People vs. Reyes

Minor inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies on details like the exact house number or whether the buy-bust happened “near” or “in front” of the accused’s house do not destroy credibility where the witnesses are consistent on the material fact of the delivery of shabu; and the marked money is admissible as relevant evidence, the law penalizing both sale and delivery of prohibited drugs. R.A. No. 7659’s reduced penalty applies retroactively in favor of the accused where the quantity of shabu is less than 200 grams, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law fixes the minimum within arresto mayor for a conviction under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Robert Reyes y Navarro’s case required the SC to determine whether the reduced penalty under Republic Act No. 7659 applied retroactively to a conviction under Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Republic Act No. 6425 penalized the sale and delivery of prohibited drugs, while Republic Act No. 7659 later changed the penalty scheme for dangerous drugs.

Acting on information from a confidential informant, the police placed Robert Reyes y Navarro under surveillance for a week before deciding to conduct a buy-bust operation. On January 9, 1991, at about 2 p.m., a team composed of Pat. Lumacang, acting as poseur-buyer, P/Cpl. De Guzman, and Pfc. Pasana was deployed to Twinville Subdivision, Marikina to execute the entrapment of Reyes. At about 3 p.m., Reyes was seen standing in front of his house at 104 Rosas Street, Nangka, Marikina, Metro Manila, prompting Pat. Lumacang to approach him and ask if he had “bato,” the street term for “shabu.”

Reyes answered the inquiry by asking “magkano ba ang kukunin mo?” to which Pat. Lumacang replied “piso lang pare,” simultaneously handing to Reyes a One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bill with Serial Number HL 446389 (Exhibit “E”) which had been earlier initialed by Pat. Lumacang. After receiving the money, Reyes gave Pat. Lumacang a piece of foil (Exhibit “C-6”) the contents of which was suspected to be shabu. Giving the pre-arranged signal brought out Pfc. Pasana and P/Cpl. De Guzman from their vantage points, and they assisted Pat. Lumacang in arresting Reyes. After informing Reyes of his constitutional rights, the arresting officers searched him and found three more foils (Exhibits “C-2” to “C-4”) of suspected shabu placed in a plastic maroon container (Exhibit “C-1”).

After Reyes was brought to the police headquarters, Pat. Lumacang conducted an investigation and Reyes was informed of his right to counsel. Reyes declined and told Pat. Lumacang “ayusin na lang natin sir,” but Pat. Lumacang paid no attention to the invitation. Pat. Lumacang prepared a statement (Exhibit “F”) to explain the conduct of the operation.

Reyes asserted his innocence and alleged that he was cleaning his house when three men suddenly entered and apprehended him. Held by one of the men, he could only watch as the two other men searched the premises. No warrant was shown to him, but he was nonetheless taken to the CID on the pretext that he was being invited thereat for investigation. At the CID office, Reyes was asked his name and address, after which he was placed in a detention cell and subsequently charged. Ruben Dacanay said that he was on his way to school when he noticed an owner-type jeep parked in front of Reyes’s house; being a friend of Reyes’s brother, Dacanay looked through the window and saw Reyes being held by a man while two men were searching the bedroom. Claiming that the men found nothing, Dacanay also alleged that he heard the men invite Reyes to the Municipal Hall and that, as the group left the house, Reyes was handcuffed before boarding the jeep.

The recovered specimens, placed in a yellow envelope (Exhibit “C”), were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Camp Crame, Quezon City along with a letter request (Exhibit “D”). P/Lt. Julita T. de Villa conducted the examination, and the Certification of Laboratory Result (Exhibit “A”) and Chemistry Report Number D-013-91 (Exhibit “B”) concluded the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The trial court found the prosecution’s version supported by the evidence and gave credence to the police witnesses’ account that Reyes was caught delivering shabu.

• Inconsistent Testimony: Respondent Robert Reyes, the accused-appellant, argued that the RTC erred in admitting as evidence the inconsistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, specifically on the place where the buy-bust transaction and arrest took place.
• Marked Money: Respondent argued that the RTC erred in admitting Exhibit “E,” the marked P100.00 bill, because it was a self-serving piece of evidence that came from and was in the possession of Patrolman Lumacang before it was passed to Reyes.
• Fabricated Buy-Bust: Respondent argued that the RTC erred in overlooking and failing to consider certain facts of weight and importance showing that the evidence was stage-managed by the prosecution.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: Whether the RTC erred in admitting as evidence the allegedly inconsistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses on the place of the buy-bust transaction and arrest.
• Admissibility of Marked Money: Whether the RTC erred in admitting Exhibit “E,” the marked P100.00 bill, as evidence.
• Fabrication of Buy-Bust Operation: Whether the RTC erred in overlooking and failing to consider certain facts showing that the evidence was stage-managed by the prosecution.
• Penalty: Whether Reyes is entitled to the reduced penalty under R.A. No. 7659 and the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: No. The alleged inconsistencies were minor, and the witnesses were consistent on the material fact that Reyes was caught in flagrante delicto delivering shabu to Patrolman Lumacang.
• Admissibility of Marked Money: No. The marked money was relevant to the sale of shabu, and even without it, the law penalizes the delivery of prohibited drugs.
• Fabrication of Buy-Bust Operation: No. The claim involved appreciation of evidence, which the SC left to the court a quo.
• Penalty: Yes. R.A. No. 7659 applies retroactively in Reyes’s favor, and the quantity of .07 gram calls for prision correccional, with the minimum under the Indeterminate Sentence Law within arresto mayor.

• Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses: The SC ruled that the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses on the place of the buy-bust and arrest were consistent. Both placed the transaction at Roces St., Barangay Nangka, Marikina, Metro Manila; one said it was “near” Reyes’s house while the other said it was “in front” of it, and the SC reasoned that to be “in front” of the house is also to be “near” it. The discrepancy between No. 104 Roces and No. 105 Roces was a minor detail. Citing People vs. Doctolero, the SC held that inconsistencies and contradictions on minor details cannot destroy the credibility of prosecution witnesses where they positively identify the accused and are consistent on material points. The police witnesses were also presumed to have regularly performed their duties under Rule 131, Section 5(m), absent convincing proof to the contrary. What mattered was that the witnesses were one in saying Reyes was caught in flagrante delicto delivering shabu to Patrolman Lumacang.

• Admissibility of Marked Money: The SC held that the marked money was admissible under Section 1, Rule 130 of the 1989 Rules on Evidence because it was relevant to the fact in issue — the sale of shabu. It rejected the claim that the marked money was “self-serving.” Even assuming the marked money was not admitted and the prosecution failed to establish the sale, the SC held that R.A. No. 6425, Article III, Section 15 penalizes not only the sale but also the delivery of prohibited drugs. Citing People vs. de la Cruz and People vs. Hoble, the SC held that the offense could be consummated by the mere delivery of the prohibited drug, with or without consideration, and that the absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus where the drug itself was presented in court.

• Fabrication of Buy-Bust Operation: The SC held that Reyes’s contention that the trial court failed to consider certain vital facts showing that the buy-bust operation was fabricated involved an appreciation of the evidence. Citing People vs. Tejada, the SC left that appreciation to the court a quo and did not disturb it.

• Penalty: The SC noted that the RTC sentenced Reyes under Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended by B.P. Blg. 179, but that R.A. No. 7659 further amended the law. Under Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for selling, dispensing, delivering, transporting, or distributing shabu of less than 200 grams is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua; under Section 14 in relation to Section 17, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is imposed when the quantity involved is 200 grams or more. The SC noticed that reclusion perpetua was both the maximum for less than 200 grams and the minimum for 200 grams or more. To avoid the incongruity, the SC read Section 17 as providing a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal only when the quantity involved is less than 20 grams, citing Rufino Lopez and Sons vs. Court of Appeals and Lamb vs. Phipps on the duty to harmonize conflicting provisions. Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which has suppletory application to special laws, penal laws are given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused, so Reyes was entitled to the reduction. The SC divided 199 grams into three: 134 to 199 grams — reclusion temporal; 66 to 133 grams — prision mayor; below 66 grams — prision correccional. Since the shabu confiscated was only .07 gram, the penalty was prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to a special law, as held in People vs. Macatando and People vs. Simon, the minimum penalty should be within the range of arresto mayor.

• Minor inconsistencies do not destroy credibility — Inconsistencies and contradictions in prosecution witnesses’ testimony on minor details cannot destroy credibility where the witnesses positively identify the accused and are consistent on material points. The SC applied this to the “near” versus “in front” discrepancy and the No. 104 versus No. 105 Roces Street discrepancy.
• Presumption of regular performance of official duty — Lawmen are presumed to have regularly performed their duties under Rule 131, Section 5(m), absent convincing proof to the contrary. The SC applied this to the police witnesses in the buy-bust operation.
• Marked money as relevant evidence; delivery as an independent offense — Under Section 1, Rule 130 of the 1989 Rules on Evidence, an object relevant to the fact in issue may be exhibited, examined, or viewed by the court; the marked money was relevant as consideration for the shabu. But R.A. No. 6425, Article III, Section 15 penalizes both sale and delivery, so conviction for delivery can stand even without the marked money or proof of sale.
• Appreciation of evidence is left to the trial court — The claim that the buy-bust operation was fabricated involves appreciation of evidence, which the SC leaves to the court a quo. The SC will not substitute its own appreciation absent a showing of error.
• Harmonization of R.A. No. 7659 penalty provisions — To avoid an incongruity, Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 is read with Section 14: less than 200 grams carries prision correccional to reclusion perpetua, while 200 grams or more carries reclusion perpetua to death; Section 17 is read as prision correccional to reclusion temporal only when the quantity is less than 20 grams. For 199 grams, the SC divided the ranges as follows: 134 to 199 grams — reclusion temporal; 66 to 133 grams — prision mayor; below 66 grams — prision correccional.
• Retroactive application of favorable penal laws — Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which has suppletory application to special laws, gives penal laws retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused. The SC applied R.A. No. 7659 retroactively to reduce Reyes’s penalty.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law in special laws — For a person punished under a special law, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies; the minimum penalty should be within the range of arresto mayor, and the maximum is prision correccional in this case.

