Drug Sale Conviction Upheld: Minor Inconsistencies Do Not Undermine Police Testimony

The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of two individuals for illegal sale and possession of shabu, clarifying that minor inconsistencies in police testimony do not automatically destroy a prosecution witness's credibility. The ruling in People v. Darisan (G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009) reinforces the weight given to law enforcement testimony in drug cases and confirms the penalties under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

The Buy-Bust Operation

On July 30, 2002, police officers in Makati City received information that Lourderico Darisan and Pilar Gauang were engaged in drug-pushing activities. A buy-bust team was organized, with a P100 bill marked as buy-bust money.

PO2 Vicente Barrameda, the designated poseur-buyer, approached Darisan and asked to buy shabu. After handing over the marked money, Gauang gave him a plastic sachet containing shabu. Barrameda then gave the pre-arranged signal, and the team arrested both appellants. A search yielded two more sachets from Darisan and two from Gauang. Laboratory tests confirmed all five sachets contained shabu.

The Defense of Alibi

Both appellants denied the charges. Gauang claimed she was eating at a nearby carinderia when police arrived, and that a sachet was shoved into her hand. Darisan corroborated her account. The trial court rejected their alibi defense and convicted them. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Issue: Do Minor Inconsistencies Destroy Credibility?

The appellants argued that inconsistencies in the testimonies of police witnesses indicated falsehood. They pointed to discrepancies regarding the composition of the buy-bust team, the time the informant arrived, the location of the operation, and the markings on the buy-bust money.

The Supreme Court disagreed. These were minor inconsistencies—immaterial details that did not affect the elements of the crime. The Court emphasized that police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, absent evidence of improper motive. No such evidence was presented here.

Elements of the Crimes Established

For illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (1) the transaction or sale took place, and (2) the corpus delicti (the illicit drug) was presented in court. For illegal possession, it must show: (1) the accused possessed a prohibited drug, (2) such possession was unauthorized, and (3) the accused was aware of possessing the drug.

All elements were satisfied. Barrameda positively identified the appellants and testified to the sale. The marked money and the seized shabu were presented in court. The additional sachets were validly recovered pursuant to a lawful warrantless arrest.

The Penalties Corrected

The Court affirmed the life imprisonment and P500,000 fine for illegal sale under Section 5 of RA 9165. However, it corrected the penalty for illegal possession under Section 11(3). The lower courts had imposed imprisonment only, but the law requires a fine of P300,000 to P400,000 in addition to imprisonment for possession of less than five grams of shabu. The Court accordingly added a P300,000 fine.

Practical Takeaways

• Minor inconsistencies do not defeat a prosecution. Courts focus on whether testimony is consistent in material respects, not on trivial details.
• Police testimony carries weight. Absent evidence of ill motive or irregularity, law enforcement officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly.
• Alibi is a weak defense. It is easily fabricated and cannot prevail against positive identification by credible witnesses.
• Know the penalties. Illegal sale of shabu carries life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. Illegal possession of less than five grams carries 12 years and one day to 20 years imprisonment plus a fine of P300,000 to P400,000.
• Warrantless arrests in buy-bust operations are lawful. Seized drugs during such operations are admissible if properly identified in court.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.