G.R. No. 90391 - People vs. Juma y Sampangmaga

Accused Salih Juma y Sampangmaga was charged with violating Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for allegedly selling marijuana cigarettes.
The charge was based on an Information alleging that on or about October 28, 1988, in Zamboanga City, without legal authority, the accused wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sold ten (10) sticks of marijuana cigarettes to Sergeant Marino B. Undangan.

A buy-bust operation was conducted by the Ninth Regional Narcotics Command under the supervision of Sergeant Eulolio Reguina.

At around 9:00 o’clock in the morning of October 28, 1988, Reguina led a team composed of Sergeants Marino Undangan, Amirrudin, Guevarra, and Sanori to the accused’s residence near CDCP Fort Pilar.
Sgt. Undangan initiated the buy-bust operation by pretending to purchase ten (10) marijuana cigarettes for a sum of P10.00.

The physical possession of marijuana cigarettes by the accused and two other individuals, Eddie Fernandez and Tony Kamlani.
A P10.00 bill and the accused’s residence certificate found during the search.
Forensic examination by the PC-INP Crime Laboratory, which confirmed that the seized substances were indeed marijuana.

Prior to the operation, a “test-buy” conducted by Sgt. Undangan on October 27, 1988, had already yielded marijuana cigarettes from the accused, thereby reinforcing the suspicion of his involvement in the sale of illegal drugs.

The accused denied any involvement in the sale of marijuana and claimed that he was framed.
His version stated that:

On October 28, 1988, while he was outside watching for ships at his residence, five unknown persons approached him and inquired about marijuana.
He claimed that he was forced at gunpoint, handcuffed, and later made to board a vehicle along with other individuals (Eddie Fernandez, Tony Kamlani, Salih Makra, and Salih Alih).
The accused testified that he was not searched until after being brought to a large building and that his only possession was his wallet containing his residence certificate.
During subsequent confinement in a room, he was allegedly assaulted and coerced into confessing under duress after prolonged maltreatment.
He alleged that his rights were violated since he was not informed of his right to remain silent or to have legal counsel, and his subsequent confession was the product of such abuses.

The defense’s claim of being framed or instigated was supported solely by his inconsistent and self-serving testimony, with no corroborating evidence provided.

Consistency and clear details in the testimonies of the police officers, especially of Sgt. Undangan and Sgt. Reguina.
Corroborative physical evidence (the seized marijuana cigarettes and related documentary evidence).
The results of the forensic examination confirming the substance as marijuana.

The accused’s allegations of police misconduct, extortion, and coercion were not substantiated by any objective evidence such as medical certificates or external testimony.

Whether the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specifically those of Sgt. Undangan and Sgt. Reguina.

Consideration of the credibility and consistency of the witnesses’ accounts in establishing the factual matrix.

Whether the trial court was justified in characterizing the accused’s testimony as inconsistent, improbable, and evasive.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the physical evidence and corroborative test-buy operation, established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.

Whether the accused’s defense of being framed or instigated constitutes a valid argument against the legality and conduct of the buy-bust operation.

Examination of the doctrine of entrapment in distinguishing it from instigation and whether the operational tactics of the NARCOM agents fell within legal limits.