PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL ACURAM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appellant Rafael Acuram impugns and would have this Court reverse
the decision^[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of
Bansalan, Davao del Sur, Branch 21 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of selling marijuana in violation of Sec. 4 of the Danger­ous Drugs Act of 1972
and imposing on him the penalty of “life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.”

Two separate informations were filed against appellant on August
9, 1989. Although both informations
referred to the same incident on June 20, 1989 in the municipality of Bansalan,
Davao del Sur, the first information charged appellant with violation of Sec. 8
of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 179 for
alleged unlawful and felonious possession of one hundred thirty-five
point eight (135.8) grams of marijuana leaves (Crim. Case No. XXI-137
[89]). The second information charged
appellant with violation of Sec. 4 of the same law for willful, unlawful and
felonious sale and distribution of one gram of marijuana
leaves (Crim. Case No. XXI-137-A [89]).

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges
against him.^[2]
At the joint trial of the two cases, the prosecution presented only three
witnesses: Philippine Constabu­lary
(PC) members Sgt. Candelario Lahaylahay, Lt. Salome Jose and CIC Manuel Peleño.

Sgt. Lahaylahay came to know the “asset” named Tonton
through CIC Noel Masongsong. Tonton
used to buy marijuana from Acuram. In
the morning of June 20, 1989, Tonton informed him that Acuram, also known as
Bebot, was selling marijuana obtained in Pikit. Thus, Sgt. Lahaylahay organized a team to conduct a buy-bust
operation. Before proceeding with the
operation, he asked permission from Col. Jesus Magno at the PC headquarters in
Digos. Col. Magno instructed him and
his team to conduct a surveillance on Acuram. They forthwith proceeded to Bansalan but they did not drop by the police
station there anymore.^[3]

Together with CIC Masongsong, CIC Manuel Peleño and Tonton, Sgt.
Lahaylahay arrived in the Bansalan poblacion at around 2:30 in the
afternoon. All of them were in civilian
clothes and they carried sidearms.^[4] Upon
reaching Lily St., they gave Tonton one hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) with
which to buy marijuana from Acuram. While standing by a store around twenty (20) meters from the house of
Acuram, they watched as Acuram handed over marijuana to Tonton in exchange for
P150. When Tonton returned to them with
the marijuana, they “went directly” to the house of Acuram. There, they met Acuram whose wife informed
them that there was marijuana in the basket of dried fish. Indeed, they found marijuana leaves in two
baskets (“bangkat”) of dried fish covered by an old newspaper beside the
stove in the kitchen.^[5]

The constabulary men then took pictures of the marijuana which,
including the one gram bought by Tonton, was later found to weigh 135.8 grams.^[6]
The camera they used had been lent to them by Col. Magno. They asked for the P150 purchase money from
Acuram but he returned to them only P135 on the pretext that he had bought
something out of the missing P15.^[7] Aside
from Acuram and his wife, the other persons in Acuram’s house were a man
“extracting corn grits” and Acuram’s two small children.^[8]

CIC Peleño fetched barangay captain Doroteo Parawan who recorded
the apprehension of Acuram and witnessed the inventory and photographing of the
seized marijuana.^[9]
Acuram executed a “receipt” stating that intelligence operatives of
the 435th PC company had been able to “confiscate” in his possession “more or less 2
grams of dried marijuana leaves” in his residence and that said operatives
did not take anything else from him (Exh. D). Later, Acuram was brought to the PC barracks for proper investi­gation. The PC team deposited the marijuana seized
from Acuram with Cpl. Impang, the investigator. The latter in turn, brought it to the PC Crime Laboratory in
Davao City for examination.^[10]

Sgt. Salome Jose, forensic analyst of the said PC Crime Laboratory,
received a request for laboratory examination on June 22, 1989 (Exh. A). With said request was a specimen consisting of 135.8 grams of
“suspected dried marijuana fruiting tops wrapped with old newspapers and
placed in a white plastic bag marked ‘DATU COMPLEX DIGOS’” (Exh. C). After subjecting the specimen to the
Duquenois-Levine test, Sgt. Jose found that it was “positive for
marijuana” (Exh. B).

