THIRD
DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G. R. No. 112797
July 8, 1997
-versus-
NIDA
ALEGRO y VILLARIN,
Accused-Appellant.
D
E C I S I O N
FRANCISCO, J.:
In a Joint
Decision rendered by the Regional Trial
Court [RTC] of Imus, Cavite dated June 22, 1993, herein appellant Nida
Alegro, in Criminal Case No. 2335-92, was sentenced to suffer life
imprisonment
and pay a P20,000.00 fine after having been found guilty of selling
P100.00
worth of methamphetamine hydrochloride ["shabu"] in violation of
Section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act [R. A. 6425]. The
other
criminal case, docketed as criminal case no. 2336-92, was likewise
decided
against accused therein Oscar Bautista who was found to be in
possession
of one (1) deck of "shabu" on the same occasion of Alegro's entrapment,
and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one [1]
day
to twelve [12] years and pay a P6,000.00 fine. This appeal concerns
appellant
Alegro only and, thus, the present discussion shall be limited to her
case.
The respective
versions of the State and appellant
are rather simple. According to the prosecution, appellant Alegro was
apprehended
following a buy-bust operation conducted on her by PO2 Nicomedes
Carandang
and PO3 Faustino Remo at about 8:00 p.m. of August 7, 1992 in Brgy.
Salitran,
Dasmariñas, Cavite. PO2 Carandang, acting as poseur-buyer, was
in
possession of a P100-bill bearing three perforations on its serial
number,
as marker. Soon after the exchange between Carandang and appellant, the
latter was arrested.cralaw:red
Frame-up or
denial was appellant's defense. She
claimed she was merely an afterthought prey when police officers
Carandang
and Remo failed to collar their true target in the person of one Rita
Alegro,
appellant's sister. Obviously, appellant's conviction resulted from the
trial court's appreciation of the prosecution's account as the more
credible
story. Insistent on her innocence nonetheless, appellant now argues, as
one of her two [2] assigned errors, that the trial court gravely erred
in convicting her solely on the presumption that the apprehending
officers
performed their duties regularly and completely brushing aside her
evidence.
As to her second assigned error, appellant argues that assuming she in
fact sold "shabu", the penalty of life imprisonment imposed on her
should
be modified pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659.cralaw:red
Appellant's
conviction is in order.cralaw:red
The story of the
successful entrapment of appellant
was narrated with consistency by PO2 Carandang[1]and PO3 Remo[2][actual participants in the buy-bust
operation]
whom
the trial court considered as trustworthy witnesses, upon the
observations
that (1) "not only because they testified in a straightforward manner
but
their demeanor on the witness stand exuded drops of truth and
credibility"[3]and (2) "the defense had not shown any evil
motive
on the part of the police officers to testify as they did against the
accused."[4]
This assessment
of the credibility of police officers
Carandang and Remo deserves the highest respect of the Court,
considering
that the trial court had the direct opportunity to observe their
deportment
and manner of testifying and availed of the various aids to determine
whether
they were telling the truth or concocting lies.[5]Indeed, as law enforcers, Carandang and
Remo's
narration
of the incident is worthy of belief and as such they are presumed to
have
performed their duties in a regular manner, there being no evidence to
the contrary.[6]
It then becomes
clear that appellant's defense
of denial or frame-up must fail. Besides, such defense, like alibi, has
been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be
concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for
violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[7]That appellant's charge of "frame-up" is
nothing
more than pure concoction is made evident by Oscar Bautista
[appellant's
"kumpadre" and accused in Criminal Case No. 2336-92] who
confirmed
in court that the "shabu" seized by the policemen were bought from
appellant.
Thus:
With respect to
appellant's claim that her awareness
of Carandang being a police officer would certainly have deterred her
from
peddling "shabu" to him, suffice it to state once again that knowledge
by the accused that the poseur-buyer is a policeman is not a ground to
support the theory that accused could not have sold narcotics to the
latter.[9]As this Court has noted many times, drug
pushers
have become increasingly daring in the operation of their illicit trade
and have not hesitated to act openly, almost casually and even in
scornful
violation of the law, in selling prohibited drugs to any and all buyers.[10]In fact, drugs are sold even to police
officers
nowadays
some of whom are users, if not pushers themselves.[11]
Summing up the
preceding discussions, we advert
to this Court's pronouncement in "People v. Ponsica"[12]that: "In the absence of proof of any
intent on
the
part of the police authorities falsely to impute such a serious crime
against
appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty as well as the principle that findings of the trial court on the
credibility
of witnesses are entitled to great respect, must prevail over the
self-serving
and uncorroborated claim of appellant that he had been "framed".cralaw:red
Regarding the
penalty of life imprisonment imposed
on appellant, the same should indeed be modified as recommended by
appellant
and the Solicitor General himself. The Chemistry Report issued by the
Crime
Laboratory Service of the PNP[13]reveals that the total weight of "shabu"
taken
from
appellant is 0.05 grams. Pursuant to R. A. 7659 amending the Dangerous
Drugs Act and in line with the "People v. Simon" case,[14]the penalty for the sale of 0.05 grams of
"shabu"
is prision correccional. Applying now the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the
duration of imprisonment that should be imposed upon appellant is 6
months
of arresto mayor as the minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision
correccional
medium, as the maximum.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, save
for the MODIFICATION REDUCING
the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court upon
appellant
to 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of
prision
correccional medium, as maximum, the assailed decision providing for
appellant's
conviction is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. It appearing,
however,
that appellant's period of detention [since August, 1992] has already
exceeded
the above-mentioned reduced penalty, the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of appellant
from confinement is ORDERED, unless she is detained for some other
cause/s.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, CJ.,
Melo and Panganiban, JJ.,
concur.
Davide, Jr., J., took no part.cralaw:red
___________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
TSN of October 1, 1992 and October 8, 1992.
[2]
TSN of October 29, 1992 and November 16, 1992.
[3]
RTC Decision, p. 2; Rollo, p. 17.
[4]
RTC Decision, pp. 2-3; Rollo, p. 17-18.
[5]
People v. Laurente, 255 SCRA 543.
[6]
People v. Jain, 254 SCRA 686.
[7]
People v. Solon, 244 SCRA 554.
[8]
TSN of March 15, 1993, p. 4.
[9]
People v. Flores, 243 SCRA 371.
[10]
People v. Salamat, 225 SCRA 499.
[11]
People v. Flores, supra.
[12]
230 SCRA 87.
[13]
Records, p. 86; Exhibit B.
[14]
234 SCRA 555. |