PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VIRGILIO MANZANO Y OLEDAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision dated January 13, 1992, of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila which convicted appellant
Virgilio Manzano of drug pushing, or violation of Section 20, Article IV of
Republic Act No. 6425.

The facts of the case as recited in the decision of the trial
court, are as follows:

“x x x. Acting on the
infor­mation given by a confidential informant, and after a week-long
surveillance, members of the Special Operations Group, Marikina Police Force,
conducted a “buy-bust” opera­tion at about 4 p.m., March 21, 1991
against accused Manzano. (Exhibit
“C”). Observing the accused
seated inside his tricycle, apparently waiting for customers, in front of his
house at M. Gonzales Street, Barangka, Marikina, Pfc. Pasana, acting as
poseur-buyer, approached the accused to buy marijuana. Saying ‘bibili ako ng damo’ to the
accused. He was asked ‘magkano ang
bibilhin mo’ by the accused to which the former replied ‘sitenta pesos’
(P70.00). Pfc. Pasana gave accused a fifty-peso
bill with Serial Number FF981849 (Exhibit ‘A’) and a twenty?peso bill (P20.00)
with Serial Number QU859533 (Exh. ‘B’), both bills having been marked with the
initials ‘AYP’ on the respective upper corners (Exhs. ‘A-1’ and ‘B­-1’). Accused gave Pfc. Pasana four (4) plastic
tea bags (Exhs. ‘E-1’ to ‘E-4’) which were taken out of ac­cused’s
pockets. Pfc. Pasana then gave the
pre-arranged signal by scratching his head with the small finger, which
activated Pat. Balaui­tan and Hapin into assisting Pfc. Pasana in the arrest of
the accused. Accused was then taken to
the Headquarters.

“The
marijuana specimens were then brought to the PNP Crime Labo­ratory Service,
Camp Crame, Quezon City for laboratory testing. It was accompanied by a letter-request dated March 22,
1991 (Exh. ‘F’) signed by P/Capt. Elmer C. Guevara of the Marikina Police
Station. When examined by Forensic
Chemist P/Lt. Julita De Villa, the same specimens yielded positive result for
marijuana. She confirmed this finding
in her Chemistry Report No. D-291-91 (Exh. ‘D’) and in the Certificate of
Laboratory Result (Exh. ‘G’). Pat.
Alfredo Pasana exected an Affidavit (Exh. ‘A’). After completing all the evidence against the accused, the
instant charge was instituted against him.” (pp. 13-15, Rollo.)

An information was filed on March 26, 1991 against appellant
charging him with violation of Section 4, Art. II of R.A. No. 6425, as follows:

“The undersigned Asst. Prose­cutor accuses VIRGILIO MANZANO y
OLEDAN of the crime Violation of RA 6425 Art. II, Sec. 4, As Amended, committed
as follows:

“That on or about the 21st day of March 1991 in the
Municipality of Marikina, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been
authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and give away to another person 5.42 grams of dried marijuana
leaves and seeds, a prohibited drugs, in violation of the above-cited
law.” (p. 1, Re­cords.)

After trial, wherein four (4) prosecution witnesses testified,
namely police officers Sgt. Alfredo Pasa­na, P/Lt. Julita De Villa, Pat. Wilson
Balauitan and Pat. Wilfredo Hapin, judgment was rendered finding the appellant
guilty of the crime charged. The
dispositive portion
of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby sentences the accused, VIRGILIO
MANZANO y OLEDAN to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment with
all its accessory penalties, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and to pay the costs.

“In the service of his sen­tence, the accused shall be
credited in full with the period of his preventive imprisonment.

“Pursuant to Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, let the 5.42 grams of dried marijuana leaves and seeds subject
matter of this case be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Philippine
Government and be turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian, NBI, to
be disposed of according to law.” (p. 18, Rollo.)

Hence this appeal based on the lone assignment of error that the
Court a quo erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime
charged.

Appellant alleges that the trial court failed to consider certain
facts tending to cast doubt regarding his guilt. He averred that he had known Pfc. Alfredo Pasana of the Marikina
Police Station for the past eight (8) years, hence, it was improbable that he
would sell dope to him.

Assuming that to be true, nevertheless, in this day and age when
a number of police officers themselves have been involved in the drug trade,
that argument does not convince anymore.

In People vs. Simbulan, 214 SCRA 537,
546-547, we observed that:

“Drug pushers have become increasingly casual about isolated
transactions. They have come to
consider the sale of drugs as ordi­nary transactions and the buyers as ordinary
users. Drug pushing when done on a
small scale belongs to that class of crimes which may be committed at any time
and at any place. After the offer to
buy is accepted and the exchange is made, the illegal transaction is completed
in a few minutes. The fact that the
parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not
always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as such factors may
even serve to camouflage the same. Hence, the court has sus­tained the conviction of drug push­ers caught
selling illegal drugs in a billiard hall, in front of a store, along a street,
and in front of a house. Even the fact
that the buyer is a total stranger is of no moment. In real life, pushers, especially small quantity or retail
pushers, sell their prohibited wares to customers, be they strangers or not,
who have the price of the drug.”

Moreover, the appellant was duly identified by an informer before
the police operatives conducted their “buy-bust” operation. They made a surveillance of the area where
the appellant plied his trade as a drug pusher. The prosecution was able to establish that during the
“buy-bust” operation, the appellant sold four (4) tea bags of dried
marijuana leaves to Pasana for P70.00.

The trial court therefore did not err in giving credence to the
prosecution’s evidence for the law enforcers are presumed to have regularly
performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the decision of
the court a quo, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.