PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO CRUDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch II, Sindangan,
Zamboanga del Norte dated March 3, 1991 in
Criminal Case No. S-1622 convicting
appellant Danilo Cruda of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended. The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises studiedly considered, the Court finds the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article 11 of
Republic Act 6425, as amended by PD 44, he is hereby sentenced to Reclusion
Perpetua, to pay a fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency, and no costs. Credited
in his favor is the full period during which he had undergone preventive
imprisonment in the Provincial Rehabilitation Center at Sicayab, Dipolog City
during the pendency of this case.” (Orig. Records, p. 167)

The accused-appellant was charged with the above-mentioned crime
in an information stated as follows:

“That, in the afternoon, on or about the 9th day of September,
1987, in the municipality of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell four (4) cigarette sticks of
Marijuana, with the full knowledge that the same is prohibited and a Violation
of Republic Act No. 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972.” (Orig. Records, p. 14)

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as summarized by the
trial court established the following attendant facts:

“Intelligence Section of Integrated National Police Station at
Sindangan was organized. Team leader of
which was P/Cpl. Erlindo Bayawa. Members were Pfc. Bienvenido Aguilar, P/Cpl. Rodrigo Santillana and Pat.
Danilo Alforque to apprehend violators of law and those engaged in any illegal
activities. On September 9, 1987 they
were informed by their two assets Edgar Geronico and Allan Soriano that Danilo
Cruda was selling marijuana at Dapaon, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte. Upon receiving aforesaid information they
conceived a ‘buy-bust operation’, Pfc. Bienvenido Aguilar and P/Cpl. Rodrigo
Santillana left for Dapaon, Sindangan at about 2:20 in the afternoon of the
same day together with two assets Edgar Geronico and Allan Soriano to the house
of the accused Danilo Cruda to pose as a marijuana buyer, and had with them two
(2) five-peso bills marked with the initial of Rodrigo Santillana; that
meanwhile Pfc. Bienvenido Aguilar and P/Cpl. Rodrigo Santillana positioned
themselves the former 20 meters and the latter 10 meters from the place of
Danilo Cruda; that they saw Danilo Cruda went (sic) down the house; that after
Edgar Geronico gave the money to Danilo Cruda he gave the four sticks of
marijuana; after the consummated sale of marijuana they effected immediate
arrest of Danilo Cruda; that Danilo Cruda gave two (2) five-peso marked bills
to P/Cpl. Rodrigo Santillana; that thereafter Danilo Cruda was brought to the
police headquarters where he was investigated; that the confiscated marijuana
were submitted to PC/INP Crime Laboratory at Recom 9, Zamboanga City and were
examined and authenticated by Forensic Chemist Athena Eliza Anderson and found
the specimens (sic) positive for marijuana.” (Rollo, pp. 11-12)

The version of the defense was likewise summarized by the trial
court as follows:

“xxx [T]hat in the afternoon of
September 9, 1987 he was at his house at Dapaon, Sindangan, Zamboanga del
Norte; that P/Cpl. Rodrigo Santillana and Pfc. Bienvenido Aguilar arrived and
he was called by them while he was at the door; that he went down and
approached them; that they immediately handcuff (sic) him; that they told him
he is selling marijuana; that he denied selling marijuana but they do (sic) not
believed (sic) him; that they brought him to the police station where he was
investigated in the presence of P/Sgt. Caboverde and Pfc. Aguilar; that he did
not remember Edgar Geronico and Allan Soriano came (sic) to his house at
Dapaon, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte
sometimes (sic) on September 9, 1987.” (Rollo, pp. 12-13)

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits proceeded and the
accused was convicted of the crime charged.

The issues raised by the accused-appellant focus mainly on the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

The accused-appellant contends that two circumstances render the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses improbable.

Danilo Cruda claims that there was no preparation for the
buy-bust operation because the two (2) five-peso bills given to Geronico were
not entered in the police logbook or blotter.

