PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO ENRIQUE, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant, Antonio Enrique, Jr. was charged before the
Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan,
Branch VII, with violation of Section 4, Art. II in relation to Section 2, par.
(e), No. 1 and par. (1), Article I of RA No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.  The
information filed against him reads:

“That on or about May 9, 1988, in the municipality of Aparri, province of Cagayan, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, Antonio
Enrique, Jr., y Gumtang, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give
away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver five
(5) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, as prohibited drug, to one Patrolman Danilo Natividad, a member of the
Integrated National Police (INP) and assigned with the 2nd Narcotics Regional
Unit, Narcotics Command, who was then posing as a buyer of the said prohibited
drug for the consideration of TEN (P10.00) PESOS.

“Contrary to law.” (Rollo, p. 11)

Upon arraignment, the accused entered a plea of not guilty to the
crime charged (Records, p. 67).  After trial on the merits, the court rendered
its decision on September 14, 1989,
the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Antonio
Enrique, Jr. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.  Accordingly, the accused Antonio Enrique, Jr.
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a
fine of P20,000.00. 
The marijuana cigarettes subject of this case is (sic) hereby forfeited
in favor of the government.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, p. 17)

Hence, this appeal with the following assignment of errors:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I

THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF
THE CRIME CHARGE BASING ITS FINDINGS ON INADMISSABLE EVIDENCE;

II

THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF
THE TEN PESOS BILL WHOSE SERIAL NUMBER IS NOT EVEN ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION;

IIl

THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REQUIRING THE PROSECUTION
THE SUPPOSED INFORMER TO TESTIFY IN COURT AND IN SO DOING THE ACCUSED WAS NOT
GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM AND WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW; (Rollo, p. 26)

The antecedent facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

“From the records, briefly stated, the court finds the
following facts:  From the information
supplied by the civilian informer whose identity cannot be divulged for security reason that one alias Bong of Aparri,
Cagayan was engaged in selling marijuana cigarettes, a team composed of Pat. Alejandro Quebalayan and Danilo Natividad, both of the 2nd
Narcotic Unit, Regional Command, Tuguegarao, Cagayan and Pat. Porfirio Divina of the INP Aparri, Cagayan was organized. 
Pat Danilo Natividad
acted as poser buyer; A marked P10.00 bill with Serial
No. CN-741017 was provided him as the buy money.  At 2:45 P.M.
on May 9, 1988, the suspect
Alias Bong was approached by Pat. Natividad.  Bong handed
something to Pat. Natividad who in turn handed the
marked P10.00 bill; After confirming that the thing handed was a marijuana
cigarette, Pat. Natividad gave the pre-arranged
signal to the team headed by Pat. Quebalayan to
close-in and effect his arrest.

“The items, Exhibit ‘B-1’ to ‘B-5’ (rolled cigarettes) after a
field test was found positive of marijuana. 
In like manner, Pol./Capt.
Benjamin Rubio, Bio-Chemist, Chief of the PC/INP Crime Laboratory Service based
at Echague,
Isabela, after conducting a qualitative examination
on the five sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes gave positive report to
the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.” (Rollo,
p. 16)

In this appeal, the accused-appellant vigorously insists in his
innocence.  He asserts that the arresting
officers did not confiscate sticks of marijuana or any marked money from him; that
exhibits “A” (ten peso bill; “A-1” (serial number of the
money):  “A-2” (initial of the
witness above the serial number); “B” (the first pack which is fully
opened); “B-1” to “B-5” (another pack confiscated from the
suspect); “D” (certificate of Field Testing); “D-1”
(signature of Maj. Geary Barias; “E”
(laboratory result); “E-1” (qualitative result of the laboratory
test); and “E-2” (signature of Capt. Rubio) should have not been
admitted by the trial court since there was no confiscation receipt shown; that
the admission of exhibits “A” – “A-2,” “B” TO “B-5” and “C,”
was erroneous because the same were taken during custodial investigation and
therefore, violative of the constitution; and that
exhibit “A” should have been rejected because its serial number was
neither alleged nor mentioned in the information.  (Rollo, pp. 26-29)

We affirm.

