PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GILBERT SAN ANDRES Y SAN JUAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In an information filed on November 2, 1989 with the Regional
Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, Branch 79, docketed as Criminal Case No. 0612-M,
herein accused-appellant Gilbert San Andres was charged with a violation of
Section 4, Article II, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, which he allegedly
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 26th day of October, 1989, in the
Municipality of Morong, Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give
away to another two (2) rolls of dried marijuana fruiting tops having a total
weight of 3.45 grams wrapped with a pad paper with markings, which is a
prohibited drug.

On the same date 12.18 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops
placed in transparent plastic bag which (sic) were also found in the right
pocket of the maong pants of accused Gilbert San Andres y San Juan.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[1]

During the arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged, hence trial on the merits ensued. Appellant’s case was tried jointly in the same court with
Criminal Case No. 0613-M, entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Ramil
Aquino,” for violation of Section 8, Article II, of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended.

On February 5, 1991, the court a quo rendered judgment^[2] finding appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged and sentencing him to suffer life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs of suit. This portion of the trial court’s joint decision is now the
subject of our present appellate review. The second portion of the trial court’s decision, finding accused Ramil
Aquino guilty and sentencing him to imprisonment for six (6) years, to pay a fine of P6,000.00 but without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of suit, was appealed
to the Court of Appeals.

The records show that in the afternoon of October 25, 1989,
Master Sgt. Angelito Manalo of the Fourth Narcotics Regional Unit, Rizal
District, of the PC Narcotics Command, received information at their office at
Gate 2, Karangalan Village, Cainta, Rizal, that one alias “Embit”,
herein appellant Gilbert San Andres, was selling marijuana and illegal drugs to
students and teenagers along Tupas Street, Morong Rizal.^[3] A
chasing and surveillance operation was conducted in the morning of the
following day, October 26, 1989, at Tupas Street, Morong, Rizal where the
police informant was able to confirm that appellant is a drug pusher.^[4]
At around 3:00 P.M. of the same day, an arresting team was formed with Sgt.
Alfredo Esguerra acting as the poseur-buyer.^[5] The
group then proceeded to Morong, Rizal and dropped off Sgt. Esguerra and the
informant at Tupas Street. Sgt. Manalo
and the others positioned themselves between the Morong Municipal Hall and the
creek at the right side of the street.^[6]

At around 5:30 P.M., they saw Sgt. Esguerra and the informant
talk to appellant in front of the bakery store, around 40 meters away from
where Sgt. Manalo and his group were located. Then, Sgt. Manalo saw Sgt. Esguerra handing the P20.00 marked bill to
appellant who took out two foils of marijuana from the front pocket of his
pants and gave them to the poseur-buyer. Thereupon, Sgt. Esguerra gave the arrest signal and the arresting team,
composed of Sgt. Manalo, Technical Sgt. Victorino Felix, C1C Rolando Visenio
and C1C Manuel Mercader, apprehended herein appellant, together with Ramil
Aquino and Gener Cruz who were arrested for possessing marijuana.^[7]
Sgt. Manalo personally searched appellant and found seven (7) foils of wrapped marijuana inside a transparent
plastic bag and one marked P20.00 bill.^[8]

Appellant, together with his companions, were then brought to the
police station where they were investigated. All the marijuana confiscated from appellant, consisting of two (2)
rolls of dried marijuana fruiting tops and seven (7) rolls of dried marijuana,
were submitted to the PC Crime Laboratory for examination. Forensic Chemist Leslie Chambers submitted
Chemistry Report No. D-1179-89^[9] which certifies that the specimens
submitted for examination were positive for marijuana.

Appellant presented a different version. He testified that at around 4:00 P.M. of
October 26, 1989, he was at the store of Gener Cruz resting because he just
came from a funeral. He was with Gener
Cruz, Ramil Aguino, Pepito Concepcion and Celso Trinidad. Two persons arrived, and he saw Pepito
Concepcion and the two persons exchange something.^[10]
Thereafter, the two persons left, and Pepito Concepcion approached him and gave
him P20.00 to buy liquor. However, he
did not buy liquor and, instead, he and his companions went near the river bank
which was around ten (10) steps away from the store, and watched the people
fishing.^[11]

Later, an owner-type jeep and a passenger jeep loaded with people
arrived. The persons inside the jeep
alighted and suddenly handcuffed them and pointed guns at them. One group chased Pepito Concepcion, while
another went down the river bank and picked up something. Appellant, together with Gener Cruz and
Ramil Aquino, were loaded inside the jeep where they were bodily searched.^[12] The group found P40.00 in the
possession of appellant. Subsequently,
appellant and his companions were brought to the detachment office where they
were detained and allegedly mauled.

