Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > May 2007 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 171817 : May 23, 2007] RAMIR NACUA ALIAS DANILO NACUA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 23 MAY 2007:

G.R. No. 171817 - RAMIR NACUA alias DANILO NACUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the December 10, 2004 Court of Appeals (CA) Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 24203 which affirmed in toto the July 8, 1999 Cebu City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13 Decision in People of the Philippines v. Ramir Nacua alias Danilo Nacua y Jumao-As in Criminal Case No. CBU-36618 for violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The fallo of the RTC decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused RAMIR NACUA alias DANILO NACUA Y JUMAO-AS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentences him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from ONE (1) YEAR and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as minimum, to THREE (3) YEARS, as maximum.

The packet of shabu described in the information is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and destroyed pursuant to law.

With cost against the accused.

SO ORDERED.^[1]

The facts as culled by the CA are as follows:

At about five o'clock in the afternoon, on March 30, 1994, the Cebu City police received a phone call from a police informant from Lawis, Pasil, Cebu City that accused-appellant, Ramir Nacua alias Danilo Nacua y Jumao-as, was selling shabu in Pasil where he also resided.

A police team was formed to conduct surveillance on the reported subject and vicinity and thereafter, a buy-bust operation in order to apprehend the herein accused-appellant in flagrante delicto.

It was agreed that in the conduct of the operation, the informant would act as the poseur-buyer of one (1) gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. In connection with this, the informant was given two (2) five hundred peso (500) bills as marked money, the serial numbers of which were recorded by the police.

The team proceeded to Pasil an hour after they received the phone call. While they were there, they made an assessment and concluded that it would be difficult for them to conduct the operation near the house of the appellant so they instructed the poseur-buyer to carry out the entrapment along Flores Street corner Tupaz Street in Pasil while they will position themselves in strategic areas within the vicinity.

At around 9:30 p.m. on that same day, the police informant who will act as the poseur-buyer showed up alone at the corner of Flores and Tupaz Streets as agreed. He informed the police that accused-appellant herein, would soon follow and that the appellant was wearing denim short pants and a white t-shirt. Afterwards, the appellant did arrive and had a brief conversation with the poseur-buyer. The police were watching them closely from a distance of about five (5) to seven (7) meters. The police saw the transaction -from the handling of the money by the poseur-buyer to the appellant and with the appellant in turn, giving the poseur-buyer a small plastic packet. After which, the poseur-buyer gave the police their pre-arranged signal by touching his hair (sic). The police rushed towards the appellant but the latter, sensing that he would be arrested was able to flee and was able to evade arrest that night.

The plastic packet containing white crystalline granules, weighing 0.5 gram was recovered from the poseur-buyer and when brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination, yielded a positive result for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride.^[2]

In this instant petition, petitioner Nacua raises two issues, viz:

I

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS' AFFIRMANCE OF THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 13, CEBU CITY IS PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

II

WHETHER THE PENALTY IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONER IS PROPER PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN PEOPLE VS. MARTIN SIMON.^[3]

On the first issue whether the CA's affirmance of the Cebu City RTC's decision is proper, we rule that the CA committed no reversible error in its December 10, 2004 Decision nor in its March 8, 2006 Resolution denying petitioner Nacua's Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner's reliance on the seeming conflict between the testimonies of prosecution witnesses PO3 Gabijan and SPO2 Garciano is without merit as the claimed inconsistencies do not amply demonstrate the absence of the essential elements of the offense charged. Inconsistencies as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity of the weight of their testimonies.^[4] Besides, conflicting statements on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed testimony.^[5]

The issue on the rejection of the defense of alibi and denial is resolved against petitioner. As petitioner Nacua was positively identified as the offender, then his defense of alibi and denial are of no value. In addition, he failed to convince the Court that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at nearby Flores Street corner Tupaz Street in Pasil, Cebu City at the time of the commission of the offense on or about March 30, 1994 at about 10 o'clock in the evening. The defense of alibi and denial is inherently weak and constitutes an "unstable sanctuary for felons" because of the facility with which it can be concocted.^[6]

More importantly, the issues on the conflicting testimonies of the two (2) prosecution witnesses and the rejection of the defense of alibi and denial are, without doubt, factual issues. Findings of facts of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on this Court.^[7] The Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of both the trial court and the CA.

On the issue of the proper penalty to be imposed, we find merit in said proposition although petitioner's reliance on People v. Martin Simon is misplaced. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, under Section 20 of RA 6425, as amended by Section 17 of Republic Act 7658, if the quantity of the methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is less than 200 grams, the proper imposable penalty is six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional as maximum.

The fallo of the July 8, 1999 Decision of the Cebu City RTC, Branch 13 must therefore be modified to benefit petitioner Nacua.

WHEREFORE, the petition is partially granted only with respect to the penalty. The December 10, 2004 CA Decision affirming the July 8, 1999 Cebu City RTC, Branch 13 Decision in Criminal Case No. CBU-36618 and the March 8, 2006 CA Resolution denying petitioner Nacua's Motion for Reconsideration are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty to be imposed on petitioner Nacua, as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused RAMIR NACUA alias DANILO NACUA Y JUMAO-AS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and sentences him to an indeterminate penalty ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS of arresto mayor, as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision correccional, as maximum (modification in boldface).

The packet of shabu described in the information is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and destroyed pursuant to law.

With costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, J., on official leave.

---

[1] Rollo, pp. 56-57.

^[2] Id. at 57-58.

^[3] Id. at 10.

^[4] People v. Santos, G.R. No. 127492, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 37, 43.

^[5] People v. Santiago, G.R. Nos. 137542-43, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 248, 255.

^[6] People v. Magdaraog, G.R. No. 151251, May 19, 2004, 428 SCRA 529, 541.

^[7] Tan v. Tan, G.R. No. 133805, June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 44, 50.