Appellant completely misses the whole point of his prosecution
and ultimate conviction under RA 6425. 
He was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana cigarettes to a
poseur-buyer in exchange for money.  The
commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana requires merely the
consummation of the selling transaction (People v. Macuto,
G.R. No. 80112, August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 762). 
The serial number of the marked money need not even be stated in the
information.  In one case, We held that the non-presentation of the marked money at the
trial is not indispensable to the conviction of the accused-appellant (see
People v. Recedas, G.R. No. 83372, February 27, 1991).  What is important is the fact that the
poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the appellant and that the said
cigarettes were presented in court as evidence (see Macuto
case, ibid).  Having
been caught in the act of selling a prohibited drug, appellant’s arrest was
lawful under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, Section 5(a), thereof.  The marked money and the marijuana cigarettes
were immediately seized by the arresting officers contrary to appellant’s
allegation that the same were taken during the custodial investigation.  In fact, there was a receipt of the property
seized from the accused-appellant signed by the arresting officers and a copy
thereof was furnished him.  The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is
in itself lawful (People v. Claudio, G.R. No. 72564, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 646).  Hence, whatever is found in the accused­-appellant’s
possession or in his control may be seized and used in evidence against him
(see Alvero v. Dizon, 76
Phil. 637).  Apart from the seized items,
the NARCOM officer, in a clear and categorical manner, testified to the
circumstances of the appellant’s entrapment and arrest which was corroborated
by the testimony of his companion officer, to wit:

“PROSECUTOR UNCIANO:

As of May 9, 1988, what position of
responsibility were you holding in the government service, if any?

“PAT. DANILO P. NATIVIDAD

“A.   I was detailed at
the Narcotics Intelligence/Operative and at the same time investigator which
covers the whole Region 02, sir.

“Q.  And on May 9, 1988, at around 2:45 in the afternoon, do you remember where were you (sic)?

“A.   Yes, your Honor, I
was at Valdez Restaurant at Macanaya
Street, Aparri, Cagayan.

“Q.  Were you alone then?

“A.   No, your Honor, I have my members of the Narcotics Intelligence
Operative to conduct narcotics operation in that area.

“Q.  Who were the members
who were with you?

“A.   I
myself, Pat. Porfirio Divina,
Pat. Quebalayan and Sgt. Dabbay, sir.

“Q.  And while at the
Valdez Restaurant, at that time at Aparri, Cagayan, what happened thereat?

“A.   I met a certain
Bong, alias bong, who sold to me five marijuana sticks and as a consequence I
paid the same in the amount of P10.00 previously marked money, sir.

“Q.  What happened next?

“A.   Then I gave the
pre-arranged signal to the members who were there to make the arrest, sir.

“Q.  If that Antonio
Enrique, Jr, is in court, can you point to him?

“A.   Yes,
sir.

“Q.  Please point to him.

(The witness pointed to
a person sitting in one of the benches of the court and when asked his name, he
gave the name of Antonio Enrique, Jr.)

“Q.   You said that you paid P10.00 for the
cigarettes to the accused, can you still recognize that P10.00 bill if
presented to you?

“A.   Yes, sir.

“Q.   Showing to you Exhibit ‘A’, What relation has this P10.00 bill to that which you said
you used in paying for the marijuana cigarettes?

“A.   This is the same P10.00 bill which I paid to the accused for the purchase of
marijuana cigarettes, sir.

“Q.   From whom did you take that money?

“A.   It was given to me by Pat. Quebalayan as
team leader, sir.

“Q.   Why do you say that that (sic) is the same?

“A.   It was initialed by our team leader, Pat. Quebalayan, sir.

“Q.   Show to the Honorable Court the initial that
you alleged?

(The witness pointed
to a portion in the P10.00 bill
which was previously marked as Exhibit ‘A-2’)

“Q.   And you said that you bought five marijuana
sticks. If those five marijuana cigarettes will be presented to you, can you
still recognize the same?

“A.   Yes, your Honor.

