People v. Caparas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Salvacion Caparas y De Castro a.k.a. "Cion" (CAPARAS) was charged with illegally transporting and selling marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The information alleged that CAPARAS, along with Betty Cuba and Cesar Santos, conspired to transport, deliver, and offer for sale 39,735.00 grams of marijuana fruiting tops to a poseur-buyer, SPOIII Venusto T. Jamisolamin. The other accused, Betty Cuba and Cesar Santos, were acquitted by the trial court. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95, found CAPARAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Betty Cuba and Cesar Santos were acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. CAPARAS appealed the decision. The Petition: CAPARAS assailed her conviction, arguing that no sale of prohibited drug took place because no money was exchanged between her and the poseur-buyer, thus the contract of sale was not consummated. The prosecution prayed for the affirmation of CAPARAS' conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the non-payment of the purchase price negates the consummation of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the sale, transport, and delivery of marijuana.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the assailed judgment of the Regional Trial Court, finding Salvacion Caparas y De Castro guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 4, Republic Act 6425, as amended. The Court sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The acquittal of Betty Cuba and Cesar Santos was also upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of consummation of sale and the necessity of payment: The Court held that the crime of illegal sale, transportation, and delivery of prohibited drugs under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, is consummated by the mere act of delivery of the prohibited drug after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. The absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Proof of actual payment of money is not an indispensable requisite for conviction; what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. In this case, there was an agreement for CAPARAS to sell and deliver marijuana for a cost of P1,000.00 per kilogram, and Jamisolamin to buy it, thereby perfecting the contract of sale through the concurrence of the object and cause. On the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt: The Court found that the prosecution adequately proved the fact of sale. Poseur-buyer Jamisolamin testified that on April 19, 1997, CAPARAS agreed to sell and deliver bricks of marijuana at P1,000 per kilo. On April 29, 1997, CAPARAS, pursuant to the agreement, transported marijuana from Baguio City and delivered it to Jamisolamin in Quezon City. The seized articles were found positive for marijuana. CAPARAS was caught in flagrante delicto with the prohibited articles. The incriminatory evidence on record adequately established her guilt beyond moral certainty for the sale, transport, and delivery of marijuana. The Court also noted that CAPARAS did not question the validity of her arrest or the seizure of the contraband, nor did she raise the identity of the prohibited articles as an issue. Her defense of denial was contradicted by the positive testimony of the poseur-buyer, and her insinuation of being framed-up was unsubstantiated.
Main Doctrine
The crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs is consummated by the mere act of delivery of the prohibited drug after the offer to buy has been accepted by the seller, and proof of actual payment of money is not an indispensable requisite for conviction, as long as the sale is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented in court.