People v. Marilao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 18, 1984, a confidential informant tipped off NARCOM about the drug trafficking activities of Cornelio Marilao y Samson (Nelio). A surveillance and intelligence team was dispatched to Antipolo, Rizal. Pfc. Armenia S. Pilueta, posing as a buyer, met the accused with the informant. She expressed her desire to buy marijuana and inquired about the price. The accused quoted P180.00 per line (100 grams). Pilueta handed him four P100 bills. The accused left, returned a few minutes later, and handed Pilueta approximately 200 grams of marijuana. Pilueta signaled her team, who then apprehended the accused. A body search yielded two P100 bills. NARCOM agents then entered the accused's residence and found another 100 grams of marijuana beneath the floor of their restaurant-residence. The accused was brought to NARCOM headquarters for interrogation. The confiscated marijuana (300 grams) and marked bills were deposited with the PC Crime Laboratory. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXI in Antipolo, Rizal, convicted Cornelio Marilao y Samson for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675. He was sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P20,000.00, and to pay costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, arguing that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His arguments included the failure to present the male confidential informant, the non-presentation of the alleged marked P100 bills and police logbook, the improbability of the buy-bust transaction occurring in a public place without a look-out, and the lack of proof that the specimen examined was the same one taken from him.
Issue(s)
Whether the non-presentation of the confidential informant is fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the non-presentation of the marked P100 bills and police logbook weakens the prosecution's evidence. Whether the alleged buy-bust transaction is improbable or incredible due to its public setting and lack of a look-out. Whether there is sufficient proof that the specimen examined by the chemist is the same specimen confiscated from the accused. Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the fine of P20,000.00 were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the non-presentation of the confidential informant: The Court held that the non-presentation of the informant is not fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when their testimony would be merely corroborative. In this case, the accused himself admitted that the informant's testimony would only corroborate the arresting officer's positive identification of the appellant. Corroboration is not always necessary if the details of the crime have been testified to with sufficient clarity by credible witnesses. The Court reiterated that the matter of presenting witnesses is a prerogative of the prosecuting fiscal, and the accused can avail of compulsory process if he believes a witness is important to his cause. On the non-presentation of marked bills and police logbook: The Court ruled that the non-presentation of the marked P100 bills during the trial does not weaken the prosecution's case. The testimonies of Pfc. Pilueta and Pfc. Eslomot clearly established that the marked bills were given to the appellant, who in turn handed over the marijuana. The Court noted that there was no shown motive for the NARCOM officers to falsely accuse the accused or implant evidence. Therefore, it is safe to assume, based on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, that the marijuana leaves submitted to the PC Crime Laboratory were the same ones handed by the appellant to Pfc. Pilueta. On the improbability of the buy-bust transaction: The Court dismissed the argument that the transaction was improbable due to its public setting and the absence of a look-out. It was not established that the street was busy enough to make the sale improbable. Furthermore, the Court found no necessity for the prosecution to establish the presence of a look-out, as this is not an element of the crime. The prosecution has no means to determine the presence of a look-out unless that person is also arrested and prosecuted. On the proof of the specimen examined: The Court relied on the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Given that the NARCOM officers had no apparent motive to falsely accuse the accused, it is presumed that the marijuana leaves submitted to the PC Crime Laboratory were indeed the same ones confiscated from the accused during the buy-bust operation. The positive identification of the appellant by two prosecution witnesses as the seller of the marijuana leaves was considered more significant. On the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found that the positive identification of the appellant by two prosecution witnesses as the seller of the marijuana leaves should prevail over his denials. Greater weight is generally given to the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses than to the accused's denial. As between a positive declaration and a negative statement, the former deserves more credence. The evidence presented by the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of the crime of selling prohibited drugs.
Main Doctrine
The non-presentation of a confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution's case if their testimony would be merely corroborative. The failure to present marked bills does not militate against the prosecution's case if the transaction is otherwise clearly established. Positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevails over the accused's denial.