“Q.   Showing to you this pack marked as Exhibit
‘B’ which contained Exhibit ‘B-1’ for the first roll, Exhibit ‘B-2’ for the
second roll, Exhibit ‘B-3’ for the third roll, Exhibit ‘B-4’ for the fourth
roll, Exhibit ‘B-5’ for the fifth roll. 
Tell the Honorable Court what are those?

“A.   These are the same marijuana cigarettes which
I bought from Antonio Enrique, Jr., sir.” (TSN, July 6, 1989, pp. 26-29)

“x x x

“Prosecutor Unciano

“Q   For what purpose were you sent here at Aparri, Cagayan?

“Patrolman Alejandro Quebalayan

“A    We
were sent here purposely to effect and (sic) arrest the activities of a certain
alias Bong which is engaged in selling marijuana cigarettes, sir, in Aparri, Cagayan.

“Q   On
that date, May 9, 1988, at
around 2:45 in the afternoon, where were you particularly?

“A    We
were here particularly at Macanaya
Street, infront of
Valdez Restaurant, Aparri, Cagayan,
sir.

“Q   You
said we, who were your companions, if any?

“A    My
companions were Pat. Danilo Natividad,
Pat. Profirio Divina and PO3 Ellie Dabbay,
sir.

“Q   And when at the Valdez Restaurant at that
time 2:45 in the afternoon, what if anything happened thereafter?

“A    At Valdez Restaurant, we saw the
suspect approaching Pat. Danilo Natividad than (sic) they had a
conversation with each other. 
After a few minutes, we saw the suspect handing something to Pat. Danilo Natividad and upon return, Pat. Danilo
Natividad gave a P10.00 bill previously marked money to the suspect as payment then
Pat. Danilo Natividad
inspected the contents which suspect Bong gave to him and indeed it was
marijuana cigarettes.  Pat. Natividad gave us the pre-arranged signal to the members of
the raiding team to close-in, sir.

“Q   And
what happened when they closed-in?

“A    Upon
close-in we made the arrest of alias Bong, sir.

“Q   Who
is this alias Bong in relation to the accused Antonio Enrique?

“A    He
gave us his true name as Antonio Enrique, sir.” (ibid, pp. 11-13)

There was no showing that the arresting
officers knew the accused-appellant before his arrest.  There was likewise no evidence of any
ill-motive which would have impelled these officers to accuse the appellant of
the crime.  On the Other hand, the
entrapment and arrest of the appellant were done at Valdez Restaurant at past two o’clock in the afternoon.  At that time, there must have been
eyewitnesses to the incident.  Yet, appellant has not presented anyone who could have bolstered his
defense that he is not the owner of the contraband items and that the
charges against him are fabricated.  In
the absence of any controverting evidence, the
testimonies of these officers are given full faith and credence as they are
presumed to be in the regular performance of their official duties.

We note however that, during the investigation, the
accused-appellant, unassisted by counsel, wrote his name on the rolled
marijuana cigarettes.  Pat. Quebalayan testified that the accused affixed his name
thereon voluntarily and that this gesture was intended as a security against
substitution (TSN, July 6, 1989, p. 24). 
Yet, he and the other arresting officers exerted no efforts to inform
the accused-appellant of his rights under custodial investigation.  In effect, appellant’s act amounted to an
admission of his culpability in violation of the constitution.  Such admission is therefore inadmissible as
evidence (see People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 86172, March 4, 1991 and People v. delas
Marinas, G.R. No. 87215, April 30, 1991).  Notwithstanding this setback for the
prosecution, appellant cannot be acquitted because his conviction did not rest
solely on his admission.  He has
completely failed to rebut by contrary evidence the testimonies and documentary
evidence presented by the prosecution.

Appellant then complains about the delayed laboratory examination
on the alleged marijuana cigarettes.  He
contends that the actual chemical examination was made on July 7, 1989 when the alleged confiscation of
the contraband items took place on May
9, 1988.  He voices out his
apprehension about the possibility of substitution as the marijuana cigarettes
brought to the chemist of the PC Narcotics Command were placed in a brown
envelop and only stapled (Rollo, pp. 32-33).

