People v. Fabro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellant Berly Fabro y Azucena, along with her common-law husband Donald Pilay and Irene Martin, was charged with selling and delivering one (1) kilo of dried marijuana leaves to PO2 Ellonito Apduhan, acting as a poseur-buyer, in violation of R.A. No. 6425. The operation stemmed from a report by two concerned individuals about a couple selling marijuana in Quirino Hill, Baguio City. A buy-bust operation was organized, with PO2 Apduhan designated as the poseur-buyer. Appellant allegedly met Apduhan and the informers, negotiated the price for a kilo of marijuana, and then fetched Irene Martin. Appellant handed the marijuana to Apduhan, and Irene Martin demanded and received the payment. Apduhan signaled the back-up team, but Irene Martin fled. Apduhan apprehended appellant, and Donald Pilay was also arrested. A search of Irene Martin's house yielded nothing. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Baguio City found appellant Berly Fabro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. Her co-accused, Donald Pilay, was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. An alias warrant of arrest was ordered for Irene Martin. The Petition: Appellant assailed her conviction, arguing that her guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt due to discrepancies in the weight of the confiscated marijuana, the non-presentation of the marked money, and the assertion that Irene Martin was the real possessor of the contraband.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the sale and delivery of marijuana, and whether the discrepancy in the reported weight of the marijuana affects the conviction. Whether the failure to present the marked money used in the buy-bust operation is fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the alleged involvement of Irene Martin in possessing the contraband absolves the appellant. Whether the erroneous designation of the crime in the information is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding appellant Berly Fabro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling and delivering marijuana. The Court ruled that the evidence presented sufficiently established her culpability, and the grounds raised by the appellant were without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of proof and weight of marijuana: The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently proved appellant's guilt. While Forensic Chemist Alma Margarita Villaseñor testified that the specimen weighed 99.5 grams, her written report indicated "total of 999.5 grams of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops." The Court gave more weight to the written report over oral testimony, citing the fallibility of human memory. Furthermore, the initial Chemistry Report by Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo recorded the specimen as "one (1) kilo of suspected dried fruiting tops." Thus, the Court was convinced that the contraband weighed one (1) kilo when seized, despite the conflicting testimony. On the non-presentation of marked money: The Court held that the failure to present the marked money did not weaken the prosecution's case. This was attributed to Irene Martin's flight after taking the money. The Court emphasized that the Dangerous Drugs Law punishes the act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy has been accepted. The crucial elements are the presentation of the prohibited drug and the positive identification of the accused as the offender. The buy-bust money is not indispensable if the sale is otherwise adequately proven. On the alleged involvement of Irene Martin: The Court ruled that even if Irene Martin was the source of the contraband, it did not absolve appellant. Appellant was the one who negotiated the sale, fetched Irene Martin, and handed over the marijuana to the poseur-buyer. These actions, coupled with Irene Martin's demand for payment, demonstrated a unity of purpose and conspiracy in the commission of the crime. Therefore, appellant could not escape criminal liability. On the erroneous designation of the crime: The Court noted that the information erroneously designated the crime as a "VIOLATION OF SECTION 21 (b) ART. IV IN RELATION TO SECTION 4/ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 6425 AS AMENDED." Section 21(b) punishes conspiracy, while the body of the information described the actual commission of the crime of selling and delivering marijuana. The Court reiterated its consistent ruling that the actual recital of facts in the body of the information, not the caption, controls. Thus, the error was not fatal.
Main Doctrine
The failure to present marked money in a buy-bust operation does not necessarily impair the prosecution's case, especially when the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven by other evidence, such as the presentation of the contraband and the positive identification of the offender.