THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TIRZO CELIZ AND JULIUS BANGERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Accused-appellants seek a reversal of the decision, dated 31 January
1990,^[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, of Iloilo City, finding them guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No.
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and
sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000.00,
jointly and severally, and to pay the costs.

The information filed by Acting Iloilo Provincial Fiscal Enrique
M. Gumban reads as follows:

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accused (sic) TIRZO CELIZ y
Cerbo alias ‘Nick’; and JULIUS BANGERO y Banas alias ‘Totong’ of a Violation of
Sec. 4, Art. II, of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 committed as follows:

That on or about May 24, 1986, in the Municipality of San Enrique,
Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the
said accused, conspiring, confederating and working together to better realize
their purpose, without any justifiable motive and with deliberate intent did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, cede, deliver and/or
give away one (1) match box, marked ‘Sunset’ of dried marijuana flowering tops
placed inside an evidence plastic bag to DANILO LAYAO for the amount of THIRTY
(P30.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, a source of prohibited drugs, without the
authority to deliver and/or sell the same to any buyer or buyers.”^[2]

Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: PC Lt. Zenaida Sinfuego, a Forensic Chemist
of the Philippine Constabulary, Iloilo City; Danilo Layao, a civilian agent of
the NARCOM, Region VI; and PC C1C Raul Labramonte of the Special Operation Unit
of NARCOM Region VI in Iloilo City. Their testimonies may be summarized as follows:

After being informed that there was a person selling prohibited
drugs in San Enrique, Iloilo, Col. Jesus Senador, Commanding Officer of the
Narcotics Command, Region VI (NARCOM VI, for short), directed his subordinates
to conduct a buy-bust operation in the said area. After conducting a two-day surveillance of the area, on 24 May
1986, during the town fiesta of San Enrique, NARCOM agent C1C Raul Labramonte,
together with Capt. Salde, Sgt. Benito Bonete, Sgt. Agado and their civilian
agent, Danilo Layao, arrived at the town plaza of San Enrique. After reconnoitering around, they saw the
two (2) accused who were pointed out to them by Layao’s friend, a certain
Roel. C1C Labramonte then directed
Danilo Layao to follow the two (2) accused and inquire from them if they were
selling marijuana. Earlier, while still
at the NARCOM VI office, C1C Labramonte handed over to Layao marked peso bills
to be used in buying the marijuana – one (1) P20.00 bill and two (2) P5.00 bills.

Layao then approached the two (2) accused and inquired if they
had marijuana to sell and was told by the accused that they would sell him a
match box of dried marijuana leaves for thirty pesos (P30.00). Meanwhile, the two (2) NARCOM agents, C1C
Labramonte and Sgt. Bonete, in civilian clothes, stationed themselves at a
discreet distance to observe the transaction between Layao and the two (2)
accused. Upon receipt from Danilo Layao
of the marked money, the two (2) accused went to a corner of the public market
and returned after about twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) minutes and handed
over to Danilo Layao a match box. Upon
seeing Tirzo Celiz hand over to Layao the match box, Labramonte, who was then
about a meter away from the three, immediately approached and got the match box
from Layao and arrested the two (2) accused who were about to run away. He introduced himself to the two as a NARCOM
agent and the latter submitted themselves peacefully to the former who brought
them to the police station of San Enrique, Iloilo.

At the police station, Labramonte searched the two (2) accused in
the presence of the local policemen and recovered the marked money,
namely: the P20.00 bill from Tirso
Celiz and the two (2) P5.00 bills from Julius Bangero from their respective
wallets. Later, together with the rest
of his team, he brought the two (2) accused to the NARCOM VI headquarters at
General Luna St., Iloilo City, where he turned over to the NARCOM investigator
the two (2) accused, and the match box full of dried marijuana leaves. The marked bills which were duly initialed
by the two (2) accused upon order of Labramonte were turned over to the NARCOM
property custodian, Sgt. Rodrigo Cabasa. The corresponding receipt (Exh. “E”) was issued by Labramonte
to the two (2) accused who acknowledged receipt thereof by signing it. It was at this point when C1C Labramonte
discovered that Tirzo Celiz signed as Tirzo Cerbo, using his mother’s surname,
while Julius Bangero tried to use a fictitious name so as to hide his identity
because he had a pending case in Passi, Iloilo.