It is true that the marijuana cigarettes were brought to the
laboratory of the P.C. Narcotics Command at Echague
for examination much later from the time of its confiscation.  Nonetheless, an immediate field testing was
conducted by Major Barias on the cigarettes (Exh. D, Records, p. 5), as follows:

“Q.  Did you investigate that pusher in your
office?

“A.  Yes, sir.  We arrested him and brought (sic) to my office
on May 9, 1988, and investigated or conducted (sic) but we released the suspect
after the initial investigation, sir.

“Q.  And was there any specimen submitted to
you as a result of the arrest?

“A.   Yes, sir.

“Q.  And what did you do with those specimen?

“A.  These specimen which consist of dried
marijuana leaves and (sic) I conduct (sic) a field testing in my office to make
sure that this evidence was in deed a marijuana and the result the field
testing wherein I used NARCOTEST DISPOSAKIT 9 and it indicated that the liquid
inside turned red which is an indication that the specimen is indeed a
marijuana, sir.

“Q.
By the way, you said marijuana did
you have to go (sic) under gone any training?

“A.  Yes, sir I under went training and
this was one of the subject that we had during the said training.

“Q. And in the specimen that you said you tested, please describe to
this Honorable Court?

“A.  Yes, sir from a marijuana sticks that
was (sic) presented to me. These dried leaves that I did only some and I placed
inside the disposakit and which we acted (sic) inside
and it proved that these specimen is indeed a
marijuana, sir.” (TSN, July, 19, 1989, pp. 44-46)

This kind of test is judicially
admissible.  We have held that a chemical
analysis is not an indispensable prerequirement to
establish whether a certain substance offered in evidence is a prohibited drug
or not and that the ability to recognize these drugs can be acquired without a
knowledge of chemistry to such an extent that the testimony of a witness on the
point may be entitled to great weight (United States v. Sy
Liongco, 33 Phil. 54).  On the basis of the positive result of the
test and the marked money, the arresting officers filed a summary of the
information at the Municipal Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, on May 19, 1988. 
Thereafter, the Biochemist of the PC Crime Laboratory,
Regional Unit 2 (Exh. E, p. 82) confirmed the
presence of marijuana in the confiscated cigarettes.  Thus, appellant’s other fear that the
cigarettes taken from him may have been changed just because these cigarettes
were belatedly brought to the chemist in a brown mailing envelope duly stapled
cannot be entertained.  This envelope was
not carelessly entrusted to anyone but a courier from the Narcotics Command
headed by Major Barias.  Besides, appellant’s apprehension was not
accompanied by any substantial and strong evidence to convince Us of the possibility of foul play in transporting the
package to the P.C. Crime Laboratory.

Lastly, appellant impugns the non-presentation of the NARCOM
informer at the trial.  He claims that he
was denied the opportunity to cross examine the alleged informer and that he
concludes that such failure to present the informer as a witness is proof of
the prosecution’s weak evidence (Rollo, p. 35).

Appellant’s contention is unmeritorious.  There was no need to present the testimony of
the NARCOM informer as the same would merely be corroborative and
cumulative.  In People v. Sanchez (G.R.
No. 77588, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 305, 313), We
declared that:

“x x x.  Since the
testimony of the police informer was similarly not essential for conviction of
the accused, his identity may remain confidential:  there are strong practical reasons for such
continued secrecy, including the continued health and safety of the informer
and the encouragement of others to report wrong doing to the police
authorities. x x x.”

In the light of the foregoing, We hold
that the trial court did not err in convicting the accused?appellant.  The evidence on record has fully established
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
However, the trial court imposed upon the accused-appellant the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20,000.00.  Under
Section 4 of RA 6425 as amended by PD No. 1675, the penalty for the sale,
administration, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs
is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty
thousand pesos.  Conformably with law,
the penalty that should be imposed for the crime committed by the accused-appellant
should instead be life imprisonment and a fine in the amount of P20,000.00.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED
subject to the modification as above?indicated.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Cruz,
Feliciano, and Griño-Aquino,
JJ., concur.