G.R. No. 91159 - People vs. Francisco y Aquino

Case Summary (G.R. No. 91159)

Filing, Accusation, and Arraignment

The information was filed on 20 September 1987 and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 8280-V-87. At his arraignment on 7 October 1987, Aquino, assisted by Citizens’ Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) lawyer Atty. Restituto Viernes, pleaded not guilty.

Trial Evidence and the Prosecution Narrative

At trial, the prosecution described the apprehension through the buy-bust operation. Fajardo testified that on the morning of 20 September 1987, he and another police officer were ordered by Cpl. Martin of the Valenzuela Police Anti-Narcotics Unit to conduct a buy-bust operation with the help of a civilian informer (CI) at Gen. T. de Leon Street, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. The target was allegedly a drug pusher identified as Boy Hapon, later introduced to Fajardo as the accused.

According to Fajardo, the CI introduced him to Aquino. Posing as a buyer, Fajardo handed Aquino a marked P10.00 bill. Fajardo claimed that after Aquino put the bill in his pocket, Aquino told him to wait and went to a nearby house about ten meters away to get the merchandise. Minutes later, Aquino returned and handed Fajardo five (5) marijuana cigarette sticks wrapped in plastic (identified as Exhibits A, A-1 to A-4). Fajardo identified himself as a police officer, arrested Aquino, and recovered from him the P10.00 bill with Fajardo’s initials marked on it (identified as Exhibit E and Exhibit E-1). The prosecution also presented Fajardo’s written statement relating to the incident (identified as Exhibits F, F-1).

The prosecution further supported the identity of the seized substance through the NBI chemist’s examination. NBI Forensic Chemist Resurreccion Ramos Bajado confirmed that the five cigarette sticks submitted for examination tested positive for marijuana. She testified that microscopic, chemical, and chromatographic tests yielded the same result (identified as Exhibits B, B-1; and Exhibits C, C-1 to C-4). She stated that specimens were brought by P/Aide Ludwig Lee with a request for examination from the Valenzuela Police Station.

Defense Evidence and the Claim of Frame-up

Aquino testified in his own behalf. He denied selling marijuana cigarettes to Fajardo and claimed that the marijuana recovered from him was planted. Aquino stated that he knew Fajardo as a policeman because he had seen him in the house of a policeman in their place for more than five years.

Aquino asserted that on 20 September 1987, around 11:30 in the morning, he was washing a truck in front of his aunt’s house at Gen. T. de Leon when Fajardo arrived holding something wrapped in plastic. Aquino claimed Fajardo suddenly pulled him at the waistline and asked if he had marijuana. Aquino said he denied selling marijuana, that Fajardo pushed him to go with them, and that Fajardo had two other companions who allegedly carried the marijuana. Aquino claimed he was hit by a gun in the head, that he was taken to Polo Emergency Hospital the same day, and that he did not point to any person in the area because he had not committed any offense.

On cross-examination, Aquino maintained that he had no misunderstanding with Fajardo before the incident. He claimed that Fajardo turned his ire on him after failing to locate the intended arrest target, and he testified that Fajardo asked him to point to the person selling marijuana. Aquino also claimed that three days earlier Fajardo had already asked him to point the person selling marijuana in the place.

RTC Judgment of Guilt and Sentence

On 4 November 1988, the RTC promulgated a decision finding Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. The dispositive portion sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) plus costs of suit.

Procedural History of Appeal

Aquino filed a notice of appeal on 4 December 1988. Thereafter, the trial court forwarded the records to the Court of Appeals, but it did so erroneously. The Court of Appeals then transmitted the records to the Supreme Court on 24 November 1989. On 19 March 1990, the Supreme Court resolved to accept the appeal.

Errors Assigned by the Appellant

In his appeal, Aquino assigned two alleged errors: first, that the RTC erred in giving credence to the alleged conflicting and uncorroborated testimony of Fajardo; and second, that the RTC erred in convicting him despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In substance, Aquino argued that Fajardo’s testimony was uncorroborated and that it should be carefully scrutinized because Fajardo acted as both poseur-buyer and arresting officer. Aquino also pointed to the absence of any participation by a supposed companion, Pat. Aldao, and argued that the buy-bust operation was therefore suspicious.