The contents of the match box were submitted to the Philippine
Constabulary Crime Laboratory (PCCL) for testing. Lt. Zenaida Sinfuego testified on the conduct of her examination
to determine whether the specimens contained in the match box were positive for
marijuana. Her examina­tion revealed
that the samples taken from the match box were positive for marijuana and she
submitted a report (Exh. “C”) to this effect.

On the other hand, the defense presented the two (2) accused and
Gonzalo Arcosa, the Barangay Captain of Kompo, San Enrique, Iloilo, as
witnesses.

Accused Julius Bangero testified that he was arrested together
with Tirzo Celiz at the public plaza of San Enrique, Iloilo. He said that he and Celiz first met during
the celebration of the fiesta of Brgy. Kompo, San Enrique, Iloilo, on 28 April
1986 and met again during the fiesta celebration of San Enrique, Iloilo, on 24
May 1986. He claims that while they
were walking “hand in hand” around the plaza watching the games being
played at the plaza, a person suddenly came from behind, accosted them, placed
his hands on their shoulders and grasped both of them. According to Bangero, the man (who turned
out to be C1C Labramonte) asked each of them if they were the person he was
looking for and gave a certain name. When they answered in the negative, the man said they were lying and
brought them to the Municipal Hall of San Enrique, Iloilo, where they were
separately investigated for possession of marijuana contained in a match
box. When both of them denied
possessing the marijuana, they were brought to the INP city jail at Gen. Luna
St., Iloilo City. He stated that he was
forced to sign a document while inside the jail after he was threatened, boxed
and hit with the butt of an armalite rifle by an unknown person. He vehemently denied having peddled illegal
drugs and insisted that he must have been mistaken for another person by the
arresting officer.

The other accused, Tirzo Celiz, in most aspects corroborated
Bangero’s testimony. He also denied
having been caught in the act of handing over to a person (Layao) the match box
containing marijuana leaves and receiving money in return from the latter. Neither was money taken from him while being
investigated by the arresting officer at the San Enrique Municipal Jail. He repeated Bangero’s claim that he was
arrested due to mistaken identity. He
avers that he signed Exhibit “E-2” under duress while at the NARCOM
VI headquarters in Iloilo City.

The other defense witness, Gonzalo Arcosa, Barangay Captain of
Brgy. Kompo, San Enrique, Iloilo, testified that he knew very well the accused
Tirzo Celiz as the latter used to work at his parents’ farm after school; that
as a barangay captain, he had not heard or known that Tirzo Celiz was involved
in any trouble of any kind. He claims
that he has not heard that marijuana was being peddled in their barangay,
although he admitted that he could not have known the habits of each of the one
thousand three hundred (1,300) residents of Brgy. Kompo.

The accused assail the decision of the court a quo
convicting them by contending that –

I

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE
CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE INFORMATION DOES NOT CHARGE AN OFFENSE.

II

ASSUMING THAT THE INFORMATION CHARGES AN
OFFENSE, THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE INFORMATION ON THE GROUND
OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Accused-appellants argue that the information does not charge an
offense because it failed to allege the essential element that the dried
marijuana flowering tops taken from the accused produce “the physiological
effects of a narcotic or a hallucinogenic drug.” They further aver that a
substantial defect in the information cannot be cured by evidence for,
otherwise, the defendant is denied his constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

This deluding argument of appellants fails in the light of the
express provisions of R.A. No. 6425 which penalize “any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act
as a broker in any of such transactions.”^[3]
The same act defines prohibited drugs as follows:

“(e) ‘Dangerous Drugs’
— refers to either:

(1) ‘Prohibited drug,’ which includes opium and its active components and
derivatives, such as heroin and morphine; coca leaf and its derivatives,
principally cocaine; alpha and beta eucaine; hallucinogenic drugs, such as mescaline,
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and other substances producing similar
effects; Indian hemp and its derivatives; all preparations made from any
of the foregoing; and other drugs, prepara­tions, whether natural or synthetic,
with the physiological effects of a narcotic or halluci­nogenic drug.” (underscoring
supplied).^[4]

Section 2(i), Article I of R.A. 6425 defines Indian Hemp as:

(i) ‘Indian Hemp’ – otherwise known as ‘marijuana,’ embraces every kind,
class, genus or specie of the plant cannabis sativa L., including cannabis
americana, hashish, bhang, guaza, churrus and ganjab, and embraces every kind,
class and character thereof, whether dried or fresh and flowering or fruiting
tops or any parts or portions of the plant, seeds thereof, and all its
geographic varieties, whether as a reefer, resin, extract, tincture or in any
form whatsoever;”

As correctly averred by the Solicitor General, an allegation that
marijuana produces the physiological effects of a narcotic or hallucinogenic
drug is not essential in the information. It is merely descriptive of what a “prohibited drug” is, but
it does not form part of the definition or description of the offense penalized
by Republic Act No. 6425.

