PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CORNELIO MARILAO Y SAMSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Cornelio Marilao y Samson appeals from the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXI in Antipolo, Rizal, convicting him in
Criminal Case No. 1140-A for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675) sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P20,000.00
with costs against accused Cornelio Marilao.^[1]

The information filed against him reads:

“The undersigned Assistant Fiscal accuses Cornelio Marilao y
Samson of the crime of Violation of Section 4, Art. 11 of R.A. 6425 As Amended
by P.D. 1675, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 18th day of May, 1984, in the
Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rival, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to
another 202 grams of marijuana fruiting tops, which are prohibited drug (sic),
in violation of the above-cited law.

“Contrary to Law.”^[2]

The evidence for the prosecution consists of the testimonies of
three (3) lady police officers (Pfc. Armenia S. Pilueta, Pfc. Virginia Eslomot
and Capt. Lilita B. Chambers) summarized by the lower court as follows:

“The first witness for the People, Pfc. Pilueta is 29 years
old, single, a policewoman since 1979 and on detached service units since 1982
with narcotics command, Philippine Constabulary, Camp Crame, Quezon City, declared that in the afternoon of May 18, 1984 at
about 5:30 o’clock, one of their confidential informers conveyed to Lt. Col.
Edwin Cuenco of the NARCOM about the drug trafficking of a certain Nelio (He
was identified in open court on October 10, 1984 by Pfc. Pilueta and Pfc.
Eslomot as accused Cornelio Marilao. 
Upon receipt of the ‘hot tip’, Lt. Col. Cuenco immediately instructed
the surveillance and intelligence team headed by Lt. Manuel Barcena, Pfc.
Armenia Pilueta, Pfc. Virginia Eslomot and 3 others as members to proceed to
Antipolo, with the end in view of busting the drugs operation of accused and/or
arrest him.

“Not long after, the team proceeded to Antipolo.  After the team had studied the location and
terrain of M.H. del Pilar and de la Paz streets, the team decided to disperse
within the perimeter of the area, i.e., Pfc. Pilueta was designated to buy the
prohibited drug from accused while the other members of the team including its
team leader positioned themselves at a vantage position in relation to where
Pfc. Pilueta was positioned.

“At about 7:30 o’clock
that evening, Pfc. Pilueta accompanied by their confidential informer chanced
upon accused who was then in front of his parents’ 2­-storey house, the first floor of which was utilized
as a restaurant.  Immediately Pilueta
informed accused of her desire to buy dried marijuana leaves and at the same
time she asked the price of one line or 100 grams of the prohibited
leaves.  Accused answered that he sells
at P180.00 per line.

“Thereafter, Pilueta handed to accused four (4) P100 bills
(Exhibit ‘B’).  Upon receipt of the money,
accused left Pilueta and the informer and proceeded towards his residence with
the purpose of getting the prohibited leaves. 
A few minutes later, accused returned and handed to Pilueta the prohibited drugs – about 200 grams. 
Thereupon, Pilueta ‘stretched her head by way of signal to her team
members that she has consummated her transaction with accused.  In a few seconds, Pilueta and her companions
swarmed over the person of accused identifying themselves as NARCOM agents.

“Thereafter, a quick body search was made upon the person of
the accused which led to the discovery of two (2) P100 bills which was earlier paid to him by Pfc.
Pilueta.

“Desirous of  recovering
more prohibited drugs from accused, the NARCOM agents rushed inside the
residence of accused where they found another 100 grams of the prohibited stuff
beneath the floor inside their ‘restaurant-residence’.

“After the apprehension of accused, he was brought to the
NARCOM headquarters at Camp Crame
where he was interrogated.  Finally,
Pilueta testified that the effects of the crime – the 300 grams of dried
marijuana leaves plus the two (2) P100 bills recovered from accused where
deposited with the P.C. Crime Laboratory or with the Property Custodian of the
NARCOTICS Investigation Unit.

“The second witness for the People was Pfc. Virginia Eslomot,
a 30-year old policewoman since 1978, unmarried and on detached service with
NARCOM, Camp Crame
since 1981.  She testified as
follows:  She was one of the members of
the Barcena Team that proceeded to Antipolo, Rizal in the evening of May 18, 1984 to bust the drug
trafficking activities of accused along M. H. del
Pilar and de la Paz Streets in Antipolo
Rizal.  She emphatically declared that
from the time Pfc. Pilueta started to buy marijuana from accused up to the time
the deal was consummated, she and the other NARCOM agents were in front of the
residence of the accused, approximately 10 to 15 feet away from them thus
enabling them to have a clear view of the transaction.  In other words, the declaration of witness is to the effect that she saw accused deliver
or hand down to Pfc. Pilueta the dried marijuana leaves which the latter bought
from the former, including the recovery of the two (2) P100 bills from accused
and an additional 100 grams of prohibited drugs which were taken inside
the residence of accused.

