THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO CABISADA Y HOYOHOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Accused-appellant Danilo Cabisada y Hoyohoy has appealed the decision
of the Regional Trial Court of the 10th Judicial Region (Branch XV, Ozamis
City) in its Criminal Case No. QC-912(R) which found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, for which
he was sentenced to the penalty of life imprisonment, ordered to pay a fine of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), and to suffer the accessory penalties of
the law as well as to pay the costs (p. 52, Record).

The information under which accused-appellant was charged and
found guilty reads:

REPRODUCED INFORMATION

The undersigned First Assistant City Prosecutor accuses DANILO
CABISADA y HOYOHOY, a resident of Bliss Project, Ozamiz City of the crime of
VIOLATION OF SECTION 4, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 6425, AS AMENDED, committed
as follows:

That on or about October 11, 1989 at 3:15 P.M. more or less, in
Ozamiz City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and deliver to another marijuana cigarettes.

CONTRARY to Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, as amended.

City of Ozamiz, Philippines, April 27, 1990.

(SGD) DOMINADOR B.
BORJE

First Assistant City
Prosecutor

NPS-IX

(p. 1, Record.)

How accused-appellant was apprehended in the act of selling
marijuana on October 11, 1989 was narrated by the court a quo, thus:

The evidence for the prosecution shows that on October 11, 1989, at
about 3:15 P.M., at the gate of the Bliss Project, Ozamiz City, near the public
market, Sgt. Reynaldo Miguel, Sgt. Bernardino Mugot, Sgt. Rolando Malagayo, and
CIC Emilio A. de Guzman of the Philippine Constabulary, then members of the
10th Narcotics Regional Unit District “A”, stationed at Cotta, Ozamiz
City, conducted a buy-bust operation with a certain Percival Raterta, a
civilian informer as their poseur buyer. This operation was staged by them after receiving reliable information
that rampant buying and selling of marijuana cigarettes occurred in said area.

Before going to the place of
operation, Sgt. Reynaldo Miguel, the team leader, gave a marked ten-peso bill
with SN-GJ279302, which was previously entered in their logbook. Before their pseudo-buyer Percival Raterta
went to the place, the members of the narcotics team already placed themselves
in strategic positions where they observed their poseur buyer Percival Raterta
approached the accused Danilo Cabisada, standing at the gate of the Bliss
Project, gave the marked ten-peso bill, and the accused giving in return
handrolled marijuana cigarettes. After
the poseur buyer walked away, the Narcotics agents promptly moved and closed in
on the accused, but sensing their presence, the latter ran inside the public
market with the narcotics agents in pursuit. At the entrance of the public market where there are stores, Sgt. Mugot,
Malagayo and Miguel were able to hold the accused and they had to employ
reasonable force to subdue him as he resisted arrest even when they informed
him that they were Narcotics Agents. The arresting officers brought him to the PC headquarters at Cotta,
Ozamiz City, and Sgt. Miguel, after a body search, found the marked ten-peso
bill with SN-GJ 279302 with the initial of Sgt. Miguel was found inside the
pocket of accused Danilo Cabisada.

When brought to the PC headquarters for identification and
investigation, the accused identified himself as Danilo Cabisada y Hoyohoy, 25
years old, single and a resident of Sta. Cruz, Ozamiz City, and their poseur
buyer Percival Raterta already delivered the six (6) sticks of handrolled
marijuana cigarettes to their team leader Sgt. Reynaldo Miguel.

