PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AGAYAS VOCENTE Y TOY-DAAN & GREGORIO SALBINO Y BUCAYNO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

On July 22, 1987, the defendants-appellants were adjudged guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 21, (b) in relation to Section
4, Article II of Republic Act No 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended.  The dispositive portion of the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, First Judicial Region, Branch 5 of Baguio City reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the accused AGAYAS VOCENTE
y TOY-DAAN and GREGORIO SALBINO y BUCAYNO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime charged, and hereby sentences EACH OF THEM to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT;
to pay a fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay their proportionate shares in
the costs.

“In the service of their sentence, the accused shall be credited
with their preventive imprisonment under the terms and conditions subscribed in
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

“The confiscated marijuana (Exhibit “B”, “C” and “C-1”), together
with their containers (Exhibits “B-1”, “C-2” and “C-3”) are hereby declared
forfeited in favor of the Government, and upon the finality of this Decision,
the Clerk of Court shall turn over the same to the Dangerous Drugs Custodian
(NBI), through the Chief, PC Crime Laboratory, Regional Unit No. 1, Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, for
disposition in accordance with law.” (At p. 31, Rollo)

The information dated September
23, 1985 states:

“The undersigned accuses AGAYAS VOCENTE y TOY-DAAN and GREGORIO
SALBINO y BUCAYNO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 21 (b), IN RELATION TO SECTION 4,
ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 6425, AS AMENDED (SALE, ADMINISTRATION, DELIVERY,
DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS), committed as follows:

“That on or about the 29th day of August, 1985, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually aiding one another, not authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attempt to sell, deliver and distribute
one (1) kilo of dried marijuana leaves, knowing fully well that said leaves are
marijuana leaves, a prohibited drug, in violation of the above-mentioned
provision of law.” (At p. 11, Rollo)

Upon arraignment, on October
8, 1985, the defendants-appellants separately entered a plea of not
guilty with the assistance of their counsel.

After trial, the lower court rendered the decision being assailed
in this appeal which assigns the following errors:

(1) The Lower Court
erred in finding that the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

(2) The Lower Court
erred in convicting the accused of the crime charged in the information.

(3) The Lower Court
committed serious misapprehension of facts. (At p. 8, Brief for
Accused-Appellants)

The defendants-appellants, in primarily averring that they were
framed up, relate their version of the facts of the case as follows:

“That on August 1985, he (Agayas
Vocente) was presently employed as a gardener in Natubleng, Buguias, Benguet, which is about 52 kilometers away from Baguio.  That on August 29,
1985, he went to Baguio City with the intention of
taking a bus going to Sagpat, Kibungan,
Benguet, his residence because of an information that
his wife has just delivered.  He failed,
however, to get a ride for home because the last bus already left as it was
already 1:30 in the afternoon.  Thus, he decided to visit Gregorio Salbino, his co?accused, who was then employed as
assistant cook at the Provincial Restaurant, located at Baguio City.  When he was there, two (2) visitors of
Gregorio Salbino arrived and then they invited them
to go for a drink at the Dangwa Canteen which is
about 80 meters away from the Provincial Restaurant.

“That when they were going up to the Dangwa
Terminal, one of the visitors who was later identified by Gregorio Salbino and corroborated by Domingo Lagawas
as a certain Lito Ognasy,
an alleged NARCOM informer, handed to the accused Agayas
Vocente one red knapsack.  Lito Ognasy told the accused to proceed to Dangwa
Canteen informing them that he will join them later as he was going to see
somebody on the other corner leading towards Acop jeepney station near the Dangwa
Canteen.