“The last witness for the People was Captain Lilita B.
Chambers, 46 years old, married,
police captain, and Chief Chemist, PC Crime
Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City, who declared that in the morning of
May 19, 1984, she received a letter from a certain Lt. Col. Teodorico Viduya
requesting that an examination be made on the specimens attached thereto.  Immediately upon receipt of said letter, she
assigned Lt. Therese Ann Bugayong, a
chemist to conduct a careful analysis and examination of the specimens.  Despite the assignment of the case to Lt.
Bugayong, Captain Chambers saw to it that she was personally present during the
examination of the specimens as in fact she was shown the results of said examination
of Lt. Bugayong.  The chemistry report
(Exhibit ‘D’) clearly shows that the specimens which
were subjected to an analysis and examination by Lt. Bugayong gave
positive results to the tests for marijuana.”^[3]

On the other hand, the evidence for the defense consists of the
uncorroborated oral testimony of accused, 27 years old, single, a vendor and a
resident of M. H. del Pilar, Antipolo, Rizal.  His testimony as stated in the decision of
the trial court is as follows:

“He vehemently denies having committed the crime imputed to
him.  He admits though that in the
evening of May 18, 1984, at
about 7:00 o’clock he met Myra
Matangga, his acquaintance for the past 8 months and a certain Tomboy at
his parents’ residence in Antipolo,
Rizal.  At said meeting, Myra Matangga
told him that they wanted to buy marijuana leaves.  He replied that he does not have the stuff
nor sells the same.  Myra Matangga’s
companion the tomboy (she
was referred to as one of the two tomboys who testified against him) butted in
and reiterated their desire to buy the stuff as they badly needed the
same.  Accused answered again in the
negative.

“As he was going
some where, he begged off to be excused to change his clothes and his two (2) visitors, Myra and this tomboy left.

“A few minutes later, he was in the street on his way to his
appointment when he was called by two (2) tomboys and Myra.  When he approached the group, the tomboy
who was earlier insisting to buy marijuana from him drew her gun and poked the
same at him.  At the same time, the group
told accused that they were bringing him with them to the headquarters because
he was caught selling dried marijuana leaves. 
The group then boarded him in a car. 
Once inside the car, he was shown a bag full of dried marijuana leaves.  Myra
Matangga told the group that the stuff was
confiscated from him.  He denied
Myra’s accusation but Myra stood her ground thus he was asked to sign a
document without the assistance of counsel which document allegedly was a
go-signal for his detention at the NARCOM detention center.

“On cross-examination, he admitted that Myra Matangga and the tomboy
went to his residence that evening because they were going to buy marijuana (p.
3, TSN, February 21, 1985).  He also admitted on cross-examination that he
was certain that the marijuana leaves shown to him by the tomboys were
indeed marijuana leaves.  He explained
that he could not have been mistaken about that because he was once a frequent
smoker of marijuana leaves.“^[4]

After careful examination of the evidence the Court a quo rendered a decision on July 10, 1985, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby finds
accused Cornelio Marilao guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged
and sentence him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to
pay a fine of P20,000.00 with costs against accused
Cornelio Marilao.”^[5]

In this appeal, Cornelio Marilao submits that the court a quo erred in convicting him
because of the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt due to:  (a) the
failure to present the male confidential informant as one of the prosecution’s
witnesses which according to the accused is imperative to corroborate the testimony of the arresting officer; (b)
the non-presentation by the prosecution of the alleged marked four P100.00 bills two of which were recovered from the
person of the accused when he was searched, and the police logbook where the
serial numbers of these bills were allegedly noted down; (c) the improbability
or incredibility of the manner by which the alleged “buy-bust”
transaction was held, which occurred in
a public place, in front of the residence-restaurant of the parents of the
accused and
without the usual “look-out” of the seller; and (d) on the
matter of the confiscated marijuana leaves, appellant claims that there was no
proof that the specimen so examined and found to be marijuana fruiting tops are
the same specimen actually taken from the accused.

We find the appeal devoid of merit.

