Title
People vs. Navaja
Case
G.R. No. 104044
Decision Date
Mar 30, 1993
Accused Alexander Navaja convicted for selling marijuana in a 1989 buy-bust operation; alibi rejected, prosecution witness deemed credible, life imprisonment upheld.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104044)

Background of the Case

The conviction of Alexander Navaja originated from a buy-bust operation executed by the Anti-Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section (ANDDRUS) of the Cebu City Police Station on August 30, 1989. Despite not being apprehended immediately after the transaction, a complaint was filed against him on September 6, 1989, for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, popularly known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Information Filed

Following a preliminary investigation, an Information was prepared and filed on November 13, 1989, charging Navaja with selling approximately 100 grams of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, which he allegedly delivered without legal authority.

Arrest and Proceedings

After an initial period where he evaded arrest, Navaja was eventually apprehended on May 10, 1990, while attending to a habeas corpus case concerning illegal possession of firearms. The case was revived, and he was arraigned on July 2, 1990, where he pleaded not guilty.

Evidence Presented

During the trial, the prosecution presented testimonies from several key witnesses, including Pfc. Ranulfo Espina and chemists from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine Crime Laboratory, who confirmed that the substances presented were indeed marijuana. The defense presented Navaja’s testimonies and that of his mother and a friend, all asserting that he was not the person involved in the drug sale.

Court’s Findings

The trial court found the testimony of Pfc. Espina credible, noting that he made a positive identification of Navaja as the seller of marijuana. The court acknowledged the absence of corroborative witnesses but concluded that Espina's solitary testimony satisfied the burden of proof for conviction. The defense’s assertions that evidence was insufficient or that he was misidentified were deemed unconvincing.

Errors Assigned on Appeal

Navaja raised several errors in his appeal: questioning the reliability of Espina’s testimony, criticizing the trial court for not considering the absence of corroborating witnesses, alleging improper motives behind the prosecution, and claims of misidentification. Each of these assertions was addressed sequentially by the appellate court.

Evaluation of Credibility

The appellate court underscored the trial court's exclusive authority to assess the credibility of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.