CIC Manuel Peleño corroborated Sgt. Lahaylahay’s testimony. According to him, they were standing at a
distance of around thirty (30) meters from the nipa hut of Acuram. After seeing Tonton buy marijuana from
Acuram at the stairs of the latter’s house, they proceeded to investigate
Acuram who confessed that there was more marijuana in the basket of dried fish. They told Acuram to get the marijuana and
then they took pictures of it.^[11] They
also retrieved the purchase money from Acuram and later turned it over to Cpl.
Impang.^[12]
CIC Peleño added that the buy?bust team did not secure a search warrant because they caught
Acuram “in the act.”^[13]

In his defense, Acuram interposed alibi and denial that he had
possessed or sold marijuana. According
to Acuram,^[14]
before noon of June 20, 1989, he was in barangay Mabunga looking for bamboos
which he intended to use for the bodega of his newly-harvested corn. At around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he
and his companion, Jimmy Labajo, were able to buy five bamboo poles from Mrs.
Garciano. After cutting the bamboos,
Acuram and Labajo had them hauled by a carabao.^[15]

Upon reaching his house, Acuram saw PC soldier Pelenio (Peleño)
at the door of the kitchen. He also saw
Lahaylahay, Masongsong, the “asset” and Doroteo Parawan. Pelenio invited him to go upstairs. Lahaylahay then “forced him to admit
(ownership of) the marijuana which was placed on top of the table.”^[16]
Lahaylahay also asked him if he sold marijuana to Tonton but he denied that he
did so.^[17]
Lahaylahay then asked him to go with the PC team to the barracks. He acceded on condition that the incident be
blottered at the office of the barangay captain. On their way to Digos, they passed by the house of barangay
captain Parawan who recorded the incident in a logbook. They did not,
however, pass by the police
station to have the arrest duly recorded.

Acuram asserted in court that the PC team and the barangay
captain arrived in his house ahead of him. He was allegedly surprised to see the marijuana leaves on the table and
when the barangay captain confronted him about it, he retorted that they did
not belong to him.

When showed the “receipt” stating that marijuana had
been confiscated from him, Acuram claimed that he was in a state of shock when he signed it.^[18]
Later, however, he admitted having signed it in the house of barangay captain
Parawan and that the latter signed the same document as a witness.^[19]

For his part, barangay captain Doroteo Parawan testified that at
around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of June 20, 1989, some members of the
435th PC Company went to his house to report that they had “raided”
the house of Acuram and seized five (5) grams
of marijuana. Parawan himself
recorded the report (Exh. 1).

When he arrived at Acuram’s house, he found only the
“raiding team” there and, although at first he did not know the names
of the team members, he recorded the fact of the confiscation of about two
grams of marijuana from Acuram’s residence. In the kitchen, the team opened a paper bag and he saw marijuana inside it.^[20]
Besides the PC team, the only other person he saw in Acuram’s house was Mrs.
Acuram. He did not see Acuram arrive
but he saw Acuram “went down the house.” He asked him if he really
owned the marijuana but Acuram replied that he had “just arrived.”^[21]

Victoria Vda. de Garciano corroborated Acuram’s story that he
went to her place to buy bamboos and that Acuram and Labajo left her house at
past 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of June 20, 1989.^[22]
In defense of her husband, Lucresia Acuram, testified that Acuram and Labajo
left after lunch of June 20, 1989 to get bamboos from Mrs. Garciano. While her husband was away, four persons arrived. As one of them called her, she met them
downstairs. The men were looking for
Acuram because they had “something to take up with” him.^[23]
Three of the men went upstairs and later, the fourth person followed them. These men had with them a plastic bag marked
“Datu Complex.”^[24] They
went to the kitchen and opened three baskets but they did not find
anything. They searched the clothes
around and looked into her children’s food boxes. Not finding what they were looking for, all four of them sat down
in the balcony.