“That when they were about 10 minutes drinking (sic) at the Dangwa Canteen, Lito Ognasy arrived and ordered beer then immediately Narcom agents frisked them,
handcuffed them and took the red knapsack placed on top of the table.  They were brought to Trancoville,
Quisumbing Street,
Baguio City, the
sub-office of the NARCOM, and there they were mauled.  Then he (Agayas Vocente) was asked by Lito Ognasy to go with them to KM 3, La Trinidad, Benguet, where Lito Ognasy retrieved 1 carton on the basement of the building,
which when opened at the Narcom sub-station contained
marijuana.  (TSN, dated July 29, 1986)

 “Taking the witness stand,
the accused Gregorio Salbino corroborated the
testimony of the accused Agayas Vocente
on the color of the pack seized by the arresting officers, the manner they were
arrested at Dangwa Canteen and the mauling
incident.  He denied having been in
possession of two (2) stalks of marijuana, and in fact he claimed that his
jacket was not returned by the Narcom and that his
P10.00 was not returned by the arresting officers.  (TSN, dated March 2, 1987)

“Tenson Baniwas,
the cook of the Dangwa Canteen, affirmed the
testimony of the accused that the knapsack seized by the Narcom
placed on top of the table of the accused was a red knapsack and not a mere
plastic bag as claimed by the prosecution. 
(TSN, dated August 5, 1986, pp. 1-7)

“Domingo Lagawad’s testimony corroborated
the testimony of Agayas Vocente
that the owner of the carton taken at KM 3, La Trinidad, Benguet belongs to a certain Lito
Ognasy, who is known to them (sic) (TSN, dated,
August 5, 1986, pp. 8-15).

“Julio Liw-an’s
testimony confirms the fact that at the time of the arrest of Gregorio Salbino, he was employed at the Provincial Restaurant as
assistant cook.  That it was his off-duty
when he was arrested.

“The testimonies of Busoy Vocente, brother of accused, Agayas
Vocente, and Lucio Salbino, brother of the accused, Gregorio Salbino, claimed that after the arrest of their brothers,
when they went to the Narcom sub-station at Trancoville, Baguio
City, a Narcom
agent told them that the case of their brothers can be fixed at a fee of P15,000.00.  That since
the case is already filed, the arresting officers’
remedy is not to testify during the trial. 
That they did not give the money but requested for
three (3) extensions of time from September 1985 up to November 1985.

“Until finally the Narcom
agents testified in court in December 1986 when the negotiation failed.  (TSN, dated October 8, 1986, pp. 6-22)” (At
pp. 4-7, Brief for Accused-Appellants)

On the other hand, the Solicitor-General, in his Brief, counterstates the facts, to wit:

“Acting upon the information received by the First Narcotics
Command, AFP substation at Trancoville, Baguio City from a so-called coordinating individual (CI)
in the early afternoon of August 29, 1985 that dried marijuana leaves were
being offered to him for sale, commanding officer Capt. Manzano
devised an entrapment plan against the reported pushers (pp. 2-3, tsn., December 9, 1985). 
He designated three NARCOM agents: 
PC Sgt. Samuel Fontanilla to pose as marijuana
buyer and Sgts. Glenn Logan and Godofredo
V. Fider to lend him support (p. 3. tsn.,
id.).

“Sgts. Fontanilla,
Logan, Fider and their informer promptly proceeded to
the Pitshop Pub House, Baguio City
where the latter had arranged to meet with the pushers.  Fontanilla and the
informer first entered the said establishment and after a minute, Logan and Fider followed and seated themselves nearby.  The pushers, later identified as Agayas Vocente and Gregorio Salbino, were already there and the informer introduced Fontanilla to them as the buyer (pp. 3, 4, 5, tsn., Dec. 9, 1985).

“Agayas Vocente
priced the marijuana dried leaves at
P600.00 per kilo, to which Fontanilla agreed and
thereupon ordered a kilo of said stuff. 
It was also agreed that they would meet shortly afterwards at the Dangwa Bus Terminal Canteen where delivery and payment
would be made (p. 6, tsn., Dec. 9, 1985).

 “At about 3:00 o’clock that same afternoon, the NARCOM
men and their informer entered the Dangwa Bus
Terminal Canteen, with Sgt. Fontanilla taking one
table with the informer and Sgts. Fider
and Logan occupying another table nearby and they all waited for the pushers
(p. 6, tsn., Dec. 9, 1985).

