THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCO POLO Y FULLANTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Marco Polo y Fullante appeals
from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch CL IX,
Pasig,
Metro Manila in Criminal Case No. 57688 for violation
of Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the “Dangerous
Drugs Act.”

The Information against accused-appellant charged:

“That on or about the 7^th day of February 1984, in the
Municipality of San Juan, 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 feloneously sell, deliver and give away to another person
five (5) aluminum foils containing dried marijuana leaves, a prohibited drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.

Contrary to law.”

The prosecution evidence, as summarized in the People’s Brief, is
as follows:

“The unrebutted evidence for the
prosecution is clear that in the afternoon of February 7, 1984, Pat. Alfredo Haliva, CIC Jose Reyla and Sgt.
Salvador Aladano went to the vicinity of the Wennen’s Snack Bar in San Juan, Metro Manila because of the
information they received from Judy Ejercito that a
person by the name of Marco Polo was selling marijuana at said snack bar (p. 3,
tsn, July 3, 1984; p. 3, tsn, Oct. 3, 1984; p. 3, tsn, Oct.
24, 1984).  They contacted a confidential informer to act as the
poseur-buyer to buy marijuana from appellant.  Accordingly, Sgt.
Aladano gave the marked money in the amount of P75.00
in denomination of one P50.00-bill, one P20.00-bill and one P5.00-bill to the
confidential informer with which to buy marijuana from appellant (p. 4, tsn, Oct. 3, 1984; p. 3, tsn, Oct.
24, 1984).  The confidential informer followed by CIC Jose Reyla went inside the Wennen’s
Snack Bar (p. 3, tsn, Oct. 24, 1984). 
Thereat, the confidential informer and appellant conversed with each
other after which the former handed to the latter the marked money in the amount
of P75.00 (pp. 3, 4, tsn, Oct. 24, 1984).  Appellant left and
after some time, returned to the Wennen’s Snack Bar
and handed to the confidential informer a brown paper bag which turned out to
contain five aluminum foils of dried marijuana leaves (p. 4, tsn, Oct. 24, 1984).  CIC Jose Reyla accosted appellant and asked where he got the five
aluminum foils of marijuana leaves.  Appellant answered that he got
them from someone named ‘Bobby’ (p. 5, tsn, Oct. 24,
1984).  The appellant was brought to
Camp Crame for investigation. 
He reiterated that he got the marijuana from Bobby.”

Upon the other hand, the defense gave the following version of the
incident:

“The accused Marco Polo, formerly a waiter of Wennen’s Snack Bar in San Juan, Metro Manila, testified that
on February 7, 1984 at about 4:30 in the afternoon, two students came to him at
the said Snack Bar and told him to buy for them marijuana.  But he
told him to buy from the pushers around.  Thereafter, the two
students went to the pushers roaming around the place.  He denied
having been caught delivering marijuana to CIC Reyla.  He was arrested and brought to
Camp Crame.  There he
was forced to confess as to who were selling marijuana in their
place.  He told the Narcotics agents that he does not know. 
He was forced to give a statement to the PC investigator when he was
threatened with harm if he refused (pp. 5-8, TSN, Oct. 31, 1984; pp. 2-3, TSN, Nov. 28, 1984).”

After trial, the court a quo rendered a judgment of
conviction, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Court finds the accused Marco
Polo y Fullante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of violation Sec. 4, Art. II, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and sentences him to suffer life imprisonment,
and to pay the costs.

The five (5) aluminum foils of dried marijuana leaves (Exhs. B-2 to B-6) are
ordered confiscated in favor of the State and should be delivered to the
National Bureau of Investigation, Forensic Chemistry Section, Dangerous Drugs
Board Unit, Manila.

SO ORDERED.”

From the above disposition, accused-appellant elevated the case to
Us, assigning the following errors —

1. The court a quo erred in not finding that the accused-appellant was
   a frame-up victim, and

2. The court a quo erred in not finding that the extrajudicial
   confession allegedly given by the accused-appellant is not admissible in
   evidence.

In support of his contention that he was a victim of a frame-up,
appellant argues that (a) the contradicting testimonies of the Narcotics agents
in court show that he (accused) was not in possession of marijuana, much less in
the act of selling the same, whet he was arrested in the afternoon of February
7, 1984; (b) the failure to present in court the marked money shows that the
agents were telling lies, and (c) another thing that shatters the credibility of
the agents is their testimony that the appellant was selling marijuana inside
the snack bar for why would a person expose himself to the risk of being
arrested by peace officers by selling marijuana in a public place.

Anent his second assigned error, appellant claims that his
extrajudicial confession (Exh. “F”) was taken in
violation of his constitutional rights because he was not apprised of his right
to remain silent and to obtain a counsel of his own choice.  He
further alleges that he was not informed that all that he would state might be
used as evidence against him.

The appeal is meritIess.