In People v. Capulong,^[6] we held that the non?presentation
as a witness of the informant, used by the members of the Constabulary
Anti-Narcotics Unit in entrapping the accused in flagrante is not
fatal to the prosecution’s case if his testimony would be merely corroborative
and cumulative.  In this case, the
accused admitted in his brief,^[7]
the informant’s testimony was merely to corroborate
the arresting officer’s testimony positively identifying the appellant in open
court as the seller of the dried marijuana leaves and the recipient of the four
marked P100.00 bills.

Corroboration is not necessary if the details of the crime have
already been testified to with sufficient clarity.  The failure to present all the eyewitnesses
to an act does not necessarily give rise to an unfavorable presumption,
especially when the testimony of the witness sought to be presented is merely
corroborative.^[8]
In fact, there is no law requiring that a
testimony be corroborated in order to be believed.  The testimony of a single witness if credible
and positive, is sufficient to produce conviction.^[9]

It must be remembered that the matter of presenting witnesses for
the People is a prerogative of the prosecuting fiscal.^[10]
The non-presentation by the prosecution of certain witnesses is not a
sufficient defense, neither does it detract from the
prosecution’s evidence, the number of witnesses called to testify being left
largely to the sound discretion of the
prosecuting officers.^[11] Thus, in instances where the accused
believes that the testimonies of said witnesses are important to his cause, he
should avail of them even by compulsory judicial process if
necessary.^[12]

In the same way that the non-presentation of the informant by the
prosecution is not a sufficient defense, likewise, the non-presentation or the marked four P100.00 bills during trial does not militate against the
prosecution’s case.^[13]
Based on the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, Pfc. Pilueta and Pfc.
Eslomot, it was clearly established that the marked bills were given by Pfc.
Pilueta to the appellant who in turn handed the marijuana leaves to the
former.  It has not been shown that the
NARCOM officers who caught the accused selling marijuana leaves have any motive
to falsely accuse Cornelio Marilao of such a serious crime^[14]
nor to maliciously implant evidence of corpus delict against the
latter.  Thus, it is safe to assume that
the marijuana leaves submitted to the PC Crime Laboratory at Camp
Crame are the same marijuana leaves
handed by appellant to Pfc. Pilueta based on the presumption under the law that official duty has been
regularly performed.^[15]

On the issue of the improbability of the sale to have transpired
in a public place coupled with the absence of a “look-out” for the
accused, the Court finds this a flimsy and shallow defense upon which to assert
the innocence of the accused.  It has not been established by the latter
that the street was indeed a
busy street so as to make the sale of marijuana improbable or incredible.  The court neither finds the necessity for the
prosecution to establish the presence of a “look-out” for the accused
without necessarily discounting the possibility of the presence of one, the
same not being an element of the
crime punished under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425.  Besides, unless the “look-out”
himself is arrested and prosecuted, the prosecution has no means of determining his presence in the area.

The more important consideration in the instant appeal is the
fact of positive identification of the appellant by two prosecution witnesses
as the seller of the marijuana leaves. 
This should prevail over his denials and inadmissions of having
committed the crime for which he was charged below since greater weight is
generally given to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to
the accused’s denial.^[16]
As between the positive declaration of the prosecution witness and the negative
statement of the accused, the former deserves more credence.^[17]

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is hereby AFFIRMED, with
costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 16.

^[2]
Information, Rollo, p. 4.

^[3]
RTC Decision, Rollo, pp. 11-14.

^[4] Ibid,
Rollo, pp. 14-15.

^[5]
Ibid, Rollo, p. 16.

^[6] G.R. No. 56574, April 15, 1988; 160 SCRA 533,
Gutierrez, J.

^[7] Brief for the
Accused, p. 5.

^[8] People v.
Salufrania, G.R. No. 50884, March 30,
1988; 159 SCRA 401, Padilla, J.

^[9] People v. Cortez,
G.R. No. L-32246, June 30, 1988, Cortes, J.

^[10] People v. Obenque,
147 SCRA 488 (1987).

^[11] People v. Laureta,
G.R. No. L-31245, March 25, 1988;
159 SCRA 256, Yap, J.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] People v. Polo, 147
SCRA 551, 556 (1987).

^[14] People v. Cerelegia,
147 SCRA 538 (1987).

^[15] Section 5 (m), Rule 131,
Revised Rules of Court.

^[16] People v. Khan, G.R. No. 71863, May 23,
1988, 161 SCRA 406,
Gutierrez, J.: 
People v. de
Jesus, 145 SCRA 521 (1986).

^[17] People v. Melgar,
G.R. No. 75268, January 29, 1988; 157 SCRA 718, Gutierrez, J.