• “inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which refer to minor details cannot destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. And where the prosecution witnesses were able to positively identify the appellants as the authors of the crime and the testimonies were, on the whole, consistent on material points, the contradictions become insignificant.” — The SC quoted this from People vs. Doctolero and applied it to the minor discrepancies on the exact house number and whether the transaction was “near” or “in front” of Reyes’s house.
• “The provision under which appellant was charged (R.A. No. 6425, Art. III, Sec. 15) does not only penalize the sale but also the delivery of prohibited drugs. Therefore, even if the marked money was not admitted as evidence and the prosecution failed to established the sale of dangerous drugs, still appellant could be convicted for delivering prohibited drugs.” — This passage rejects the argument that the marked money was indispensable and confirms that delivery alone consummates the offense.
• “Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which has suppletory application to special laws, penal laws shall be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused. Appellant is entitled to benefit from the reduction of the penalty introduced by R.A. No. 7659.” — This is the SC’s basis for applying the later penalty reduction retroactively in Reyes’s favor.
• “Considering that the quantity of shabu confiscated from appellant was only .07 gram, the penalty that can be imposed on him is prision correccional.” — This passage fixes the maximum penalty range after the SC harmonized the penalty provisions of R.A. No. 7659.

• People vs. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 (1991) — Controlling precedent for the rule that inconsistencies on minor details do not destroy the credibility of prosecution witnesses who are consistent on material points.
• People vs. de la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416 (1990) — Followed for the rule that the crime is consummated by the mere delivery of prohibited drugs, even without the marked money.
• People vs. Hoble, 211 SCRA 675 (1992) — Followed for the rule that the absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus where the prohibited drug was presented in court.
• People vs. Tejada, 170 SCRA 497 (1989) — Followed for the rule that appreciation of evidence, including a claim of fabricated buy-bust, is left to the court a quo.
• Rufino Lopez and Sons vs. Court of Appeals, 100 Phil. 850 (1957) — Cited for the duty to harmonize conflicting provisions to give effect to the whole law.
• Lamb vs. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456 (1912) — Cited for giving a statute its logical construction and harmonizing conflicting provisions to effect the legislature’s intent.
• People vs. Macatando, 109 SCRA 35 (1981) — Cited for applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law to a person punished under a special law.
• People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994 — Cited for the interpretation of the Indeterminate Sentence Law in special laws, with the minimum within the range of arresto mayor.

• Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425 — The provision under which Reyes was charged; it penalizes both the sale and the delivery of prohibited drugs. The SC used it to affirm that delivery alone can support conviction even if the marked money was not admitted.
• Section 1, Rule 130, 1989 Rules on Evidence — Provides that when an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined, or viewed by the court. The SC applied it to hold the marked money admissible as relevant to the sale of shabu.
• Rule 131, Section 5(m), Revised Rules of Court — Establishes the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. The SC applied it to the police witnesses absent convincing proof to the contrary.
• Sections 14 and 17, Republic Act No. 7659 — Amended the penalties for dangerous drugs. The SC harmonized them to avoid the incongruity of reclusion perpetua being both the maximum for less than 200 grams and the minimum for 200 grams or more, and fixed the applicable ranges.
• Article 22, Revised Penal Code — Provides that penal laws shall be given retroactive effect insofar as they favor the accused. The SC applied it to give Reyes the benefit of the reduced penalty under R.A. No. 7659.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to Reyes, who was punished under a special law; the SC fixed the minimum within the range of arresto mayor and the maximum at prision correccional.
• Section 20, Article IV, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended — Basis for the confiscation and forfeiture of the 0.07 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride in favor of the Government.
• Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by B.P. Blg. 179 — The provision under which the RTC originally sentenced Reyes; the SC noted that R.A. No. 7659 later amended the penalty scheme.