When barangay captain Parawan
arrived, her husband was not yet home. Her brother Dingkong fetched Acuram who arrived with Labajo and the
carabao hauling five pieces of bamboo. The constabulary men left with her husband and the barangay captain at
past 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon.

With these pieces of evidence, on January 15, 1991 the lower
court rendered the aforementioned decision. On the strength of the ruling in People v. De Jesus^[25] that possession of prohibited drugs
is inherent in the crime of selling them, the lower court held Acuram liable
only for violation of Sec. 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 179 penalizing sale and
distribution of prohibited drugs, and dismissed the charge of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs under Sec. 8 of the said law.

Acuram appealed to this Court. He alleges that the lower court erred in: (a) giving credence to the “hearsay testimonies” of
Sgt. Lahaylahay and CIC Peleño; (b) admitting in evidence the marijuana leaves
and stems presented as evidence; (c) holding that Parawan’s testimony refuted
appellant’s claim that he had just arrived from Mabunga and therefore he
(Acuram) could not have sold the marijuana to the constabulary
“asset,” and (d) discrediting the testimonies of the defense
witnesses. The bot­tomline of this
assignment of errors is the credibility of the witnesses presented by both the
prosecution and the defense.

The credibility of witnesses has always been the area of
responsibility of the trial court and its findings and conclusions on the
matter are respected and given great weight by the appellate courts. The trial court’s findings on the matter may
only be disregarded by this Court if there are facts and circumstances which
were overlooked by the trial court and which would substantially alter the
results of the case; where the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and where the inferences of the
trial court from the facts are manifestly absurd or impos­sible.^[26]
The Court finds that none of these instances exists in this case to warrant
deviation from the rule of vesting great weight and reliance on the trial
court’s findings regarding the credibility of the witnesses herein. Be that as it may, the Court shall confront
the first three matters raised in the as­signment of errors to insure a
thorough appreciation of the merits of the appeal. Needless to say, discussion on the fourth assigned error shall be
dispensed with.

Appellant’s allegation that the testimonies of Lahaylahay and
Peleño are “hearsay” is baseless. Both constabulary men were eyewitnesses to the “buy-bust”
operation and appellant had not refuted their respective testimonies, let alone
established that they were somewhere else when the buy-bust operation
transpired such that they could not have witnessed it. Thus, Peleño categorically stated that he
saw Tonton as he bought marijuana from Acuram at the stairs of the latter’s
house.^[27]
Although Peleño failed to estimate the quantity of the marijuana bought by
Tonton from appellant, he affirmed in court that the piece of paper delivered
by appellant to Tonton contained marijuana.^[28]

Lahaylahay himself narrated how, from a distance of twenty
meters, he saw appellant and Tonton exchange marijuana with the money the
constabulary men themselves had provided Tonton. Repe­titious questions by both the prosecutor and the defense
counsel failed to move Lahaylahay to depart from his testimony that he actually
saw appellant deliver marijuana to Tonton and the latter receive P150 from the
former.^[29]
Hence, while the distance between these two PC operatives and the house of
appellant where the sale transpired could have prevented Peleño and Lahaylahay from hear­ing the
conversation between Tonton and the appellant, proof of aural access has become
unnecessary in this case in view of the positive testimonies of Peleño and
Lahaylahay that they witnessed the marijuana and the purchase money change
hands. Said testimonies on the sale are sufficient evidence to
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.^[30]

While the appellant does not expressly deny the actual occurrence
of the sale of marijuana between him and Tonton, he proposes the probability
that Tonton could have hidden marijuana in his person and then presented it as
the one he bought from appellant. Completely baseless as it does not stand on solid evidence, the
proposition could have merited scrutiny had the defense presented proof that
Tonton was impelled by an improper motive in imputing criminal liability on the
appellant. The defense of a frame-up
which appears to be the object of the appellant’s disquisition on
probabilities, was never raised below much less propped up by evidence. Like alibi, a frame-up should be established by clear and convincing evidence for
it is easy to concoct but hard
to prove.^[31] Similarly, appellant’s allegation
that he was forced to admit ownership of the marijuana leaves is not supported
by evidence except for his own self-serving testimony. Even his wife and the barangay captain did
not corroborate this allegation when they testified.

