Aurelio y Reyes v. People

G.R. No. 174980 (August 31, 2011)

Radito Aurelio convicted of shabu sale, inconsistencies in testimonies deemed minor; defense claims rejected.

Facts:

On October 22, 2002, two Informations were filed against Radito Aurelio y Reyes (petitioner) for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The first Information (Criminal Case No. MC-02-6019-D) alleged that on October 17, 2002, in Mandaluyong City, the petitioner unlawfully sold one small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.05 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to poseur buyer Police Officer 1 (PO1) Julius Bacero for P100. The second Information (Criminal Case No. MC-02-6020-D) charged him with illegal possession of another sachet containing 0.12 grams of shabu.

The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the police officers involved in a buy-bust operation. Police Chief Inspector Bien B. Calag, Jr. instructed SPO2 Bacero to verify reports of shabu sales in the area. After confirming the illegal activity, a buy-bust team was formed, with Bacero designated as the poseur buyer. During the operation, Bacero entered the petitioner's house, purchased shabu, and was subsequently arrested along with the recovery of marked money and another sachet of shabu from the petitioner.

In contrast, the petitioner denied the allegations, claiming he was at a neighbor's house when he was forcibly taken by police officers. He alleged that the police attempted to extort money from him and that the drugs were planted.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the petitioner guilty of both charges, sentencing him to twelve years of imprisonment for each count. The Court of Appeals (CA) later modified the sentence, imposing life imprisonment for the sale of shabu and a longer indeterminate sentence for possession.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
  2. Whether the petitioner’s defenses of denial and frame-up were sufficient to overturn the conviction.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner’s Arguments:

    • The petitioner contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent and lacked credibility. He argued that the trial court relied on the presumption that police officers performed their duties regularly without sufficient evidence.
    • He maintained that no actual buy-bust operation took place and that the drugs were planted by the police. He also claimed that he was a victim of extortion.

  • Prosecution’s Arguments:

    • The prosecution argued that the testimonies of the police officers were consistent and credible, supported by physical evidence, including the marked money and the seized drugs.
    • They asserted that the elements of illegal sale and possession of shabu were proven beyond reasonable doubt, including the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the delivery of the drugs.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the following points:

  1. Credibility of Witnesses: The Court noted that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility is given great weight, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. The inconsistencies pointed out by the petitioner were deemed trivial and did not affect the core elements of the offenses.

  2. Elements of the Offense: The prosecution successfully established the essential elements for both the illegal sale and possession of shabu. The testimonies of the police officers were corroborated by the physical evidence presented in court.

  3. Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up: The Court viewed the defenses of denial and frame-up with skepticism, noting that such defenses are often easily fabricated. The petitioner failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to support his claims, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers was not overcome.

  4. Proper Penalty: The Court affirmed the penalties imposed by the CA, which were consistent with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • Inconsistencies in witness testimonies that do not pertain to the elements of the offense are insufficient to overturn a conviction.
  • The defenses of denial and frame-up require substantial evidence to be credible; mere assertions are not enough.
  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by law enforcement officers stands unless proven otherwise.