PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO GARCIA Y RODRIGUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On the basis of a buy-bust
operation conducted by the Tarlac Provincial Anti-Narcotics team, Alberto
Garcia y Rodriguez was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Tarlac, Tarlac
with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 otherwise known
as “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972”, as amended.

The crime was allegedly committed as follows:

“That on or about October 27, 1988 at around 3:05 o’clock in
the afternoon, in the Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without
being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell two (2) tea bags of marijuana dried leaves, which is in
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
as amended.

“Contrary to law.” (p. 9, Rollo)

When arraigned, the accused-appellant assisted by counsel pleaded
“not guilty.” (p. 17, Rollo)

During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed on the following facts:

“1.   That the name of the accused as appearing in
the complaint is the same person charged with the crime;

“2.   That the alleged incident happened on
October 27, 1988, at 3:05 in the afternoon, at the Public Market of Camiling,
Tarlac, as stated in the information;

“3.   That at the Police Station there was taken
in the possession of the accused two (2) P5.00 bills Nos. MM-654664 and
GJ-529801 to which the accused signed a receipt admitting that they have been
taken from his possession; and

“4.    That the accused is a vendor of native
cakes.” (pp. 17-18, Rollo)

The facts for the prosecution are stated by the Solicitor General
in his Brief for the Appellee as follows:

“The prosecution presented Major Samuelo Cruz, head of the
Tarlac Provincial Anti-Narcotics team, Sgt. Jesus Felipe, Sgt. Vicente
Ballesteros and the PC/INP forensic chemist Marlyn Salangad.  Briefly, they testified to the
following:  that on October 27, 1988, the
Provincial Anti-Narcotics team composed of Sgt. Felipe, Pat. Guillermo, Sgt. de
Guzman, Pat. Gonzales and Sgt. Ballesteros were conducting a buy-bust operation
in Camiling, Tarlac, based on an information from a C.I. (Civilian Informer)
that accused-appellant was selling marijuana (TSN, pp. 28-29, April 30, 1989;
TSN, pp. 4-5, April 20, 1989).  Sgt.
Ballesteros was assigned to act as the poseur-buyer.  Sgt. Ballesteros paid P50.00 (marked money)
for the marijuana he bought from the accused (TSN, p. 9, April 20, 1989).  The buy-bust operation was witnessed by Sgt.
Felipe and the other members of the team (TSN, pp. 29-30, April 30, 1989); that
thereafter, they arrested accused and recovered from his possession two (2)
P5.00 marked bills; that two (2) P20.00 marked bills were not recovered (TSN,
pp. 31-41, April 20, 1989).  Major Cruz
found that the two (2) tea bags of marijuana dried leaves which were submitted
to him by his operatives were positive for marijuana; that Major Cruz sent the
two (2) tea bags of marijuana leaves to the PC/INP Crime Laboratory for
confirmation of his test (TSN, pp. 3-25, April 13, 1989).  Marilyn Salangad, Forensic Chemist who conducted
the laboratory test on the marijuana, testified that, the two (2) tea bags of
marijuana dried leaves submitted to her were positive as marijuana (TSN, pp. 4­-10,
July 11, 1989).  (pp. 2-3, Brief for the
Appellee, p. 44, Rollo)

On the other hand, the accused-appellant has a different version
of the facts, to wit:

“That on October 27, 1988, at around 3:25 o’clock in the
afternoon, the accused while selling native cakes in front of the public market
of Camiling, Tarlac, PC soldiers without any search warrant, searched the body
of the accused and took from his pocket two five peso bills.  He was brought to the INP Station at the
municipal building of Camiling, Tarlac. 
While the accused was inside of the Police Station, without the benefit
of counsel, he was made to sign a mimeographed paper already filled up showing
that the PC soldiers took from his possession the two five peso bills.”
(pp. 27-28, Rollo)

As between these two versions, the trial court gave credence to
that of the prosecution.  The accused
was, thus, found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and was
sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos.

The accused-appellant assails his conviction on the following
grounds:

I

THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING
THAT THE MARIJUANA LEAVES ALLEGEDLY EXAMINED BY THE NBI CHEMIST
WERE TAKEN FROM THE ACCUSED.

II

THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING FULL
CREDIBILITY TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

III

THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.” (p. 44, Rollo, p.
4 of Appellee’s brief)

The foregoing issues raised by appellant bring Us to the question
of – who is more credible, the prosecution or the defense?  On credibility, it is an oft-repeated rule
that this Court will not disturb
the findings of the trial judge unless he has plainly overlooked certain facts
of substance and value that, if considered might affect the result of the
case.  (People v. Javier, 183 SCRA 702)

Accused-appellant contends that “x x x the trial court erred
in concluding that marijuana leaves allegedly examined by the Forensic Chemist
were taken from the accused x x x.” (p. 1, Appellant’s brief)

This contention is simply not tenable.  There is positive testimony that Sgt.
Ballesteros was able to buy marijuana from the accused in a buy-bust operation
in the presence of Sgt. Felipe.  The
prosecution was able to establish that notwithstanding appellant’s denial, the
latter was caught in flagrante as
a result of the buy-bust operation.  Sgt.
Felipe corroborated Sgt. Ballesteros testimony. 
Sgt. Felipe testified as follows:

FISCAL BAUTISTA – continuing.

