THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERNARDO VILORIA, JR. Y DELIMOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Bernardo Viloria alias “Junior Paa” was charged before the Regional Trial Court,
National Capital Judicial Region Branch VI, Manila, with violating Section 4,
Article II in relation to Section 21(b) of Republic Act No. 6425 otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended, in an information which reads
as follows:

“That on or about
February 13, 1984 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not
being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale two (2) plastic bags of dried
mari­juana leaves and seeds and
one (1) plastic bag of marijuana dried leaves and seeds in his
possession which are prohibited drugs.

“Contrary to law.“^[1]

When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty.  Trial on the merits ensued.  Subsequently, the lower court adjudged
Bernardo Viloria alias “Junior Paa” guilty of the crime charged.  The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, the guilt of the accused,
having been proven beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him and
in accordance with Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 21(b) of
Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675 which took
effect on February 17, 1980, the accused is hereby sentenced to the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P20,000.00 and to pay the cost.

“The two (2) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting
tops are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the state.

“SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Accused-appellant Viloria is now before
this Court seeking a reversal of the aforementioned decision.  In his Brief, he alleged that the court a
quo gravely erred in convicting
him for a violation of Section 4, Article II of Presidential Decree 1675 on the
basis of the untruthful statements of the prosecution witnesses.^[3]

As gathered from the evidence presented by the prosecu­tion, at
one o’clock in the afternoon of February 13, 1984, Capt. Emmanuel Manzano and Pfc. Rolando Magno
received a tip from an informant that a certain “Junior Paa” was actively engaged in selling and distributing
marijuana leaves and fruiting tops to prospective buyers including students in
nearby schools within the vicinity of Labores
Extension, Pandacan, Manila.

Acting on that information, Lt. Col. Manuel T. Raval, the Commanding Officer of the 13th NRU, Narcotics
Command, Armed Forces of the Philippines,
ordered Capt. Manzano to form a team to conduct a
buy-bust operation against the said “Junior Paa“.  Thus, on that same afternoon, at about 4:30, the team composed of Capt. Manzano, Pfc. Rolando Magno, Pfc.
Jaime Amor and the informant proceeded to Labores Street, Pandacan, Manila
where the trafficking of marijuana was believed to take place.^[4]

As Pfc. Magno positioned himself at a
strategic place, Pfc. Amor and the informant walked
along Labores Street.  It was not long after when they were
approached by the suspect Bernardo Viloria alias
“Junior Paa” (a childhood monicker on account of his big feet).  They conversed with him for a while and then
Pfc. Amor handed the suspect two (2) marked ten peso
bills.  The suspect then left his
supposed buyers and went inside a small alley. 
Thereafter, he returned with two (2) tea bags of marijuana leaves and
fruiting tops which he gave to Pfc. Amor.  Upon receiving the goods, Pfc. Amor scratched his head as a pre-arranged signal to his
teammates to come over.  Captain Manzano and Pfc. Magno, rushing
to where the three were, immediately accosted the suspect Bernardo Viloria and placed him under arrest after identifying
themselves as NARCOM operatives.  Capt. Manzano interrogated Viloria who
verbally admitted his guilt and even pointed to one alias Ody
(Odie) as the one who received the two (2) ten peso bills.  The NARCOM agents also found in Viloria’s possession another tea bag of dried marijuana
leaves.  The marked money was never
recovered.^[5]
The two tea bags, upon laboratory examination were found “positive to the
test for marijuana, a prohibitive
drug.”^[6]

For his part, accused Bernardo Viloria
alias “Junior Paa“, 31 years old, a
construction helper/electrician testi­fied that at around 4:30 in the afternoon of February 13, 1984, while walking along Labores Street in Pandacan on his way home, he saw a boy being chased by two
men.  The boy managed to elude his
pursuers so the latter turned to the accused and asked him if he knew a person
by the name of “Pogs“.  He
answered that he did not know anyone by that name but despite his denial, he
was nonetheless brought for verification inside a parked Tamaraw
jeep.  Inside he saw three (3) persons
who had also been apprehended.  They were
all taken to Camp Crame for interrogation but
he never gave any written statement.  He
averred that he was charged as a pusher because he failed to help the two
agents in catching the boy at Labores
Street.  As
a consequence, they suspected him of being in connivance with the boy.  He signed a receipt^[7]
against his will because he could no longer endure the maltreatment done to him
by the PC officers.  That receipt
attested that three (3) tea bags of marijuana leaves and fruiting tops had been
seized from him.^[8]

The judgment of conviction must be upheld.