On examination of the six?handrolled cigarettes bought by
Percival Raterta and delivered by accused Danilo Cabisada to the latter, they
found them to be marijuana cigarettes by reason of their training and
experience as Narcotics Officers. And
to confirm their findings, these six (6) sticks of hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes
were sent to the Regional Office of the NBI for expert scientific examination
(Exh. C). The team further learned from
the PC headquarters that accused Danilo Cabisada, together with three (3) other
persons, two of whom were Muslims, were previously arrested on May 23, 1989, by
the members of the members (sic) of Regional Special Action Force (RSAF) of the
Philippine Constabulary in possession of marijuana cigarettes. According to Sgt. Jim Cubillan, these persons were granted conditional immunity
with the permission of Commanding Officer, Capt. Agosto V. Nazareth, 466th PC
Company, Cotta, Ozamiz City, on condition that
they will act as informers or agents that will lead to the arrest of the
mastermind or the head dealer of marijuana in Ozamiz City. The four (4) suspects agreed to the conditions and they were immediately
released from custody. According to
Sgt. Jim Cubillan, in his rebuttal testimony, they followed accused Danilo
Cabisada towards Lawis, but he ran away and never come to them, and they waited
for him to report to the headquarters the following day, May 24, 1989, but he
did not anymore report. Only the two
(2) of the arrested suspects on May 23, 1989, complied with their conditions
for their grant of immunity, but accused and another Muslim did not, so
Criminal Case No. OC-866 R was filed against him on May 31, 1989, still pending
arrest when he was caught red-handed selling marijuana cigarettes to Percival
Raterta on October 11, 1989. (pp.
50-51, Record.)

The poseur-buyer, Percival Raterta, was presented and testified
in the course of his examination-in-chief:

Q.   Do you remember if there was a
buy-bust operation conducted by the Regional Narcotics Unit of the Philippine
Constabulary on October 11, 1989?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.
  At about 3:15 o’clock in the afternoon,
will you please tell the Honorable Court if there was such an operation on
October 11, 1989?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.
  And this operation was conducted
at the gate of BLISS Project near the public market, am I correct?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Where were you at that time?

A.    I
was at the gate of BLISS Project.

Q.
  And what happened when you were
at the gate of BLISS Project of Ozamiz City?

A.    I
bought from Danilo Cabisada six (6) handrolled marijuana cigarettes at P10.00.

Q.
  You mean to say, for six
handrolled marijuana cigarettes the cost is P10.00.

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Now, you stated, you were pointing to
one whom you called Danilo Cabisada, if he is present in Court, will you please
point to him?

A.    Yes,
I can.

Q.   Please point to him.

A.    This one, sir, Danilo Cabisada.

(Witness
pointing to the accused inside the courtroom when asked his name he answered
Danilo Cabisada).

Q.   Now, who delivered the P10.00 bill to
the accused personally?

A.    I
was the one, sir.

Q. And this ten peso bill was
previously entered in the log book of the Narcotics Unit?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Who gave you the ten peso bill?

A.    S/Sgt.
Reynaldo Miguel, our team leader.

Q.   Do you know if Sgt. Miguel attached
his initial to the ten peso bill?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.
  I am showing to you this machine
copy of a ten peso bill with serial number GJ279302, will you please point in
this ten peso bill the initial you stated affixed by Sgt. Reynaldo Miguel?

A.    This
one, sir. (Witness pointing to the
initial right below the signature of the President of the Philippines.)

PROSECUTOR BORJE

At this juncture, Your
Honor, we respectfully pray that the page of the record which the ten peso bill
machine copy is attached be marked as Exhibit “D” and the ten peso
bill as Exhibit “D-1” and the initial of Sgt. Miguel be encircled as
pointed by the witness as Exhibit “D-1-A”.

COURT

You have previously made
markings?

PROSECUTOR BORJE

Yes, Your Honor.

Q.   And
the ten peso bill whose machine copy is now marked as Exhibit “D-­1”,
was the original one ten peso bill you delivered personally to the accused, is
that correct?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   And who delivered to you the six
sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes after you delivered this ten peso
bill?

A.    Danilo
Cabisada, sir.

Q.   Now,
after Danilo Cabisada received this ten peso bill which you delivered to him
and after he delivered to you the six sticks of handrolled suspected to be
marijuana cigarettes, what happened?

A.    I
went home to the office, I returned to the office.

Q    Before
you went back to the office, where there a PC Narcotics Agent close to the
accused?

A.    I
did not see if there were Narcotics Agent
because after receiving the six handrolled marijuana cigarettes I immediately
went home to the office.

Q.   To
whom you delivered the six sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes which were
delivered to you by the accused Danilo Cabisada?