Neither was there proof that the arresting officers were guided by considerations other than the
fulfillment of their task to enforce the law.^[32] That
the PC operatives had no evil motives to harass and implicate the appellant is
supported by their testimonies that the incident was the first meeting between
them and the appellant.^[33] Said
testimonies were affirmed in court by the appellant who even added that he bore
no grudges against or had a misunderstanding with the PC men, Tonton and
Parawan.^[34]
Moreover, the presumption of regularity of performance of offi­cial functions
has not been rebutted by the defense’s evidence. Thus, in this case, since it is not the sole basis for convic­tion,
the presumption of regularity of performance of official functions prevails
over the constitutional presumption of inno­cence of the accused.^[35]

Appellant bewails the fact that Tonton was not presented by the
prosecution as a witness. It should be
remembered, however, that the option to present a witness is discretionary on
the part of the prosecution. If the
fiscal or prosecutor deems it improper to present an informer as a witness, he
does so in the exercise of sound discretion guided in all probability by the
fact that an informer has to preserve his cover so that he could continue with
his invaluable service.^[36]
There is also the over-riding consideration that an informer risks his life in
playing his role in the apprehension of violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. The prosecution’s failure to
present Tonton as a witness did not, therefore, weaken its case. Tonton’s testimony would merely be
corroborative or cumulative to those of the constabulary men who were
themselves eyewitnesses to the sale of marijua­na.^[37]
Moreover, nonpresentation of a civilian informer as a witness is not a
sufficiently plausible defense. At the
trial, the accused can always avail of an informer’s testimony even through
compulsory judicial process, if necessary.^[38]

With regard to appellant’s contention that his arrest and the
seizure of the marijuana were illegal as the constabulary men were not armed
with a warrant, it should be observed that said processes were effected
immediately after the sale of marijuana. As the law allows warrantless arrests when a crime has just been
committed, it was not imperative for the arresting officers to obtain a search
warrant or a warrant of arrest. It is
of judicial notice that in the arrest of a violator of the Dangerous Drugs Act
as a result of a buy-bust operation, the offender is invariably caught
red-handed.^[39]
Hence, the admissibility of the seized marijuana is beyond question. Furthermore, the seized marijuana was duly
authenticated – the PC operatives testified that they gave it to the investigator
who then transmitted it to the forensic analyst who likewise testified that she
received it with a letter-request for examination.^[40]

The appellant stresses emphatically that barangay captain
Parawan’s testimony proved that the sale could not have transpired because
appellant was not yet at home at the time the “buy-bust” operation
occurred. However, as proven by the
prosecution and even by the defense, Parawan arrived at the residence of
appellant after the “buy-bust” operation. Appellant himself admits that Parawan
“would not be in a position to know if accused just arrived from barangay
Mabunga. The only thing he could know
was he saw the accused.”^[41]

Appellant’s alibi and denial of having sold or possessed
marijuana crumbles in the face of his positive identification as the seller of
marijuana by prosecution witnesses Lahaylahay and Parawan.^[42]
Besides, the five-kilometer distance between appel­lant’s residence and
barangay Mabunga where he was allegedly buying bamboos at the time of the sale,^[43]
was not too far as to prevent him from being home before 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon when the “buy-bust” operation was in progress. Neither could the testimony of Mrs. Garciano
help – she did not have a watch and her testimony on the time when appellant
was supposed to be in Barangay Mabunga was, as she herself admitted, based on
estimates.^[44]

A “buy-bust” operation is the method most frequently
used by law enforcers in catching violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act. While this method is not exactly fool-proof
for in its applica­tion law enforcers are liable to commit abuses, still it has
been proven to be an effective means of entrapment of persons who, for obvious
reasons, clandestinely peddle or possess prohibited drugs. The courts cannot be too cautious in the
determination of whether or not the operation has been properly conducted. Unfor­tunately for the defense in this case,
there is nothing on record to overturn the decision of the lower court.

