G.R. No. 124525 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ROBERTO SAN JUAN Y PONTALERA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered pronouncing accused ROBERTO SAN JUAN y PONTALERA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and delivery of 932.00 grams of compressed dried flowering tops of marijuana, penalized under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and further amended by Section 13 in relation to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7659, and sentencing the said accused to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00, plus the costs. The compressed dried flowering tops of marijuana (Exhibit B) involved in this case is confiscated and forfeited to the Government. Within ten (10) days following the promulgation of this judgment, the Branch Clerk of this Court, is ordered to turn over, under proper receipt, the said prohibited stuff to the Dangerous Drugs Custodian of the NBI, as appointed by the Dangerous Drugs Board, for appropriate disposition. Serve a copy of this decision on the Executive Director of the Dangerous Drugs Board for his information and guidance. [4] Aggrieved, accused-appellant now interposes this appeal arguing that the trial court erred: 1. ....in finding that the accused-appellant sold or offered 932.00 grams of dried flowering tops also known as Marijuana when there was no such sale or offer and these real evidences were only planted or fabricated. 2. ....in conferring belief and credence to the testimonies of SPO1 Carlos whose testimonies, in truth and in fact, were unimpressive, unworthy and unreliable. 3. ....in not believing to (sic) the true and straightforward testimonies of the accused-appellant and his witnesses. 4. ....in not acquitting the accused-appellant whose guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not proven by the prosecution. Accused-appellant basically impugns the credibility of the prosecution witnesses contending that their testimonies are unworthy and unreliable. The rule has been established in a long catena of cases that the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of their unique opportunity to observe the witnesses first hand and notice their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Thus, appellate courts will not generally disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter court had overlooked or disregarded certain facts and circumstances of significance in the case. [5] We have painstakingly gone over the record of this case and find no cogent reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court. The prosecutions case which was anchored mainly on the testimony of SPO1 Carlos, the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, deserves full faith and credit for being clear, precise and straightforward. Even the rigid cross-examination by the defense failed to disturb the essence of his testimony. [6] Accused-appellants assertion that he should be acquitted because of the failure of the prosecution to prove