The contention is without merit because there is no fixed
procedure for conducting buy-bust operations. The records show no irregularity in the conduct of the same which will
in any way exculpate the accused. If a
police operation has to be conducted immediately, time is of the essence and
only hasty preparations are sometimes possible. We also have to take into account the lack of sophistication, the
sketchy training, the inferior education, not to mention the absence of any
I.Q. or psychological ratings, and the generally depressing atmosphere in the
average police station which prevent them from apprehending criminals in a
textbook or blue ribbon manner. What is
important is whether the speed of preparation compromised the rights of the
accused. The appellant has not
satisfactorily shown how the speed of preparations endangered his rights.

The second circumstance refers to the use of detention prisoners
as witnesses. The records show that
this procedure was resorted to because the prisoners were the ones who knew the
appellant and his drug-trafficking activities.

There is nothing in the records which show that these police
officers were actuated by improper motives in apprehending the
accused-appellant. We are constrained
to fall back on the principle, sustained not only by logic but also the
experience of our courts in countless cases that police officers are presumed
to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of evidence showing the
contrary (People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 94472, March 3, 1992 citing People v.
Mariano, 191 SCRA 136 [1990]; People v. Catan, G.R. No. 92928, January 21,
1992).

The determination of the credibility of these law enforcement
agents is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (People v.
Escabarte, 158 SCRA 602 [1988]). As it
is, the trial court found the testimonies of said prosecution witnesses
credible. Again, we find no cogent
reason to depart from the consistent rule that the findings of the trial court
on the credibility of witnesses are given weight and are entitled to the
highest degree of respect by the appellate courts (People v. Castillo, G.R. No.
93408, April 10, 1992).

We reiterate the ruling in People v. Baluyot
(170 SCRA 569 [1989]):

“It is an entrenched rule founded on the fact that the matter
of assigning value to declarations at 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.”

The accused-appellant contends that he was the victim of a
frame-up.

The evidence presented by the prosecution is both substantial and
convincing. Both the testimonial and
physical evidence militate against the appellant’s innocence. Stronger proof is needed to overcome the
findings of the trial court that the prosecution witnesses are telling the
truth. The standard defense of the
accused in drug-related cases is frame-up or fabricated evidence. There is certainly a possibility in some
cases. State prosecutors and judges
alike are, therefore, enjoined to give this defense, extreme regard and
concern. But when the case is in the
appellate level, we are bound by the records and the impressions of the
Judge. The appellant has to point to
specific parts of the records or the law. We cannot, as in this case, sustain a bare-faced assertion of frame-up
or planted evidence.

Anent Edgar Geronico’s recanted testimony, the same is not
well-taken by this Court being a testimony which appears unreliable. No explanation was offered by Geronico as to
the sudden renunciation of his earlier testimony in court. His recantation is apparently prompted by
his arrest a month after the buy-bust operation.

The case of People v. Aldeguer (184 SCRA 1
[1990]) states:

“Retractions are exceedingly unreliable (People v. Domenden,
G.R. No. L-17822, October 30, 1962, 6 SCRA 343). The Court has looked with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies
made before the court (Reano v. CA, G.R. No. 80992, September 21, 1988)
xxx. Hence, as between the testimonies
of a defense witness x x x and (a) prosecution witness xxx, the Court finds the
latter to be more credible.”

What is important in a prosecution for illegal sale of marijuana
is that the prosecution proves that the sale transpired and the marijuana is
presented in court as evidence. This is
clearly shown in this case by the testimonies and the evidence presented in
court.

The prosecution witnesses’ positive identification of the
accused-appellant further tilts the balance against the latter because greater
weight is generally accorded to positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses
than an accused’s denials.

Premises considered, we affirm the decision of the trial court
that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
However, the penalty of reclusion perpetua as imposed by the
trial court is improper. The penalty
provided for the offense of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from
P20,000.00 to P30,000.00. This penalty
of reclusion perpetua, a penalty provided for in appropriate cases under the
Revised Penal Code and which carries accessory penalties, is completely
different from life imprisonment (People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 88282, May 6,
1992 citing People v. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459 [1991]).

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED except
for the MODIFICATION which changes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to life
imprisonment.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin,
Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.