People v. Pacleb
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Rolando Pacleb y Day-at was charged with illegal sale of fifty (50) grams of dried marijuana leaves in violation of Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425, as amended). The prosecution presented evidence that on April 23, 1987, Narcom operatives conducted a buy-bust operation based on confidential information. Sgt. Godofredo Fider posed as the buyer, with Sgt. Domingo Pejuro and A2C Serafin Artizona as back-up. Fider, accompanied by a confidential informant, met appellant at the Hangar Market. After agreeing on a price of P100.00 for 100 grams of marijuana, Fider paid appellant, who then left to get the drug. An hour later, appellant returned and delivered a brown paper bag containing marijuana. Upon Fider's signal, the back-up team apprehended appellant. A P20.00 bill, part of the payment, was recovered from him. The confiscated marijuana was sent to the PC/INP Crime Laboratory, where tests confirmed it was positive for marijuana. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The court also ordered the confiscation of the marijuana. Appellant's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the court a quo's conviction based on allegedly inconclusive physical evidence, specifically a discrepancy between the alleged 50 grams in the information and the 35 grams reported in a chemistry report.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale of marijuana. Whether the discrepancy in the weight of the confiscated marijuana affects the conviction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant, finding his guilt sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the corpus delicti was established with certainty and conclusiveness, and the alleged discrepancy in the weight of the marijuana was insignificant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale of marijuana: The Court held that the corpus delicti, consisting of the brown envelope and its marijuana contents, was established with certainty and conclusiveness. This was supported by the testimonies of the poseur-buyer (Sgt. Fider), the back-up operative (Sgt. Pejuro), and the forensic chemist (Lt. Noelita Pineda). Sgt. Fider clearly narrated the transaction, including the agreement, payment, delivery of the marijuana, and the subsequent arrest. Sgt. Pejuro corroborated the events he witnessed from his vantage point. Lt. Pineda testified on the positive results of the laboratory tests conducted on the confiscated specimen, confirming it to be marijuana. The signatures of Sgt. Fider and Sgt. Pejuro on the envelope and Lt. Pineda's initial further authenticated the chain of custody. The Court reiterated that for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, proof of the sale and presentation of the drug itself as evidence are indispensable. On Whether the discrepancy in the weight of the confiscated marijuana affects the conviction: The Court found the discrepancy between the 50 grams alleged in the information and the 35 grams reported in a chemistry report to be insignificant. The Court noted that the initial report indicated approximately 50 grams, and the subsequent examination by the forensic chemist might have resulted in a different weight due to drying and shrinkage over time, especially since the examination occurred more than a year after confiscation. Crucially, the established fact was that marijuana was taken from the appellant during a buy-bust operation and tested positive. The Court emphasized that as long as the corpus delicti is established with certainty, minor discrepancies in weight do not affect the conviction, especially when the chain of custody was properly observed and the drug was positively identified as marijuana. The Court also gave credence to the testimonies of law enforcers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, and found the defenses of denial and frame-up to be inherently weak.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused for illegal sale of marijuana through a buy-bust operation, where the corpus delicti was proven by the presentation of the confiscated marijuana, positive laboratory findings, and the testimonies of law enforcement officers and the forensic chemist. Discrepancies in the weight of the confiscated drug are insignificant if the corpus delicti is otherwise established.