TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Lourderico Darisan and Pilar Gauang for illegal drug sale and possession, despite minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. This decision reinforces the principle that minor discrepancies do not automatically invalidate the credibility of law enforcement witnesses, especially when the core elements of the crime are proven. It emphasizes that the prosecution’s evidence, when consistent in material aspects, can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also clarified the penalties for illegal possession under RA 9165, ensuring both imprisonment and fines are imposed.

When a ‘Buy-Bust’ Meets the Witness Stand: Can Minor Testimony Flaws Sink a Drug Conviction?

This case revolves around the legality of a buy-bust operation and the subsequent conviction of Lourderico Darisan and Pilar Gauang for drug-related offenses. The central legal question is whether minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of police officers undermine the validity of the prosecution’s case, particularly in the context of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165). Appellants argued that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and Court of Appeals (CA) erred in relying on the testimonies of PO2 Vicente Barrameda and PO2 Virginio Costa, citing inconsistencies as indicators of falsehood.

The Court first addressed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It reiterated the settled rule that police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. This presumption holds unless there is evidence to the contrary, such as proof of ill-motive or irregularity in the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Appellants failed to provide such evidence, leading the Court to uphold the credibility of the police officers’ testimonies.

The inconsistencies pointed out by appellants were deemed minor and immaterial to the core elements of the crimes. These inconsistencies included variations in the composition of the buy-bust team, the time the informant arrived at the police station, the street where the operation took place, and the markings on the buy-bust money. The Court emphasized that these details were not essential to establishing the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.

The prosecution successfully established these elements. PO2 Barrameda testified that he bought shabu from appellants, and the marked money was presented as evidence. The shabu seized from appellants was positively identified in court. Moreover, the Court noted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were consistent in material respects, further bolstering the prosecution’s case. The Court, citing established jurisprudence, gives great weight to the factual findings of trial courts due to their unique position to observe the demeanor of witnesses.

The defense of alibi offered by the appellants was deemed insufficient to overcome the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court viewed alibi with disfavor, noting that it is easily concocted and a common defense strategy in drug-related cases. The Court also noted a discrepancy in the penalty imposed by the lower courts for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165. The Court clarified that the penalty should include both imprisonment and a fine.

The Court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution established the guilt of Lourderico Darisan and Pilar Gauang beyond reasonable doubt for both illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. The Court modified the penalty imposed for illegal possession to include both imprisonment and a fine, in accordance with the provisions of RA 9165.

FAQs

This case highlights the importance of consistent evidence in drug-related offenses and the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by law enforcement officers. It also underscores the Court’s role in ensuring that penalties imposed are in accordance with the law, particularly in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009