THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIO TANDOY Y LIM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 133 dated October 13, 1987,
convicting Mario Tandoy of the crime of violation of
Art. II, Sec. 4 of Rep. Act No.
6425 known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, is before us
on appeal.

The information against
the accused-appellant read as follows:

That on or about the 27th day of May 1986, in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell eight (8) pieces of dried marijuana flowering tops, two (2) pieces of
dried marijuana flowering tops and crushed dried marijuana flowering tops,
which are prohibited drug, for and in consideration of P20.00.

Upon arraignment, Tandoy entered a plea
of not guilty.  After trial, Judge
Buenaventura J. Guerrero rendered a decision the dispositive
portion of which declared:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Mario Tandoy y
Lim guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 4, Art. II, Rep. Act
No. 6425, as amended, and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P20,000.00 and cost.

The marijuana confiscated in this case is declared confiscated and
forfeited and ordered turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper
disposal.

SO ORDERED.

The accuse-appellant raises the following assignment of errors in
this appeal:

1.  The Court a quo erred in
finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged despite
lack of evidence to prove that he sold marijuana to the poseur-buyer.

2.  The Court a quo erred in
admitting in evidence against the accused Exh.
“E-2-A” which is merely a xerox copy of the
P10.00 bill allegedly used as buy-bust money.

The evidence of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:

On May 27, 1986,
at about 3:30 p.m., Lt. Salido, Jr. of the Makati Police
Station dispatched Pfc. Herino de la Cruz, and
Detectives Pablo R. Singayan, Nicanor
Candolesas, Luisito de la
Cruz, Estanislao Dalumpines,
Antonio Manalastas and Virgilio
Padua to conduct a buy-bust operation
at Solchuaga St., Barangay Singkamas, Makati.

The target area was a store along the said street, and Singayan was to pose as the buyer.  He stood alone near the store waiting for any
pusher to approach.  The other members of the team strategically positioned
themselves.  Soon, three men approached Singayan.  One of
them was the accused-appellant, who said without preamble:  “Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?”
Singayan said yes. 
The exchange was made then and there – two rolls/pieces of marijuana for
one P10.00 and two P5.00 bills marked ANU (meaning Anti-Narcotics Unit).

The team then moved in and arrested Tandoy.  Manalastas and Candolesas made a body search of the accused-appellant and
took from him the marked money, as well as eight more rolls/foils of marijuana and crushed
leaves.

The arresting officers brought Tandoy
to the Office of the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Makati
Police Station, for investigation by Detective Marvin Pajilan.  The accused-appellant chose to remain silent
after having been informed of his
constitutional rights.

These events were narrated under oath by De la Cruz, Singayan and Pajilan.^[1]
Microscopic, chemical and chromotographic examination
was performed on the confiscated marijuana by Raquel P. Angeles, forensic
chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation, who later testified that the
findings were positive.  The marijuana
was offered as an exhibit.^[2]

As might be expected, the accused-appellant had a different
story.  His testimony was that from 1:30 to 4:00
p.m. of the day in question, he was playing “cara y cruz” with 15
other persons along Solchuaga St. when somebody suddenly said that policemen
were making arrests.  The players grabbed
the bet money and scampered.  However, he
and a certain Danny (another “cara y cruz” player) were caught and taken to the Narcotics
Command headquarters in Makati. 
There they were mauled and warned that if they did not point to their fellow pushers, they would rot in jail.  The accused-appellant denied he had sold
marijuana to Singayan and insisted the bills taken from
him were the bet money he had
grabbed at the “cara y cruz”
game.^[3]

The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the witnesses and to listen to their respective testimonies, gave
more credence to the statements of the arresting officers.  Applying the presumption that they had
performed their duties in a regular manner, it rejected Tandoy’s
uncorroborated allegation that he had been manhandled and framed.  Tandoy had not
submitted sufficient evidence of his charges, let alone his admission that he
had no quarrel with the peace officers whom he had met only on the day of his arrest.

In People v. Patog,^[4]
this Court held:

When there is no evidence and nothing to indicate the principal
witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motives, the presumption
is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and
credit.

Tandoy submits that “one will not
sell this prohibited drug to another who is a total stranger until the seller
is certain of the identity of the buyer.”

The conjecture must be rejected.

In People v. Paco,^[5]
this Court observed:

Drug-pushing when done on a small level as in this case belongs to
that class of crimes that may be committed at anytime 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 these 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
(People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People v. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987, 147 SCRA 252),
in front of a store (People v. Khan, supra) along a street at 1:45 p.m.
(People v. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, November 22, 1985, 140 SCRA 259), and in
front of a house (People v. Policarpio, G.R. No.
69844, February 23, 1988).

As the Court has also
held, “What matters is not an existing familiarity between the buyer and
the seller but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery
of the marijuana leaves.”^[6]

Under the second assigned error, the accused-appellant invokes
the best evidence rule and questions the admission by the trial court of the xerox copy only
of the marked P10.00 bill.

The Solicitor General, in his Comment, correctly refuted that
contention thus:

This assigned error centers on the trial court’s admission of the
P10.00 bill marked money (Exh. E-2-A) which,
according to the appellant, is excluded under the best evidence rule for being
a mere xerox copy. 
Apparently, appellant erroneously thinks that said marked money is an
ordinary document falling under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
which excludes the introduction of secondary evidence except in the five (5)
instances mentioned therein.

The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the
document are the subject of inquiry. 
Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually
executed, or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is
admissible.  (Cf. Moran, op. cit.,
pp. 76-77; 4 Martin, op. cit., p. 78.)

Since the aforesaid marked money was presented by the prosecution
solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its contents, other
substitutionary evidence, like a xerox
copy thereof, is therefore admissible without the need of accounting for the
original.

Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the “buy-bust
money” was not indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant
because the sale of the marijuana had been adequately proved by the testimony
of the police officers.  So long as the
marijuana actually sold by the accused-appellant had been submitted as an
exhibit, the failure to produce the
marked money itself would not constitute a fatal omission.

We are convinced from the evidence on record that the prosecution
has overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused-appellant with proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.  He must therefore suffer the penalty prescribed by law for those who would visit the
scourge of drug addiction upon our people.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the
challenged decision AFFIRMED in toto,
with costs against the
accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, October 1, 1986; TSN, November 19, 1986; TSN, January 7, 1987.

^[2]
Exhibit “D.”

^[3]
TSN, February 16, 1987, p. 6; Exhibit “E.”

^[4]
144 SCRA 429.

^[5]
170 SCRA 681.

^[6]
People v. Rodriguez y Teves, 172 SCRA 742.