People v. Marcos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Romil Marcos y Isidro was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), for allegedly selling six (6) sticks of marijuana cigarettes to Sgt. Amado Ani, a Narcom agent acting as a poseur-buyer, on June 7, 1989, in Zamboanga City. A buy-bust operation was conducted based on information from an informant. During the operation, the appellant allegedly sold the marijuana, and upon signaling by the poseur-buyer, arresting officers moved in. The appellant attempted to escape and was seen throwing a stick of marijuana, which was retrieved. He was apprehended and turned over to the investigator with the six (6) marijuana sticks. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he was not the target and was arrested for refusing to testify against a certain Ballena, who was the actual target. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City found the appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay costs. The trial court gave credence to the buy-bust operation and rejected the appellant's defense. The Petition: The appellant appealed the decision, assigning errors concerning the trial court's conviction based on testimonies and evidence allegedly not properly offered, the incredibility of prosecution witnesses' testimonies, and the conclusion that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on testimonies and real evidence (marijuana sticks) that were allegedly not properly offered in evidence. Whether the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were fraught with serious doubt and were incredible. Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court with a modification regarding the penalty. The conviction for illegal sale of marijuana was upheld, but the sentence was modified from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Offer of Evidence): The Court ruled that while there might have been a slight procedural lapse in the formal offer of testimonies of some prosecution witnesses at the exact moment they were called, the testimonies were eventually offered during the formal offer of documentary evidence, and the appellant did not object. This failure to object estopped him from questioning their inclusion. Regarding the six (6) marijuana sticks (Exhibit "E"), the Court found that the offer, made in relation to the testimonies of Sgt. Belarga, Forensic Chemist Athena Anderson, and Sgt. Mihasun, clearly referred to the marijuana sticks themselves, not just the wrapper, as evidenced by their testimonies identifying Exhibit "E" as the subject of the sale. Therefore, the evidence was considered properly admitted. On Issue 2 (Credibility of Witnesses): The Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were incredible. The alleged inconsistencies regarding how long the Narcom agents knew their informant "Bobby" were deemed immaterial to the crime of illegal sale of marijuana, which requires only the consummation of the selling transaction. The crucial points are that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and that it was presented as evidence in court. The Court gave credence to the Narcom agents' narration, presuming they performed their duties regularly in the absence of contrary evidence. The alleged discrepancy in the description of the wrapper (newspaper vs. ruled pad) was also dismissed, as the marijuana sticks themselves were properly identified by Sgt. Belarga as the ones sold by the appellant and examined by the forensic chemist. On Issue 3 (Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt): The Court found that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The buy-bust operation was methodically executed, including prior surveillance, and the procedure adapted by the police officers was in consonance with the application of regularity in the performance of official duties. Sgt. Ani, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the seller of the six (6) marijuana sticks for P10.00. The transaction was established by the evidence on record, including the presentation of the marijuana sticks as Exhibit "E" and their positive examination for marijuana. The Court reiterated that in illegal sale of dangerous drugs cases, particularly in buy-bust operations, proof of the consummated transaction is sufficient.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for illegal sale of marijuana, holding that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were properly considered despite a slight procedural lapse in formal offer, and that inconsistencies regarding informant details do not necessarily impair the credibility of Narcom agents in a buy-bust operation, as the consummation of the sale and presentation of the drug as evidence are crucial.