Pfc. Amor, who posed as the buyer, and
Pfc. Magno clearly and positively identified accused Viloria as the marijuana peddler.  Viloria’s bare
denials and his unsubstantiated allega­tion that he was being framed up because
he did not help the law enforcers in capturing a certain boy is quite incredible and cannot
overcome the positive and unequivocal statements of the two operatives that it was the accused Viloria
who had sold them the marijuana leaves and fruiting tops.

The alleged contradiction pointed out by the accused in the
testimonies of Pfcs. Amor
and Magno regarding the description of the seized
marijuana is too trivial to warrant an acquittal.  Whether or not the tea bags contained
marijuana leaves and fruiting tops or simply marijuana stalks and seeds does
not alter at all the inescapable truth that Viloria
had been caught red-handed in the act of peddling illicit drugs.  Besides, the two peace officers could not be
faulted for making the wrong analysis of the marijuana because they are not
experts in that field.

The accused also called attention to the non-recovery of the two
marked ten peso bills which accused reportedly passed on to “Ody“.  He
contended that if the money were not retrieved, then it could not be
established that the delivery of the goods was by virtue of that cash.

The argument is untenable. 
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, provides:

“Section 4. Sale,
Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibitive Drugs.
– The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty
thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, administer,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transaction.  If the victim of the offense is a minor, or
should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the
proximate cause of the death of the victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein
provided shall be imposed.”

That the marked bills had not been found is inconsequen­tial.  Monetary consideration is not an essential
element of the crime under discussion. 
The mere act of selling or even acting as a broker in a sale of
marijuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime under Section 4.^[9]

Just recently, the Court had occasion to reiterate this principle
in the case of People v. Romeo
de la Cruz v. Meda,
G.R. No. 87607, October 31, 1990,
thus:

“The failure of the prosecution to present the twenty-peso
bill used in the buy-bust operation does not negate the existence of the crime
charged against the appellant.  In People
v. Gatong-o,
No. 78698, December 29, 1988, it was held that even without the money to buy
the marijuana, when the police officer went through the motion as a buyer and
his offer was accepted by the appellants and the marijuana delivered to the
police officer, the crime was consummated by the delivery of the goods.  Likewise, in People v. Teves,
G.R. No. 81332, April 25, 1989, ‘(T)he fact that the accused returned with the
amount of marijuana corresponding to the offered price suffices to constitute
if not sale, then delivery or giving away to another and distribution of the
prohibited drug punishable under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425.’
It was not clearly established where the twenty-peso bill went but it does not
weaken the cause of the prosecution.  So
long as the marijuana actually given by the accused was presented before the
lower court, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the
prosecution evidence.  (People v. Teves, G.R. No. 81332, April 25, 1989)”

All told, we see no reason to reverse the appellate ruling of the
trial court.  Compared to the baseless
disclaimers of the accused, the narration of the incident by the prosecution
witnesses is far more worthy of belief coming as it does from law enforcers who
are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of
convincing proof to the contrary.^[10]

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 4.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 13.

^[3]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 4.

^[4]
TSN, April 2, 1984, pp. 4-5

^[5]
TSN, April 2, 1984, pp. 5-7;
April 16, 1984, pp. 18-22,
24-26.

^[6]
Exhs. A, B, D, E, G and H.

^[7]
Exh. C.

^[8]
TSN, August 1, 1984, pp.
65-74.

^[9]
See People v. Madarang, G.R. No. 70569, January 7, 1987, 147 SCRA 123.

^[10]
People v. Francis, G.R. No. 69253, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 495.