The claim of appellant that he was a victim of a frame-up is a
conjecture which does not deserve any serious consideration.

There may be contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses but they are not on material points.  We find as
established that, notwithstanding his denials, appellant was arrested after
selling five (5) aluminum foils of marijuana leaves.  The Narcotics
agents who received the information from a certain Judy Ejercito that appellant was selling marijuana proceeded to
the Wennen’s Snack Bar.  They contacted a
confidential informer who acted as the poseur buyer.  After
appellant sold to the poseur-buyer five aluminum foils of dried marijuana
leaves, appellant was immediately put under arrest.

The fact that the money given to appellant was not presented in
court does not militate against the prosecution’s case.  For, the
evidence is clear that the marked money in the amount of P75.00 was given by the
confidential informer to appellant.  After appellant was handed the
money he went out and shortly thereafter returned with five aluminum foils of
dried marijuana leaves.  Appellant himself admitted both in his
sworn statement (Exh. “F”) and in his testimony in
court that he got the marijuana leaves he sold from a certain Bobby.

Finally, the belated repudiation by appellant of his extrajudicial
confession on the ground that it was taken in violation of his constitutional
rights is without any semblance of credibility.

Appellant’s extrajudicial confession is prefaced as follows:

“Tagapagsiyasat:	Ikaw ginoong Marco Polo y Fullante ay nasa ilalim ng isang pagsisiyasat dahilan sa paglabag mo sa Batas na Sec. 4, Art. II RA 6425 (pagbebenta ng Marijuana, ipinagbabawal na gamot) ngunit bago kita tanungin ay nais ko munang ipabatid sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan bilang malayang mamamayan alinsunod sa ating Saligang Batas gaya ng mga sumusunod
a.	Karapatan mo ang manahimik o huwag sumagot sa aking mga tanong kung inaakala mong ito’y makakasama sa iyong pagkatao.
b.	Karapatan mo rin ang kumuha ng iyong sariling abogado para matulungan ka sa pagbibigay mo ng iyong salaysay at nais mo naman at wala kang ikakaya ang himpilang ito ang kukuha ng isa para sa iyo ng walang bayad.
k.	Ipinaalala ko rin sa iyo na ang lahat ng iyong sasabihin at isasagot sa aking mga tanong ay pawang katotohanan lamang sapagkat ito’y maaaring gamiting ibidensiya laban or panig sa iyo sa alin mang hukuman dito sa ating bansa.
TANONG:	Matapos kong maipaliwanag sa iyo ang iyong mga karapatan bilang isa ng malayang mamamayan alinsunod sa ating Bagong Saligang Batas, ito ba ay iyong naintindihan at naunawaan?
SAGOT:	Opo.
TANONG:	Kung gayon nakahanda ka pa bang magbigay ng iyong malaya at kusang loob na salaysay kahit wala kang abogado na naririto sa ngayong na hindi ka pinilit, tinakot, sinaktan o pinangakuan ng alin mang bagay.
SAGOT:	Opo.”

P A G P A P A T U N A
Y”

AKO, si Marco Polo y Fullante ay nagpapatunay sa pamamagitan ng paglagda ko sa ibaba nito na ako ay pinaalalahanan ng aking mga karapatan bilang isang mamayan alinsunod sa ating Bagong Saligang Batas at hindi ko na kailangan pa ang isang abogado dahil pawang katotohanan lamang po ang aking sasabihin, at ako ay hindi pinilit, tinakot, sinaktan o pinangakuan ng alin mang bagay.

	(Lagda)
	MARCO POLO Y FULLANTE
	(Nagsasalaysay)”
	(Exh. F-3)

Thus, appellant was fully apprised of his constitutional rights
under custodial investigation and the consequences of his waiver of said
rights.  Nonetheless, he voluntered to give an extrajudicial confession (Exh. “F”), which is unquestionably
admissible.  And, the fact is,
there are no signs of physical injuries on his body and no complaint was filed
with any authority for maltreatment or violence exerted upon him; on the other
hand, the confession is full of details which only appellant could have known
and could not have been concocted by the investigator.

Moreover, even if appellant’s extrajudicial confession would be
disregarded, the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, there is testimony that the actual handing over of the
marijuana in exchange for the money consideration of P75.00 was seen by
eye-witnesses (See testimony of Patrolman Haliva,
tsn, p. 4, July 3, 1984; Testimony of CIC Jose Reyla, tsn, pp. 3-4, Oct. 24,
1984).  The accused was caught in flagrante (in the
very act charged against him).  (Ibid.) The testimony is clear on the time, place,
and surrounding circumstances.  No adequate rebuttal was ever made
(See tsn, pp. 3-8, Oct. 3, 1984, Testimony of Sgt.
Salvador Aladano).

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

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Alampay, and Bidin, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., concur
in the decision and with Justice
Padilla’s observations.

Padilla, J.,  see concurring
opinion.