WHEREFORE, the decision subject of the instant
appeal is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr.,
(Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Davide,
Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Rodolfo A. Escovilla.

^[2]
Original Record, p. 42.

^[3]
TSN, October 25, 1989, pp. 23-26; 54.

^[4]
Ibid, p. 32; TSN, March 12, 1990, p. 19.

^[5]
TSN, October 25, 1989, pp. 12 &
35-40.

^[6]
Ibid, pp. 13 & 29.

^[7]
Ibid, pp. 41-42.

^[8]
Ibid, pp. 33-34 & 49-50.

^[9]
Ibid, pp. 47-49.

^[10]
Ibid, pp. 15-16.

^[11]
TSN, March 12, 1990, p. 11.

^[12]
Ibid, pp. 15-16.

^[13]
Ibid, p. 19.

^[14]
Questioned by the court why he was sporting long hair and a beard, Acuram said that like Samson,
he would feel weak every time his hair is cut (TSN, July 11, 1990, pp. 18-19).

^[15]
Ibid, pp. 5-8.

^[16]
Ibid, p. 9.

^[17]
Ibid, pp. 9-10.

^[18]
Ibid, p. 20.

^[19]
Ibid, p. 29.

^[20]
Ibid, pp. 6-7.

^[21]
Ibid, p. 7.

^[22]
TSN, October 1, 1990, p. 6.

^[23]
Ibid, p. 25.

^[24]
Ibid, p. 30.

^[25]
G.R. No. 71942-43, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 521.

^[26]
People v. Lati, G.R. No. 70393, April 17, 1990, 184 SCRA 336, 342;
People v. Payumo, G.R. No. 81761, July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 64.

^[27]
TSN, March 12, 1990, p. 10.

^[28]
Ibid, p. 14.

^[29]
TSN, October 25, 1990, pp. 16, 30-31, 35-36.

^[30]
People v. Olivares, G.R. No. 86219, June 14, 1990, 186 SCRA 536, 545.

^[31]
People v. Nabunat, G.R. No. 84392, February 7, 1990, 182 SCRA 52; People
v. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990,
185 SCRA 154.

^[32]
People v. Guiagui, G.R. No. 78527, April 25, 1990, 184 SCRA 538; People v.
Yap, G.R. Nos. 87088-89, May 9, 1990, 185 SCRA 222; People v. Payumo, supra.

^[33]
TSN, October 25, 1989, p. 21 and March 12, 1990, p. 14; People v. Borja,
G.R. No. 71838, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 581.

^[34]
TSN, July 11, 1989, pp. 24 & 26.

^[35]
See: People v. Lati, supra,
at p. 347.

^[36]
People v. Consuelo, G.R. No. 77755, April 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 402.

^[37]
People v. Tangliben, G.R. No. 63630, April 6, 1990, 184 SCRA 220.

^[38]
People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 83260, April 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 416.

^[39]
Ibid, p. 422.

^[40]
People v. Tangliben, supra at p. 226.

^[41]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 8.

^[42]
People v. Marcos, supra at p. 165; People v. De
Jesus, supra, at p. 527.

^[43]
Decision, p. 3.

^[44]
According to Mrs. Garciano, together with appellant and Labajo, she estimated
the time when appellant was supposed to be in her house several months after
appellant’s arrest. The prosecu­tion,
however, manifested in court that since his arrest, appel­lant had been in
detention (TSN, October 1, 1990, p. 11).