The second assigned error is likewise without merit.

Accused-appellant contend that even assuming that the information
charges an offense, while the evidence for the prosecution merely shows that
the contents of the match box are positive for marijuana; it is however silent
as to what class or variety of marijuana said contents of the match box belong;
and appellants proceed to explicate on the different pharmacological effects
produced by a “male marijuana” and a “female marijuana,”
the latter allegedly containing the chemical (tetrahydrocannabinol) most active
in producing the physiological effects of marijuana, and that possession of a
“male marijuana”, something innocuous, is not penalized by law.

The “sex” of Indian hemp or marijuana is irrelevant for
a conviction for the sale thereof. As
defined in Section 2(i) of Article I of R.A. 6925 (supra), Indian hemp,
or marijuana, “embraces every kind, class, genus or specie of the plant
cannbis sativa L., x x x and embraces every kind, class and character thereof,
whether dried or fresh and flowering or fruiting tops or any parts or portions
of the plant, seeds thereof, and all its geographic varieties, whether as a
reefer, resin, extract, tincture or in any form whatsoever;”

The chemistry report (Exh. “C”) of Lt. Zenaida Sinfuego
of the PCCL proved that the contents of the match box were marijuana
leaves. The records do not show that
the findings of the PCCL were objected to by the defense. Hence, the corpus delicti of
the crime had been proved with certainty and conclusiveness.^[5]

Accused-appellants further contend that the evidence for the
prosecution is incoherent and contradictory. They call attention to certain portions of the testimonies of Danilo
Layao and C1C Raul Labramonte.

It is noted that said witnesses were put on the witness stand
after two (2) years from the occurrence of the incident on 24 May 1986. In two (2) years, some minor details could
have already skipped the mind of the witnesses, such as the alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of Danilo Layao and C1C Labramonte on the
delivery of, and payment for the marijuana. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, however, the prosecution was
able to establish that the accused-appellants sold the prohibited drug or
marijuana to Danilo Layao; that Danilo Layao had handed over the pre-marked
money – two (2) P5.00 bills and one (1) P20.00 bill to the two (2) accused who,
in turn, gave the former a match box containing marijuana. Whether the transaction happened at the
plaza or at the public market was clearly explained by the rebuttal evidence
where in answer to the question of the fiscal, Layao replied that he saw the
two (2) accused at the public market but approached them and the sale of the
marijuana was done at the plaza. The
fact therefore is that the accused delivered the match box full of marijuana to
Danilo Layao who gave the pre-marked peso bills to Bangero. The sale of the marijuana by the two (2)
accused is invariably borne out by the evidence presented by the prosecution.

The Court has decided not to discuss at length the alleged
discrepancies in some portions of the testimonies of Danilo Layao and C1C Raul
Labramonte. It is settled doctrine that
the trial court’s findings are accorded the highest respect and are entitled to
great weight^[6]
on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for clear and cogent reasons,
because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence as
well as to observe the demeanor of witnesses while testifying in the case.^[7]

WHEREFORE, finding that no reversible error has
been committed by the court a quo, the appealed decision is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs Against the accused?appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Penned by Judge Edgardo D. Gustilo in Criminal Case No. 20575, entitled
“People vs. Tirzo Celiz and Julius Bangero”

^[2]
Rollo, p. 11

^[3]
Section 4, Article II, R.A. No. 6425

^[4]
Section 2(e), Article I, ibid

^[5]
People vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329

^[6]
People vs. Patog, G.R. No. 69620, September 24, 1986, 144 SCRA 429;
People vs. Egas, G.R. No. 65676, June 24, 1985, 137 SCRA 188

^[7]
Chase vs. Buencamino, Sr., G.R. No. L-20395, May 13, 1985, 136 SCRA 365;
People vs. Fernandez, G.R. No., L-49601, August 30, 1983, 124 SCRA 319