Q:   Could
you tell this person who told you that this person is selling marijuana?

A:    The
civilian informer, sir.  (C.I.)

Q:   Where
was the place.

A:    Central
of the public market, sir.

Q:   Who
was your buy bust operator in the group?

A:    C-2-C
Ballesteros and De Guzman, sir.

Q:   Were
you personally present when Sgt. Ballesteros made the buy bust operation?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   How
far were you from Sgt. Ballesteros and the accused when he was making a buy
bust operation?

A:    Three
to five men (sic), sir.

Q:   What happened when he was making a
buy-bust operation?

A:    When
we made a buy-bust operation, C-2-C Ballesteros bought marijuana from the
suspect, sir.

Q:   Was
he able to buy?

A:
   Yes, sir.

Q:
  After Sgt. Ballesteros bought
marijuana from the accused, what did you do as member of the operatives, sir.

A:    We
arrested him and brought him to the Camiling Police Station for blotter (sic),
sir.

Q:   Immediately
after you arrested him, did you conduct a search on his person?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   And
did you recover anything from him?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   What
did you recover from him?

A:    We
recovered from him two tea bags of marijuana, sir.

Q:   The
marijuana tea bags and the two five peso bills, do you mean that you recovered
from him the two five peso bills because the two tea bags were already in the
possession of Sgt. Ballesteros?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   Why
did you take these two five – pesos bills from his possession?

A:    We
got the two five – peso bills so that we will have pieces of evidence that we
gave the money to buy the two tea bags, sir.

Q:   Do
you mean to say that the two five – peso bills were marked money?

ATTY. ALCANTARA:

That is leading, Your
Honor.

COURT:

Avoid leading questions.

PROS. BAUTISTA – continuing

Q:   What
made you say that these are marked money?

A:    Because
we got the serial numbers, sir.

Q:   And
what distinguishing marks did you make in order to connote that these are part
of the money which you paid him?

A:    Only
the serial number, sir.”

(TSN, pp. 29-31, April
13, 1989)

It was therefore clearly established that the two tea bags of
marijuana that were sold by appellant to poseur-buyer agent Ballesteros were
the same marijuana that were delivered to the Forensic Chemist which were found
positive for marijuana.  The contention
of the accused that ‘x x x the trial court erred in concluding that the
marijuana leaves allegedly examined by the PC/INP Forensic Chemist were taken
from the accused, is therefore belied by the records.  Marilyn Salangad, a graduate of chemistry
from the MAPUA University, a reputable school, former instructress of the
Pampanga Provincial College before joining the PC/INP as Forensic chemist,
testified thus:

Q:   You
received this Exhibit ‘E’ referring to the plastic bag now under the same
condition as you presented it to
the Court?

A:    They
are sealed, I opened them for examination, sir.

Q:   How
were they sealed?

A:    By
flame, sir.

Q:   When
did you actually receive them?

A:    On
November 7, 1988 at 11:35 a.m., sir.

Q:   As
a matter of fact you received several specimens on that date?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   And
also as a matter of fact you conducted examination on this plastic bag marked
Exhibit ‘E’ with other specimens you just mentioned awhile ago?

A:    I
examined one at a time, sir.

Q:   But
you conducted several examinations on the same day?

A:    Yes,
sir.

PROS. BAUTISTA:

Already explained, Your
Honor.

ATTY.
ALCANTARA:

Q:  
There is a label appearing on the plastic bag Exhibit ‘E’ NB-472-88, who
placed this?

A:    I
was the one, sir.

Q:   In
other words when you received the plastic bag there was no identification
whatsoever?

PROS. BAUTISTA

We object, Your
Honor.  According to the previous
testimony of the witness there were submitted to her with the request.

ATTY. ALCANTARA

Q:   Except
with the request?

A:    There
were markings on the plastic bag but I do not know who placed them, sir.

Q:   Are
you referring to the small plastic bags inside the plastic bag?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   There
is a marking on this one plastic bag, 1.24 with unreadable thing, who placed
this marking?

A:    My
marking is in black ballpen, the weight is 1.24 and my initial is there, I
received the same.

Q:   In
other words you personally placed this marking on that plastic bag?

A:    Yes,
sir, except those in blue pentel pen.

Q:   Are
your marking on blue pentel pen?  I only
see those in black ink?

A:    On
the first plastic bag what I can read is Alberto Garcia, second plastic bag
also Alberto Garcia.