A.    In
the office, to our team leader.

(TSN, August 9, 1990, pp. 3-5.)

and when subjected to cross-examination,
he continued to respond to the series of questions, thus:

ATTY. BAÑOSIA

Q.   Where did you see Danilo Cabisada on
October 11, 1989?

A.    There
at the gate of the BLISS Project market site.

Q.   Where is this BLISS Project which you
have been mentioning?

A.    At
the back of the public market, sir.

Q.   And you said that Danilo Cabisada was
standing there?

A.    At
the gate.

Q.   What was he doing?

A.    He
was standing there at the gate so I approached him and told him that I want to
buy marijuana, and I gave him the money and in returned he gave me the
marijuana, and I immediately went home to the office.

Q.   You
mean, when you gave the ten peso bill to the accused, the accused also gave to
you immediately the six sticks of marijuana?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.
  And after that you immediately proceeded
to the headquarters, am I correct?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Before you went there to buy marijuana
from the accused, did you have already an arrangement with your companions the
Narcotics Agents that you will buy marijuana?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.
  Who are the Narcotics Agents whom
you have agreed with in connection with that operation?

A.    De
Guzman, Mugot, Malagayo and before Sgt. Miguel arrived.

Q.   What
was the agreement about?

A.    They
just told me to buy marijuana from Danilo Cabisada.

Q.   Did
they also tell you where they will position themselves while you will buy
marijuana from Danilo Cabisada?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.
  So at the time when you buy
marijuana from Danilo Cabisada, you already knew what particular place where
your companions position themselves?

A.    I
did not see them. I knew where they
will position themselves, but I did not see them actually.

Q. Because you did not see them
actually, you could not also see the particular distance of your companions to
the place where you buy marijuana from Danilo Cabisada?

A.    Yes,
I could not estimate.

Q.   But,
immediately after buying marijuana, you immediately left and went to the
headquarters, am I correct?

A.    Yes,
sir.

(TSN, August 9, 1990, pp. 8-9.)

which narration was corroborated on the
witness stand by Sgt. Bernardino Mugot who pointed to accused-appellant as the
person whom he saw delivering the marijuana cigarettes to the poseur-buyer
after the P10 bill was handed over to accused-appellant (TSN, August 10, 1990,
pp. 3-6).

For his part, accused-appellant maintains that his apprehension
was in retaliation for his failure to provide information on drug dealers in
the area. On direct examination, while
he admitted that he was picked up by members of the Regional Special Action
Force (R-SAF) of the Philippine Constabulary on May 23, 1989 at Oy-Oy’s
Restaurant (where he was employed as a waiter) along with 3 customers, he,
however, denied having had marijuana cigarettes in his possession or that he
was selling the same. He claimed he was
released the following day, together with one of the three customers
“named Lucas” (TSN, December 5, 1990, p. 8) on condition that he
would “be an asset to them” and report “always about the
actuation of the Parojinogs (a barriomate) … 3 times a week, and if he failed
… (he) will be arrested and a case filed against (him).” However, he did
not make any report on the Parojinogs because “I do not know their
lifestyle, and besides these persons are somewhat dangerous and my brothers and
sisters and my parents might be implicated if the Parojinogs will learn that I
am giving information to the PC” (Ibid.). The two other customers were likewise released upon the intercession of
a Mrs. Feliciano with Capt. Agosto V. Nazareth, Commanding Officer, 466th PC
Company “because they were muslims (sic) and students of Misamis
University” (Ibid, p. 7).

Accused-appellant further stated that he was not aware that when
he failed to return on May 24, 1989, a day after his apprehension on May 23,
1989, to submit a report on the Parojinogs, the R-SAF had filed a case against
him on May 31, 1989 for violation of Section 8 (illegal possession of
marijuana), Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, docketed as Crim.
Case No. O.C. 866-R or that a bond for his temporary release was set at
P120,000.00.

In sustaining the version of the People vis-a-vis the
evidence offered by the defense premised on denial, the trial court expressed
the opinion that the testimonies of Sgt. Mugot and the poseur-buyer are
categorically positive about accused-appellant’s culpability, in default of any
showing of ill-motive on their part to concoct the imputation against
accused-appellant. Anent the aspect of
how the search was conducted, the trial judge tersely observed that a warrant
therefor prior to apprehension was not indispensable inasmuch as the culprit
was bodily searched incidental to his arrest while selling the prohibited drug
(p. 57, Record).

