PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALLAN RODRIGUEZ Y TEVES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the amended decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, Branch 136 finding the accused Allan
Rodriguez y Teves guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00).

The information filed against the accused alleged:

“That on or about the 2nd day of, June, 1987 in the Municipality of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, while in possession of two (2)
tea bags of dried marijuana leaves, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously give away, distribute and sell, without being
authorized by law, three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, which are prohibited
drug.

“Contrary to law.” (Rollo, p. 13)

The prosecution evidence upon which the trial court based its
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is summarized by the court as follows:

“Pat. Marvin Pajilan has been a Makati Policeman since August 1980 and that presently he is
assigned to the DDES as Field Operative. 
He reported for work on June 2,
1987.  His tour of duty on
that date was from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00
p.m.  At around 6:30 p.m. on said date DDES received a phone call from
the desk officer of Sub-Station I, namely, Michael Orbeta,
who Informed that a person named “Alyas Allan” was selling marijuana at No. 8199
Constancia St., Makati,
Metro Manila and requested that said person be apprehended.  Acting on this phone call of desk officer
Michael Orbeta, a team of policemen headed by Cpl. Laboriante was
formed and dispatched to Constancia St.  The
members of this team aside from Cpl. Laboriante were
Pat. Pajilan, Pfc. Romeo Espaldon
and Det. Robert del Prado.

“The team of Cpl. Laboriante reached
Constancia St.
at around 6:40 p.m. on same date. Immediately, they strategically
posted themselves about 10 to 15 meters from the house located at 8199 Constancia
St., Makati.  At
around 6:50 p.m.
they saw a tricycle with 3 persons on board, a driver and 2 passengers, stop in
front of the house at 8199 Constancia St.  They
also saw a male person come out of the said house and approach and talk to the
driver of the tricycle.  After a while
they saw the male person go back to the house and a little later come back and
hand to the tricycle driver ‘a suspicious stuff’ of ‘a cigarette, a marijuana
cigarette’, (p.3, t.s.n. hearing of Oct. 12, 1987); they further saw
the tricycle driver in turn give something to the male person.  Thereupon, Pat. Pajilan,
together with his companions, approached the male person and the tricycle
driver and after introducing themselves as police officers, they asked the male
person, the tricycle driver and his 2 passengers to bring out the contents of
their pockets, which the male person, the driver and the passengers of the
tricycle did.  The male person brought
out from his pockets 2 small plastic bags containing suspected marijuana
leaves.  The tricycle driver, brought out
from his right front pocket 3 sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes.  Nothing illegal was found in the pockets of
the 2 passengers of the tricycle.

“The male person who came out from the house located at 8199
Constancia St. was later
identified to be Allan Rodriguez y Teves, the accused
in this case, while the tricycle driver
turned out to be one Enrico Bacod.

“After the accused and Enrico Bacod had brought out the contents of their pockets, the
DDES team brought them to the Makati Police
Headquarters where they turned over the two (the 2 passengers were released for lack evidence) to Det. Hermi Ortiz, the police
investigator on duty, for further verification. 
They also turned over to Det. Ortiz the
aforementioned items which the accused and Enrico Bacod had brought out from their pockets.  The said items were thereafter referred to
the NBI for laboratory examination, where, after the corresponding examinations
they were confirmed to be positive for marijuana.

“In the same occasion, Cpl. Laboriante, in the presence of Pat. Pajilan,
prepared an affidavit of arrest (Exhibit
A) for Pat. Pajilan which the latter signed (Exh. A-1).

“In the hearing of October
12, 1987, the Trial Fiscal and the defense counsel made the
following stipulations/admissions?

“‘The Trial Fiscal then informed that his next witnesses would
be Det. Hermie Ortiz, the
police investigator who investigated this case and the NBI Forensic Chemist,
Aida Viloria Magsipok.  He manifested that he would likewise dispense
with the testimonies of these witnesses
if the defense would admit/agree to the following:

‘A That Det. Ortiz in connection with this case had prepared and
filed an investigation report.  The Trial
Fiscal proposed that the defense admit the genuineness, due execution and the
truth of the contents of this investigation report which was marked Exhibit B
for the prosecution.  The defense counsel admits all of the above
matters/facts proposed for admission by the Trial Fiscal.  In fact the defense counsel adopted Exhibit B
and had it marked as Exhibit “1” for the defense.

‘B The due execution
and genuineness of the report marked Exhibit “B“
submitted by the Forensic Chemist, Aida Villoria
Magsipok, of the NBI, and her certification, Exhibit
D.  The defense admits these.

‘C That Chemist Aida
Villoria Magsipok had in
fact conducted laboratory examinations of the specimens referred to in her
report Exhibit ‘E’ and that the said specimens were the same items transmitted
to her office by the police per the letter request marked Exhibit ‘C’, and that it is the finding of the
Forensic Chemist that the said specimens are positive for marijuana.  The defense admits all of these.

‘D That the items or
specimens subject of the letter request of the police marked Exhibit ‘C’, and
of the Forensic Report, marked Exhibit
E and certification, Exhibit D, are the same items confiscated from the accused
as testified to by Det. Marvin Pajilan
this morning.  The defense admits all these.

