People v. Alerta, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 1, 1988, at approximately 2:15 p.m., a buy-bust operation was conducted by a composite anti-narcotics team in Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City. An unnamed confidential agent, posing as a buyer, handed a ten-peso bill to the accused, Romeo Alerta, Jr., who in turn gave the agent a tea bag of marijuana. The transaction occurred outside a house. The confidential agent then handed the tea bag to a member of the team. The NARCOM agents, who were about four to five meters away and witnessed the transaction, followed Alerta into the house, identified themselves, and arrested him along with others. The marijuana was later submitted for laboratory examination, which confirmed it to be positive for marijuana. Procedural History: The accused was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Sale of Prohibited Drugs) in an Amended Information. He pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 18, found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00, and costs. The marijuana was ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, assigning errors primarily concerning the prosecution's alleged failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the non-presentation of the confidential informant and the marked money.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to the non-presentation of the confidential informant. Whether the absence of the marked money as evidence creates a hiatus in the prosecution's proof of sale. Whether the accused-appellant's denial and claim of being inside the house to take a bath can overcome the prosecution's evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 imposed by the trial court was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the non-presentation of the confidential informant: The Court held that while the confidential informant would be a competent witness, their testimony is not indispensable. The testimonies of CIC Anuarco Olaco and Cpl. Emilio de Guzman, who were members of the buy-bust team and were positioned four to five meters away, were sufficient. These witnesses categorically declared that they saw the appellant sell the tea bag of marijuana to the informant in exchange for marked money. They also observed the subsequent actions of the appellant and the informant, corroborating the illegal transaction. The Court reiterated that the matter of presenting witnesses is the prerogative of the fiscal, and it was deemed unnecessary in this case due to sufficient evidence. On the absence of marked money: The Court ruled that the absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence. Citing previous rulings in People v. Tejada and People v. Rodriguez, the Court stated that the actual presentation of the marijuana given by the appellant is sufficient to constitute the offense. The unrebutted testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the actual handing over of the marijuana in exchange for money, as in this case, is enough to prove the sale. The presence of the marijuana itself, confirmed by laboratory examination, serves as the corpus delicti. On the accused-appellant's denial: The Court found that the accused-appellant's pretense of innocence, claiming he was inside the house to take a bath when arrested, could not overcome the prosecution's evidence. In fact, the Court noted that his allegation of being arrested inside the house corroborated the prosecution's version that he went inside after the sale. The Court reiterated the rule that greater weight is given to the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses than to the accused-appellant's denials. Furthermore, no ill motives were imputed to the NARCOM agents, who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties and whose testimonies deserve full faith and credit.
Main Doctrine
The testimony of prosecution witnesses who saw the actual transaction, even without the presentation of the confidential informant or the marked money, is sufficient to prove the sale of prohibited drugs beyond reasonable doubt, provided the prohibited drug itself is presented as evidence.