Dissatisfied with the pronouncement of accountability,
accused-appellant is now before us, raising issues which boil down to the
principal query of whether he must be held to answer the inculpatory facts
levelled against him (p. 1, Brief for the Appellant; p. 30, Rollo).

To support the plea of exculpation, accused-appellant advances
the proposition that the evidence presented by the People is marred with
vacillating, nay, incredible statements sufficient to exonerate him of the
charge. Yet, the so-called elastic
responses, as well as the alleged absurd narration were not amplified in his
appeal brief to such a degree as to engender suspicion of bad faith. At most, accused-appellant could but point
to certain details in Sgt. Mugot’s open court declarations which he claims to
be of vital significance. But
accused-appellant’s perception of discrepancy relative to his position and the
positions of the buy-bust team members in the public market while the
transaction was in progress is too trivial a matter as to seriously impair the
credibility of the arresting officer on major points. A contrario, such inconsistency indicates veracity rather
than prevarication (People vs. Viñas, 25 SCRA 682 (1968); 2 Regalado,
Remedial Law Compendium, Volume 2, 1988 ed., p. 555) and only tends to bolster
the probative value of such testimony (People vs. Selfaison, et al., 61
OG 1513; Regalado, supra, at p. 555). Neither may Sgt. Mugot’s story be disbelieved simply because of
his seeming incompetence in conducting other buy-bust operations since a
disquisition along this line is certainly foreign and irrelevant to the
question of accused-appellant’s liability (p. 12, Brief for Appellant).

In his bid to diminish the credibility of the poseur-buyer,
accused-appellant insinuates that the factual premises established by Percival
Raterta carry a hidden, if not sinister agenda all because the poseur-buyer
from Bukidnon was specifically requested by the PC Narcotics Unit to travel to
Ozamiz City and to track down appellant. Had there been a more profound study of the stenographic notes,
accused-appellant’s counsel would have realized the futility of pressing the
idea of an evil scheme as to why the poseur-buyer suddenly entered the
scenario, so to speak, since it was underscored by Raterta that he was not
coerced to act as an asset of the narcotics team:

Q.   Where is your permanent address or
residence?

A.    Valencia,
Bukidnon.

Q.   You mean to say, you were recruited by
the Philippine Constabulary Office in Ozamis City just to come here to become a
poseur-buyer?

A.    No,
sir; they did not get me.

(TSN, August 9, 1990, p. 6; p. 13, Brief
for Appellant).

Of course, the court a quo elicited the corresponding
clarification from the poseur-buyer on the purpose of his trip to Ozamis City
thus:

COURT

Q.
  So, your trip here in Ozamis City
is purposely to be an informant of the Narcotics Agents?

A.    Yes,
sir, to look for a pusher.

Q.
  How did you know that there was a
pusher in the public market place, who informed you that?

A.    Because
my co-confidential informant was trying to buy or has already bought from them.

Q.   Are
you referring to the accused Danilo Cabisada?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.
  So, you were purposely brought
here by the Narcotics Agents to act as a poseur buyer?

A.    Yes,
sir.

(TSN, August 9, 1990, p. 7.)

But there is nothing in his testimony
that suggests ill-motive for his task is precisely to directly participate in
the entrapment of those engaged in the illicit traffic of drugs irrespective of
personalities involved. Accused-appellant even goes to the extent of posing the query of why
Raterta had to be the poseur-buyer when another asset from the locality could
have done the job with ease and less cost to the PC Narcotics Unit. The fallacy in this argument is the fact
that there is no indication that a local asset was available and willing to
undertake the task, apart from the fact that the prerogative of choice as to
whom should be tapped for a particular mission lies in the hands of the PC
Narcotics Team.

By and large, the evidence adduced by the People is enough to
sustain the conviction of accused-appellant over his protestations of
innocence. We are not persuaded by
accused-appellant’s defense that he was haled to court in retaliation for his
failure to provide information on local drug dealers in default of adequate
proof that the witnesses against him were motivated by bad faith (People vs.
Labriaga, 199 SCRA 530 (1991). Withal, prosecution witnesses are entitled to full faith and credence as
they are presumed to have acted in the regular performance of official duty (People
vs. Ramos, Jr., 203 SCRA 237 (1991).

WHEREFORE, the
decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto and the appeal is
hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., (Chairman), on
leave.