“E That the defendants waive the presentation or production of
the specimens or items that were examined by Forensic Chemist Aida Villoria Magsipok and which were
subject of the examinations referred to in Exhibit E.  The defense waives
his right to be confronted with the said items or specimens.” (pp. 1-3, Order of October 12, 1987)

“After concluding the presentation of his evidence, the Trial
Fiscal formally offered his documentary exhibits, namely, Exhibits “A” & “A-1″, which is the affidavit of Pat. Marvin Pajilan’;
Exhibit “B” (also marked Exhibit 1 for the defense), which is the
final investigation report of Det. Hermie Ortiz; Exhibit “C”, which is the Ietter-request for laboratory examination dated June 2, 1987 made by Pat. Roberto del Prado addressed to the Director of NBI; and Exhibit
“D”, which is the certification dated June 3, 1987 executed by NBI Forensic Chemist Aida R. Villoria-Magsipok. 
The defense counsel objected to Exhibits “A” and
“A-1” on the ground that the same is self-serving but offered no objection to the admission of Exhibit “B”,
“C” & “D”.  The
Court admitted Exhibits “A” and “A-1” as
part of the testimony of Pat. Pajilan.  It also admitted Exhibits B, C and D there
being no objection to their admission.” (Rollo, pp.14-18).

The accused raises the following assignment of errors in this appeal, to wit:

I

“THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN
GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PAT. MARVIN PAJILAN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE
EVIDENCES OF THE DEFENSE.

II

“THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE
ARREST OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS UNLAWFUL.

II

“THE COURT A QUO ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 4, ARTICLE II,
REPUBLIC ACT 6425, AS AMENDED, DESPITE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.” (Rollo, pp.
39-40)

The assigned errors center on the credibility of the
witnesses.  We have carefully reviewed
the records of the case and we are convinced that the illegal sale of marijuana
by the appellant was committed as narrated by the prosecution witnesses.

It is well-settled in our
jurisdiction that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate
courts give great weight to the
findings of fact by the trial courts as they are in a better position of examining real evidence, as well as observing the
demeanor of the witnesses.  (People v. Abonada, G.R. No. 50041, January 27, 1989; People v. Pedrona, G.R. No. 56457, January 27, 1989; People v. Basiga,
G.R. No. 47425, January 13, 1989).

The appellant contends that the police officers had no personal
knowledge that he was indeed
handing marijuana to Enrico Bacod
as they were 10-15 meters away from the
alleged sale transaction.  The arrest
therefore was not valid as the requirements for a warrantless
arrest were not complied with.

The contention is without
merit.

As held in the case of People v. Paco, G.R. No. 76893, February 27, 1989:

“xxx However, the warrantless
arrest made by the law enforcers was valid since it falls under the provisions
of Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court which provides:

“Sec. 5 Arrest without warrant; when lawful.  A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a)          When, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the policemen were not only
authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even
without a warrant of arrest.”

The police officers were tipped
off by an informer about the illegal trade of the accused.  The exact location where this trading in
drugs was taking place was given to them. 
The ‘suspicious stuff’ taken from the accused were
confirmed to be marijuana after tests were conducted on them.

The attendant circumstances taking place before their eyes led
the police officers to reasonably conclude that an offense was actually being
committed.

The appellant next contends that the money allegedly paid to him
in exchange for the marijuana was not offered in evidence.  As such the sale could not be proved.

This Court had the opportunity to rule on this issue recently in
the case of People v. Tejada,
G.R. No. 81520, February 21, 1989:

“xxx The fact that the appellant
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
Rep. Act 6425. xxx

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

So long as the marijuana actually given by the appellant was presented
before the lower court, the absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the prosecution
evidence.”

The appellant alleges that he would not ply such a trade “in
his own home and for a pittance of only P10.00 that he would heedlessly risk
discovery, denunciation or imposition of at least a life term.”

This Court has held in the case of People v. Paco, supra:

“Drug-pushing when done on a small level as in this case
belongs to that class of crimes that nay 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.”

The appellant next argues that it is not a common experience that
a drug pusher would unhesitatingly make an illicit transaction with a person he
was meeting for the first time and in full view of his neighbors.

Once more citing the case of People v. Tejada, supra:

“The circumstances surrounding the sale even served to conceal
the fact that pro­hibited drugs were being sold as people will not usually mind dealings where there is no
sign of furtiveness or misbehavior.

xxx                   xxx                   xxx

Moreover,
what matters is not an existing
familiarity between the buyer and seller
but their agreement and the acts constituting
the sale and delivery of the marijuana
leaves.”

The accused’s evidence consists of mere
denials which constitute self-serving
negative evidence.  Thus, these denials
cannot be given greater evidentiary weight
than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative
matters. (People v. Abonada, supra).

Moreover, no ill motives were imputed to the prosecution
witnesses who happened to be police officers. 
They are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence
of proof to the contrary.  Their
testimonies therefore deserve full faith and credit. (People
v. Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446,
January 31, 1989; People v. Tejada, supra).  There is likewise no question from the
records that the plastic bags
taken from the accused-appellant contained marijuana leaves and the sticks of
cigarettes he gave
to the tricycle driver were marijuana cigarettes.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the amended decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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