Appellant alleges that he saw Sgt. Manalo for the first time at
the detachment office and contends that the latter was not part of the group
which arrested him and his companions.^[13] He denies that he sold marijuana on
October 26, 1989 and insists that, when he was searched by the military, there
was no marijuana found in his possession and all they found on him was the sum
of P40.00.^[14] He also claims that the municipal
hall where the arresting team was allegedly positioned is 500 to 600 meters
away from the store of Gener Cruz where appellant was arrested and, therefore,
it was impossible for the members of the arresting team to have seen and
witnessed the alleged buy-bust operation conducted at said store of Gener Cruz.^[15]

Before us, appellant submits that the court a quo
gravely erred:

1. in appreciating and/or
giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as against his
testimony;

2. in not acquitting him,
considering that the prosecution failed to present the best witness to prove
its case, that is, the person
who acted as poseur-buyer;

3. in not finding that the
prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence accorded to him
under our laws; and

4. in concluding that since
the prosecution witnesses had no misunderstanding with him, their testimonies
should be relied upon.^[16]

Appellant asserts that the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, Sgt. Angelito
Manalo and C1C Manuel Mercader, are full of falsities, inconsistencies and
contradictions. He avers that
prosecution witness Sgt. Manalo made inconsistent statements as to the exact
date and time when the information was received and the surveillance was
conducted and, also, as to the distance between the store where the buy-bust
operation was conducted and where said witness was positioned.

Appellant contends that if it were true, as testified to by Sgt.
Manalo, that the information was received by the latter in his office at
Karangalan village at 4:00 P.M. of October 26, 1989 and the buy-bust operation
was conducted at 5:30 P.M. of the same day, it was physically impossible for
the military to have conducted the surveillance, formed the arresting team and
implemented the buy-bust operation all in two and a half (2 1/2) hours,
considering that the distance between the Narcotics Command Office at
Karangalan Village and Morong, Rizal is approximately 30 to 40 kilometers which
will require at least one (1) to one and a half (1 1/2) hours for a car to
negotiate.

Appellant further points out that on direct examination, Sgt.
Manalo testified that he received
the information at 4:00 P.M. on October 26, 1989 and that the surveillance was
conducted after 4:00 P.M. of said date, but the said witness stated on
cross-examination that he received the information on October 25, 1989 and
conducted the surveillance in the morning of October 26, 1989. It is likewise contended that on direct
examination, Sgt. Manalo declared that he was 20 meters away from the store,
but he testified on cross-examination that he was 40 meters away.

Finally, appellant maintains that it was impossible for Sgt.
Manalo to have witnessed the buy-bust operation because the distance between
the municipal hall where the latter was allegedly positioned and the store
where the buy-bust operation was conducted is 500 to 600 meters, aside from the
fact that Tupas Street is a winding road with houses and trees on both sides
thereof.

We hold that these alleged inconsistencies as to time and
distance are too insignificant to merit any serious consideration.

In his cross-examination, Sgt. Manalo clarified that he was
informed about the illegal activities of appellant in the afternoon of October
25, 1989 and that the surveillance and buy-bust
operation were conducted the following day, that is, on October 26, 1989.^[17]
Furthermore, also during his cross-examination, he testified that he positioned
himself between the municipal hall and the creek, not in front of the
municipal hall as erroneously claimed by appellant, and that the arrest was
effected near the creek.^[18] That said witness was able to clearly
see the buy-bust operation is further bolstered by the testimony of appellant
himself to the effect that the store of Gener Cruz is only about ten steps away
from the “river-bank.”^[19] This
fact only serves to reinforce the testimony of the prosecution witness that
appellant was apprehended near the creek.^[20]

At any rate, assuming arguendo that there may be such
inconsistencies, we definitely cannot construe the same to mean that the
prosecution witness was not present at all during the commission of the
crime. As long as they do not detract
from the substantial truthfulness and credibility of the prosecution evidence,
inconsistencies and contradictions in testimonies may not be considered
material,^[21]
and the court is justified in disregarding such testimonial shortcomings.