“When Vocente and Salbino
entered the canteen, the latter handed to Fontanilla
the aquamarine plastic bag he was carrying, saying it contained one kilo of
dried marijuana leaves (p. 7, tsn., Jan. 6,
1986).  Thereupon, Sgts.
Fider and Logan sprang up to the pushers, identified
themselves as NARCOM agents and placed Agayas Vocente and Gregorio Salbino
under arrest.  Both pushers were frisked
and the back right pocket of Salbino’s pants yielded
2 stalks of marijuana dried leaves weighing about 5 grams (pp. 7, 8, tsn., id.).  Asked if
they had some more of the stuff, Agayas Vocente revealed he has two (2) kilos more stashed in a
certain residence at km. 3, La Trinidad, Benguet (p.
9, tsn., Dec. 9, 1985).  The lawmen and the appellants proceeded to
the place indicated and Vocente retrieved from
underneath a house, a carton box (Exhibit C-3) marked “Hotcake and Waffle Magic
Mix” containing approximately 2 kilos of dried marijuana flowering tops (C-C-1,
C-2).  These were also seized by the
agents (p. 10, tsn., id.)  A Joint Affidavit narrating the circumstances
of the arrest of appellants was executed by the NARCOM agents (p. 177, rec.).

“The dried leaves confiscated from appellants were turned over to
the PC crime laboratory at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for laboratory examination
to determine the presence of marijuana (p. 5, tsn.,
Nov. 20, 1985).  Carlos Figueroa,
forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory tests, found the submitted
specimen positive for marijuana, a prohibited drug.  This finding is incorporated in his Chemistry
Report Nr. D-128-85 (Exhibit D) (pp. 9, 10, 11, tsn., id.; p. 176, rec.).”
(At pp. 57-61, Rollo)

After a careful examination of the evidence, both physical and
oral, relied upon by the trial court in its judgment of conviction, we find no
reversible error warranting us to disturb its findings.  We apply the oft-repeated rule that unless
the trial judge has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value
that if considered, might affect the result of the case, his findings as to
which version to accept are accorded due respect on appeal.  (People v. Juan dela
Cruz y Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. 83260, April 18, 1990; People v. Renato Mendoza Javier y Torres, G.R. No. 77756, March 26,
1990; People v. Quinlob, 119 SCRA 130 [1982]).

The defendants-appellants anchor their prayer for a verdict of
acquittal on the following allegations: 
(a) that Lito Ognasy
who was the coordinating individual who helped the NARCOM agents in framing up
the accused-appellants for personal gain was never presented in court; (b) that
Lito Ognasy was the real
owner of the red knapsack wherein the seized marijuana was kept and the cook of
the Dangwa Bus Canteen testified that it was a red
knapsack, not a plastic bag that he saw the NARCOM agents seize; and (c) that
the undue delay in the trial of the case against the accused-appellants was
intended to allow the NARCOM agents to extort money from the two brothers of
the defendants-appellants in exchange for “fixing” the latter’s case.

The only plausible defense of the accused-appellants was that
their arrest was a product of a frame-up, a defense which persons similarly
charged, more often than not, regard as their last stronghold.  Like alibi, it is a weak defense that is easy
to concoct but difficult to prove (People v. Edgardo Estevan y Eugenio, G.R. No.
69676, June 4, 1990; People v. Dante Marcos y Sibayan,
G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990; People v. Sergio Nabunat
y Asag, G.R. No. 84392, February 7, 1990) In the
instant case, the defendants-appellants failed to convincingly show any ill
motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against the
defendants-appellants.  PC Sgt. Samuel Fontanilla who posed as the marijuana buyer, Sgt. Glenn
Logan, one of the two PC soldiers who lent support to the entrapment plan
against the defendants-appellants and Carlos Figueroa, the forensic-chemist who
reported as positive for marijuana the specimen confiscated from the
defendants-appellants and given to him for examination, all of these witnesses
enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties so that
the burden of overturning the said presumption lies on the defendants-appellants.  The latter failed to prove their claim that
they were framed-up by the arresting officers for personal gain.  (see People v. Arsenio Alfonso y Cawading, G.R.
No. 78954, June 18, 1990;
People v. Marcelino Yap, et al. G.R. Nos. 87088-89, May 9, 1990; People v. Fernando
Hernandez y Tolentino, G.R. No. 83286, November 16, 1989) We note the
observation made by the trial court that:

“Significantly, too, the accused did not frontally deny the
prosecution evidence that Fontanilla and the civilian
informer first met with the accused at the Pitstop
Pub House where Fontanilla was introduced by the
informer to the accused as an interested marijuana buyer and thereafter, the
accused quoted the price of P600.00 a kilo and Fontanilla,
in turn, ordered one kilo of the stuff which the accused undertook to deliver,
as they in fact delivered, at the Dangwa bus
Canteen.  The accused’s
denial is merely inferential, if at all, considering that they adverted to a
meeting at another establishment, namely, the Provincial Restaurant, and that
this meeting was between the accused and a certain Lito
Ognasy and the latter’s unidentified companion,
before they went to the Dangwa Bus Canteen to drink
beer.  Such a tangential denial cannot
overcome the force of the positive and unequivocal declaration of the State
witnesses.” (At pp. 29-30, Rollo)

The fact that the informer, Lito Ognasy, was never presented in court by the prosecution is
of no moment.  His testimony, if it were
given, would at best be corroborative or cumulative.  Hence, his non?presentation is not
fatal to the prosecution’s case as recently reiterated in the case of People
v. Tangliben y Bernardino
(G.R. No. 63630, April 6, 1990). 
Moreover, if the defense was really convinced that the alleged red
knapsack which contained the seized marijuana belonged to Lito
Ognasy, it could have taken steps to avail of Ognasy’s presence in court by compulsory process (People v.
Said Sariol y Muhamading,
G.R. No. 83809, June 22, 1989 citing People v. Boholst,
152 SCRA 263 [1987]).

We agree with the trial court’s finding that in the attempt to
prove their innocence, the defendants-appellants tried to distort the real
scenario of the crime by counter-alleging that it was a red knapsack and not an
aquamarine or green plastic bag that contained the marijuana in question and
that the real owner of the said knapsack was Ognasy
and not either of them “in the hope that the murkier it becomes their guilt
would be more difficult to discern.” Considering that the defendants-appellants
were both caught red-handed while handing the prohibited drug aforementioned to
Sgt. Fontanilla for purposes of sale and that the
prosecution’s witnesses gave positive testimonies relating to the said
incident, we are constrained to affirm the lower court’s judgment of
conviction.  It bears noting, however,
that under the circumstances of the present case, there was already a perfected
contract of sale.  At the Pitstop Pub House where Sgt. Fontanilla,
acting as poseur-buyer was introduced by Ognasy to
the defendants-appellants, there was already an agreement to sell one kilo of
marijuana at the agreed price of P600.00. 
At the Dangwa Bus Canteen, what was left was
the obligation of both parties to deliver their respective parts in the
perfected contract of sale the poseur-buyer, the payment and the
accused-appellants, the marijuana. 
Hence, there was more than just an attempt to sell which connotes
that the other party to whom the said offer to sell was made did not agree to
accept the offer.  As we have held in the
case of People v. Ramon Macuto,
G.R. No. 80112, promulgated on August
25, 1989:

“The commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana
requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction whereby as in this case, the accused handed over the tea bag of marijuana upon
the agreement with the poseur buyer to exchange it for
money.  x x x What is important is the fact
that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and that the
contents were presented as evidence in court. 
Proof of the transaction suffices. 
The identity of the tea bag of marijuana which constitutes the corpus delicti was established before the court.” (Underlining
Supplied)

Considering that the Dangerous Drugs Act provides the same
penalty not only for selling and attempting to sell but also for distributing
or delivering, the dispositive portion of the lower
court’s decision is not affected.

As regards the contention that the delay in the trial proceedings
of the instant case was for extortion purposes, we find the claim
unsubstantiated by the evidence on the record.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW
OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in all its
parts.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.