COURT

Q:   These
Alberto Garcia were written in?

A:    Plastic
Bag, sir.

(TSN pp. 11-13, July 11,
1989)

The above testimony corroborates that of Maj. Cruz, when the
latter testified, thus:

Q:    So, am I right if
I would say that these two tea bags allegedly containing marijuana were not
submitted personally by Ballesteros?

A:    Sgt.
Felipe submitted it to me and it was acknowledged by
the suspect because he signed the plastic
receipt of these two tea bags, sir.”
(stress supplied)

(TSN, p. 13, April 13,
1989)

(pp. 5-11, Appellee’s
brief, p. 44, Rollo)

With the foregoing testimonial evidence, We are constrained to
give credence to the witnesses of the prosecution who had proven beyond
reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime of which
accused-appellant was charged.  After
all, “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is defined under Rule 133,
section 2 of the Rules of Court as follows:

“x x x Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty.  Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind.”

In the instant case, there is clear proof that accused-appellant
was caught in flagrante delicto, – in the very act of selling two
(2) tea bags of marijuana dried leaves. 
The prosecution witnesses competently narrated the pertinent details
attendant to the crime.  In the absence
of any motive shown on the part of the Anti-narcotics team to implicate the
accused-appellant and considering the foregoing evidence for the prosecution,
We agree with the trial court’s assessment that the presumption of innocence in
favor of the accused-appellant has been overcome.  As aptly found by the trial court –

“With some relevant facts having been admitted and established
during the pre-trial conference (p. 46, Record), the Court finds only two
remaining issues to be resolved, to wit: 
firstly, the nature or essence of the two (2) tea bags of dried
marijuana leaves; and secondly, the credibility of the witnesses.

“On the first issue: 
The Court finds incontrovertible the scientific determination of the two
(2) tea bags of dried leaves as positive marijuana dried leaves.  The field test preliminarily conducted by
Maj. Samuelo Cruz indicated the questioned leaves as positive marijuana dried
leaves.  While such examination may be
doubted as self?serving as Maj. Samuelo Cruz is the Chief of the
Provincial Anti-Narcotics Team (TSN, p. 12, April 13, 1989), such doubt was
completely resolved and settled by the professional and disinterested
confirmation (Exh. ‘C’) of his field test by Marilyn Salangad, a Forensic
Chemist of the PC-INP Laboratory.

“On the second issue: 
The prosecution witnesses point to the accused as the seller of the two
(2) tea bags of marijuana dried leaves. 
The accusation was denied by the accused.  Which side then is more credible?  The prosecution witnesses, namely:  Maj. Samuelo Cruz, Sgt. Jesus Felipe, Sgt.
Jose Felipe and Cpl. Ballesteros.

“On the other hand, the accused merely denied the charge
against him without even proving anything to show the improper motive or reason
on the part of the witnesses for the prosecution by way of discrediting
them.  Further, the condition of the
accused as a native cake vendor precludes any reasonable suspicion that a group
of government agents/investigators will single him out to effect vengeance or
gainful advantage.

“Accused-appellant has not also pointed to any evil or bad
motive that prompted the police officers to testify against him and since these
prosecution witnesses have no reason to impute falsely on the defendant the
commission of so grave an offense, they deserve credence and belief.”
(People v. Borbano, 76 Phil. 702, People v. Albapara, 22 SCRA 1043).

“The foregoing considerations point to the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.” (pp. 36-37, Rollo)

The argument x x x that considering the place of the alleged
transaction of the sale of marijuana being a bus terminal and considering the
time being 3:25 o’clock in the afternoon and there were many people around when the
transaction took place x x x portrays an unbelievable situation wherein a
person who was allegedly engaged as drug pusher, carries out his illegal trade
openly x x x ” (p. 28, Rollo) is likewise, untenable.  In People
v. Paco, (170 SCRA 681) We held –

“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].”

Finally, accused-appellant also assails the fact that the team
confiscated the two P5.00 bills without a search warrant.  This contention is also not tenable.  Having caught the accused 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.  And since appellant’s arrest was lawful, it
follows that the search made incidental to the arrest was also valid.  (People v. Paco, supra)

Drug addiction is one of the most pernicious evils that have ever
crept into our society.  More often than
not it is the young who constitute the greater majority of the citizenry who
are the victims.  It is of common
knowledge that drug addicts become useless if not dangerous members of society and in some instances turn up
to be among the living dead.  This is the
reason why the courts and law enforcement agencies should continue in their
relentless campaign not merely to minimize but to totally eradicate the evil
before it is too late.  And everyone must be involved in this drive
if we are to succeed.  The peddlers of
drugs are actually agents of destruction. 
They deserve no less than
the maximum penalty.  (People v.
Policarpio, 158 SCRA 851)

Premises considered,
the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Sarmiento, J., on leave.