The rule is well-settled that discrepancies on minor matters do
not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution evidence as a whole or
reflect on the witnesses’ honesty. The
inconsistencies may be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, which even
tend to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony having been
given. What is important is that the
testimonies agree on the essential facts and that the respective versions
corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and
coherent whole.^[22]

The irrefutable fact is that appellant was caught in flagrante
delicto as a result of the buy-bust operation. The inconsistencies asserted by appellant are too trivial to
affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses who are all law enforcers
presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of convincing
proof to the contrary.^[23]
Furthermore, appellant failed to convin­cingly show any ill motive on the part
of the prosecution witnesses to testify falsely and impute to him such a grave
offense. Contrary to appellant’s theory,
the lack of such dubious motives is of considerable evidentiary weight in
assessing the credibility of witnesses.

In addition, the alleged inconsistencies cannot prevail over the
definitive evidence of the prosecution. It has been clearly established that appellant did sell marijuana and
that the marked money, as well as seven (7) other foils of marijuana, were
recovered from his person. Appellant
miserably failed to come up with a credible explanation as to how the P20.00
marked bill came into his possession. What further aggravated and bolstered the proof of his culpability is
the fact that the military recovered seven (7) more foils of marijuana from
him. And, again, this he likewise
failed to controvert or explain. When
confronted with the marijuana confiscated from him during the search, appellant
merely asseverated that he saw them for the first time only when he was investigated at the detachment. Definitely, the foregoing defensive
counterpoise proffered by appellant, which consists purely of bare denials,
cannot overcome the clear, logical and forthright testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses.

Lastly, appellant submits that the non-presentation of the
poseur-buyer as a witness is fatal to the case of the prosecution. We hold otherwise.

The testimony of the poseur-buyer, if it had been given, would at
best be corroborative because Sgt. Manalo and C1C Mercader sufficiently
established, as eyewitnesses, how the crime was committed. It would have been different if the police
officers were unable to see the actual sale of the marijuana. In this latter situation, an exception
arises and the poseur-buyer should be presented as a witness.^[24]

However, in the case at bar, the relevant information acquired by
said poseur-buyer was equally known to the police officers who gave evidence
for the prosecution at the trial. They
all took part in the planning and implementation of the operation, and all of
them were direct witnesses to the actual sale of the marijuana, the appellant’s
arrest immediately thereafter, and the recovery from him of the marked money
and other marijuana foils. The
testimony of the poseur-buyer was, therefore, not indispensable or even
necessary; it would have been merely cumulative or corroborative at best.^[25]

ACCORDINGLY, the challenged judgment of
the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Original Record, 1.

^[2]
Ibid., 133.

^[3]
TSN, Aug. 16, 1990, 8.

^[4]
TSN, id., 1990, 9-10.

^[5]
Ibid., Aug. 6, 1990, 11.

^[6]
Ibid., Aug. 16, 1990, 12.

^[7]
Ibid., Aug. 6, 1990, 12-14.

^[8]
Ibid., Aug. 16, 1990, 13-14.

^[9]
Exhibit E; Original Record, 177.

^[10]
TSN, September 26, 1990, 7.

^[11]
Ibid., id., 8.

^[12]
Ibid., id., 9.

^[13]
Ibid., id., 10.

^[14]
Ibid., id., 12.

^[15]
Ibid., id., 6.

^[16]
Brief for Accused-Appellant, 5-6; Rollo, 77-78.

^[17]
TSN, Aug. 16, 1990, 8-9.

^[18]
Ibid., id., 12.

^[19]
Ibid., Sept. 26, 1990, 8.

^[20]
Ibid., Aug. 16, 1990, 12.

^[21]
People vs. Gupo, et al., 190 SCRA 7 (1990).

^[22]
People vs. Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1 (1992).

^[23]
People vs. Mauyao, 207 SCRA 732 (1992).

^[24]
People vs. Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1 (1992).

^[25]
People vs. Dag-uman, 209 SCRA 407 (1992).