G.R. No. 205414 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EDUARDO DELA CRUZ Y GUMABAT @ "EDDIE".D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Forensic Chemist Erickson L. Calabocal, conducted a chemistry examination and in his Chemistry Report No. D-787-09, found that the ten (10) round, blue tablets seized from appellant tested positive for Diazepam, a dangerous drug. [7] During trial, however, Calabocal's testimony was dispensed with after the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-787-09. [8] Against the foregoing charges, appellant testified on his own version of facts, and further presented the testimonies of his mother, Leonora dela Cruz, and one Roberto Balatbat. [9] Appellant testified that he was a jeepney driver by profession and a resident at Solis Street, Tondo, Manila. At around 3:00 p.m. on October 23, 2009, he went to see his friend, Nicanor Guevarra, to convince him to place a bet on the "karera." He found him at the tricycle terminal at Solis Street corner Callejon Villanueva, playing cara y cruz and joined him. Suddenly, the policemen arrived. They tried to run but were eventually arrested. Appellant requested that he be brought to the barangay hall, but the policemen brought him directly to the police station. He thought that he was only being accused of illegal gambling for playing cara y cruz . It turned out, however, that he was being charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. [10] After appellant, the defense presented appellant's mother who denied that her son was into selling dangerous drugs. According to her, at around 3:00 p.m. on October 23, 2009, appellant asked her permission to leave the house to place a bet. However, she later learned from her granddaughter that her son had been arrested. Next was Roberto Balatbat, a tricycle driver residing at Solis Street, Tondo, Manila, who testified that on that day, he was at the tricycle terminal on Solis Street playing cara y cruz . When the four (4) police officers arrived, he quickly ran away leaving behind appellant and Guevarra, who were arrested. He denied that any sale of dangerous drugs transpired at the time and place of appellant's arrest. [11] In its Decision dated August 2, 2010, the RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers as they were given in a clear and convincing manner showing that the officers were at the place of the incident to accomplish exactly what they had set out to do, which was to conduct a legitimate buy-bust operation on appellant. [12] It found that unless the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any ill motive to testify falsely against appellant, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit, particularly in light of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. Indeed, the positive identification of appellant by the prosecution witnesses prevails over appellant's denial, which is inherently a weak defense. [13] The trial court, therefore, disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the accused, Eduardo dela Cruz y Gumabat