Aquino further alleged inconsistencies in Fajardo’s narration. He highlighted four areas: (a) whether Fajardo waited after the accused asked for payment or paid at once; (b) where the meeting occurred, allegedly on a bridge versus beside a house under construction; (c) the time spent waiting for the accused to return, allegedly “sometime” versus about two minutes; and (d) the presence or absence of testimony that the buy-bust money was marked before leaving the office. Aquino characterized these as affecting Fajardo’s credibility since the prosecution’s case rested heavily on Fajardo alone.

Aquino also argued that the amount of P10.00 was too meager for a sale of five sticks of marijuana and that it was improbable he would risk his liberty for such consideration. He also contended that since Fajardo was familiar to him as a policeman, it was inconceivable that Aquino would sell marijuana to him. Finally, Aquino maintained that the incident was a frame-up.

Appellate Review of Credibility and the Court’s Treatment of Alleged Inconsistencies

The Court underscored that the RTC’s factual findings were generally accorded great respect, particularly when issues of credibility were involved. It recognized the exception where the trial court overlooked material facts that could affect the outcome. After reviewing the record, the Court found no compelling reason to overturn the RTC’s credibility determination that Fajardo was clear, positive, and credible.

The Court held that the fact that Fajardo’s testimony was uncorroborated did not defeat the prosecution’s case. It reiterated the settled rule that the testimony of a lone prosecution eyewitness may prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt if it is credible and positive.

Addressing Aquino’s alleged inconsistencies, the Court found that several claims either did not exist or were exaggerated. For the alleged inconsistency regarding timing of payment, the Court explained that the initial exchange showed Fajardo did not answer with precision when asked what he did immediately after Aquino asked for money; later examination clarified that the bill was handed at once before Aquino left to retrieve the marijuana. Thus, the Court concluded there was no real inconsistency.

On the alleged inconsistency about the location of the meeting, the Court ruled that Fajardo’s direct testimony that the contact was “on the road where there was a bridge” did not show he met the accused on the bridge itself. The later testimony describing contact beside a house under construction was consistent because the house stood beside the same road. The Court therefore rejected the claim of contradiction.

Regarding the alleged failure to mention that the buy-bust money was marked with initials before leaving the office, the Court treated Aquino’s argument as implausible. It said the prosecuting fiscal failed to ask the proper question during direct examination, and the detail came out only during cross-examination when the question was posed.

As to the waiting period, the Court held the alleged discrepancy was minor and not substantial. It recognized that “sometime” is relative and that even if interpreted as a different duration, any difference did not impair Fajardo’s credibility, especially because cross-examination allowed clarification rather than created a material contradiction.

The Court also emphasized that even candid witnesses make mistakes and that honest lapses do not automatically negate intrinsic credibility. It relied on cited doctrine describing how minor inconsistencies commonly arise due to the pressures of courtroom questioning.

Buy-Bust Features and the Rejection of Suspicion

The Court found Aquino’s argument concerning the absence of Aldao’s participation inconsequential. It held that Fajardo acting as both poseur-buyer and arresting officer was not odd in buy-bust operations where a poseur-buyer also forms part of the team. It reasoned that such dual role could even facilitate arrest immediately after the drug delivery.

The Court rejected Aquino’s claim that it was improbable he would sell marijuana for P10.00. It stated that the illegal sale of prohibited drugs is consummated upon the poseur-buyer’s receipt of the marijuana from the seller. It held that the monetary consideration is immaterial to establishing sale. It further explained that drug pushers, including retail sellers, often sell to anyone who can pay, regardless of whether the buyer is familiar or a stranger.

The Court likewise dismissed the claim that Aquino could not have sold marijuana to Fajardo because he knew Fajardo was a policeman. It reiterated that what matters is the agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the mar

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 91159)

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines prosecuted Larry Francisco y Aquino before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Metro Manila for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 as amended.
The RTC case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 8280-V-87.
After arraignment on 7 October 1987, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty with assistance from CLAO lawyer Atty. Restituto Viernes.
The RTC promulgated its decision on 4 November 1988, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant filed a notice of appeal on 4 December 1988.
The records were forwarded erroneously to the Court of Appeals, and the case was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 24 November 1989.
The Supreme Court resolved on 19 March 1990 to accept the appeal.

