PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SUSANA NAPAT-A Y MACABIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant, Susana Napat-a,
was convicted of drug-pushing by the Regional Trial Court, Branch VI, Baguio City,
and sentenced “to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND
(P20,000) PESOS without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency and to pay the costs.”

On February
3, 1985, the
Narcotics Regional Unit in Baguio City received information that a certain Susana Napat–a was looking for a buyer of
marijuana leaves.  Acting on this report,
Captain Emmanuel Manzano formed a group composed of
C1C Leo Quevedo, A2C Serafin
Artizona and Pat. Maximiano Peralta, to conduct a
buy-bust operation.  The group
proceeded to the public market on Magsaysay Avenue.  There, the informer introduced to the
appellant his companion, C1C Leo Quevedo, as an
interested buyer of marijuana.  Pat.
Peralta, who was then posted at a strategic distance, heard Quevedo
order three (3) kilos of dried marijuana leaves for the price of P800 per kilo
set by Napat-a.

Having closed the deal,
the appellant, accompanied by Quevedo and the
informer, rode on a jeep to Brookside, Baguio City.  Artizona and Peralta took a taxi and followed
them.  Upon reaching Brookside, Peralta and Artizona
posted themselves near a store. 
They observed Quevedo and the informer
standing at the junction of lower and upper Brookside
waiting for Susana Napat-a.  The latter soon reappeared carrying a brown
carton box which she handed to Quevedo who thereupon
made the pre-arranged signal.  On seeing Quevedo’s signal, Peralta and Artizona
rushed to the scene.  C1C Quevedo held
Susana by the arm and placed her under arrest. 
The three narcotics agents brought her to their office for
investigation.  Quevedo,
Artizona and Peralta, executed a joint affidavit (Exh. H) narrating the
circumstances leading to the arrest of the appellant.

The contents of the brown
carton box were referred to Lt. Carlos Figueroa, a forensic chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory in Camp Bado Dangwa, for examination.  In his Chemistry Report No. D-019-85 (Exh.
G), Lt. Figueroa affirmed that a qualitative examination of the specimens taken
from the brown carton box showed them to be marijuana.

In her defense, the appellant claimed that she was a vegetable
vendor in the market; that on February
3, 1985 at about 10:30 A.M.
she went home to Brookside to
cook food for her children.  On her way back to
the city market, she met Naty Doguiwen,
who was also a vegetable vendor.  Naty Doguiwen was holding a small
box.  While they were waiting for a ride, a man approached Naty.  The two talked (which appellant could not
hear), then Naty handed to the man the box she was holding. 
Suddenly two men approached Naty who speedily
ran away.  The two men gave chase but
were unable to catch her.  To Susana’s
surprise, the two men came back and arrested her.  She was brought to headquarters where she was
investigated.  She submitted her counter-affidavit to the City Fiscal (Exh. 1).

On cross-examination, appellant admitted she signed Exhibit
“I” for the prosecution which shows that her rights were read to her
before the investigation.  She was
informed of her right to remain silent and to have counsel.  All this took place on February 3, 1985 in the presence of her counsel,
Atty. Ricardo Tangalin, of the IBP Legal Aid
Office.  During the investigation, she
signed a receipt for the property that was seized from her and marked as
Exhibit “J”.  She admitted that
the brown carton box containing four bundles of dried marijuana leaves weighing
about three (3) kilos, were seized from her at M. Roxas,
Brookside, Baguio City
on February 3, 1985, at 2:30
P.M.  During the custodial
investigation, she waived her rights under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, so the investigation could continue (Exh. K).

In this appeal, appellant
impugns the receipt (Exh. J) she
signed.  She alleges that the receipt is
inadmissible as evidence against her because her constitutional right against
self-incrimination was violated when she was made to sign it without being
informed of her rights to counsel and to remain silent.

This contention has no
merit.  Appellant admitted at the trial
that she was assisted by counsel when she signed Exhibit “J” (t.s.n. March 7, 1988, p. 17). 
She also signed the Investigation Report dated February
3, 1985 (Exh. I) which states that during the custodial
investigation, she was informed of her right to remain silent and to counsel,
and that she was assisted by Atty. Ricardo Tangalin
of the IBP Legal Aid Office (t.s.n. March 7, 1988, p.
15).

Appellant questions the
non-presentation of the poseur-buyer (Quevedo) who
died before the trial, and the informer, as witnesses at the trial.  But, as the trial court pointed out, the
death of Quevedo did not destroy the case of the
prosecution, for the sale and actual delivery of the marijuana by appellant to Quevedo were witnessed by Pat. Peralta
and A2C Artizona, who testified at the trial (t.s.n. Nov. 7,
1986, pp. 3-4).

In support of her denial,
appellant cited the testimony of A2C Artizona that he
did not see her handing the brown carton box to Quevedo
(t.s.n. August 27, 1987, p. 9). 
However, Peralta testified that he saw her give the illegal
package to the poseur-buyer (t.s.n. November 7, 1986, p. 5).  The positive identification of the accused as
the seller of the marijuana prevails over her denials.

Her defense that she was
framed up by the NARCOM team is the usual story of drug pushers or sellers,
which does not impress us (People vs. Agapito, 154
SCRA 694).  The law enforcers are
presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of proof to
the contrary (People vs. Natipravot, 145 SCRA 483;
People vs. Asio, G.R. No. 84960, September 1, 1989).

Appellant’s contention
that the trial court erred in convicting
her in view of the prosecution’s
failure to present to the Court the brown carton box (Exh.
B) and its contents (dried marijuana leaves) (Exhs. C, D, E and F) is not well
taken.  Carlos V. Figueroa, Forensic
Chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory, testified that the box and its contents
were presented, identified and marked as exhibits in court (t.s.n.
November 6, 1985, pp. 3-8).  The
subsequent loss of these exhibits did not affect the case for the trial court
had described the evidence in the records (t.s.n. April 13, 1988, p. 2).  In People vs. Mate, 103 SCRA 484, we
ruled that “(e)ven
without the exhibits which have been incorporated into the records of the case,
the prosecution can still establish the case because the witnesses properly
identified those exhibits and their testimonies
are recorded.” Furthermore, in this case, appellant’s counsel had
cross-examined the prosecution witnesses who testified on those exhibits
(t.s.n. November
6, 1985, pp. 8-9).

WHEREFORE, we
affirm the decision of the trial court finding appellant Susana Napta-a guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated
Section 21(b), Article IV, in relation to Section 4, Article II of R.A. No.
6425, as amended, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000) without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency.  The effects of the
crime are forfeited in favor of the State and referred to the Dangerous Drugs
Board for immediate destruction.  Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.