bust” operation, and this fact alone is
sufficient to convict the accused-appellant and sentence him to a life in
prison. Besides, the testimonial
evidence discloses that Pat. Sales had already left the situs of the
“buy-bust” operation when accused-appellant surrendered the 140
marijuana sticks to Pat. Regalado (T.S.N., 28 August 1990, 18).

The argument that the confidential informant is a marijuana user,
and as such, his information is highly
questionable, if not incredible, is likewise
devoid of merit. The conviction of the
accused-appellant does not depend on the information supplied by the
confidential informant, but on the fact that the accused-appellant sold and
delivered to the poseur-buyer twenty (20) sticks of marijuana, and
accepted payment therefor.

In the main, the issues in the instant case devolve around the
credibility of the witnesses. In this
regard, it is well-settled, to the point of triteness, that Appellate Courts
will generally not disturb the factual findings
of the Trial Court, as the
latter is in a better position to decide the same, having heard witnesses
themselves and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during
trial unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the results of the case (People v.
Catan, G.R. No. 92928, 21 January 1992, citing People v. Sabado, L-76952, 22
December 1988, 168 SCRA 681).

The fact that the accused-appellant denied that a
“buy-bust” operation ever took place does not weaken the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses. As
between the positive declarations of said witnesses and the negative statements
of the accused-appellant, the former deserve more credence and weight (People
v. Catan, supra., citing People v. Adap, L-66237, 12
September 1990, 189 SCRA 413).

Indeed, the testimonies of the two (2) prosecution witnesses
should be accorded belief and credence since they are both law enforcers who
are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof
to the contrary (Sec. 5[m], Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court; People v. Yap and
Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 87088-89, 9 May 1990, 185 SCRA 222). There are simply no compelling reasons to
over-turn the presumption.

However, we do not accede to the submission of the Solicitor General that the penalty
imposed is excessive. Section 4,
Article II, of Rep. Act No. 6425 that he cites has already been amended by
Pres. Decree No. 1675, prescribing the higher penalty that was correctly
imposed by the Trial Court. Moreover,
the Court, within its sphere, must do its part to assist in the all-out effort
to eliminate the drug menace and to curb the enormous increase of drug users,
specially among our youth. Where guilt
beyond reasonable doubt has been proven, there is no alternative but to apply
the penalty within the range provided by law.

In fine, we see no substantial reason to depart from the
conclusions reached by the Trial Court. The quantum and quality of
the evidence marshalled by the People justify conviction.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is
AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
against accused-appellant Renato Arcega y Viñas.

SO ORDERED.

Paras, Padilla, Regalado, and
Nocon, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Judgment was rendered by the RTC,
National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 170, Malabon, Hon. Marina L. Buzon,
presiding.