Key Factual Allegations

The information alleged that on or about 20 September 1987 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, accused-appellant, without authority of law, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sold, delivered, dispatch in transit and transported five (5) sticks of rolled marijuana cigarettes.
The charge was anchored on Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, for the illegal sale and delivery of prohibited drugs.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution relied on the testimony of NBI Forensic Chemist Resurreccion Ramos Bajado and the arresting officer/poseur-buyer Pat. Eduardo Fajardo.
Pat. Eduardo Fajardo testified that in the morning of 20 September 1987, Cpl. Martin of the Valenzuela Police Anti-Narcotics Unit ordered a buy-bust operation with the help of a civilian informer (CI).
He stated that the target was Boy Hapon, and that the CI introduced him to the accused.
He testified that he posed as a buyer and handed a marked P10.00 bill to the accused, who then placed it inside his pocket.
He testified that the accused asked him to wait, went about ten meters away to get the merchandise, and returned with five (5) marijuana cigarette sticks wrapped in plastic.
He testified that after identifying himself as a police officer, he arrested the accused and retrieved the P10.00 bill bearing his initials (Exh. E-1).
He testified that they brought the accused to headquarters and that he executed a written statement (Exhs. F and F-1).
On the forensic side, Resurreccion Ramos Bajado affirmed that the seized cigarette sticks (Exhs. A and A-1 to A-4) tested positive for marijuana through microscopic, chemical, and chromatographic tests (Exhs. C and C-1 to C-4).
She testified that P/Aide Ludwig Lee brought the specimens with the request for examination from the Valenzuela Police Station (Exh. D).

Defense Theory

Accused-appellant denied selling marijuana cigarettes to Pat. Fajardo.
He claimed he knew Pat. Fajardo as a policeman for more than five years because he allegedly often saw him in the house of a policeman in their place.
He testified that on 20 September 1987 at around 11:30 in the morning, he was washing a truck in front of his aunt’s house when Pat. Fajardo arrived holding something wrapped in plastic.
He testified that Pat. Fajardo allegedly suddenly pulled him and asked if he had marijuana, after which Fajardo allegedly pushed him and brought him with two other companions.
He alleged that the marijuana came from Pat. Fajardo and companions.
He further testified that he was hit by a gun in the head and was brought to Polo Emergency Hospital on the same day.
On cross-examination, he denied any misunderstanding with Fajardo prior to the incident.
He testified that Fajardo allegedly failed to locate the intended target and turned his ire on him.
He claimed that Fajardo asked him to point to the person selling marijuana, but he asserted he did not know the seller and had no relation with that person.
He asserted that three (3) days before his arrest, Fajardo had already asked him to point the person selling marijuana.

Issues on Appeal

The appeal raised whether the RTC erred in crediting the testimony of Pat. Eduardo Fajardo despite alleged inconsistencies and claimed lack of corroboration.
The appeal raised whether the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged suspicious nature of the buy-bust and the alleged unreliability of the poseur-buyer/arresting officer’s account.
The appeal also indirectly questioned the correctness of rejecting the asserted frame-up theory.

Appellant’s Assigned Errors

First assigned error: The RTC allegedly erred in giving credence to alleged conflicting and uncorroborated testimony of Pat. Eduardo Fajardo.
Second assigned error: The RTC allegedly erred in convicting despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant argued that Fajardo’s testimony was the sole basis for conviction and therefore required careful scrutiny.
Appellant contended the buy-bust operation was doubtful because Fajardo acted as both poseur-buyer and arresting officer.
Appellant asserted that it was odd that Pat. Aldao allegedly had no participation at all.
Appellant alleged inconsistencies in Fajardo’s account, including discrepancies on (a) whether payment was given only after return versus given at once, (b) where contact occurred relative to a bridge, (c) whether waiting time was longer versus about two minutes, and (d) whether the marking on the buy-bust money was raised on direct versus cross-examination.
Appellant argued that the P10.00 considerati