PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GILBERTO YUMANG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The dreams of youth are
boundless – a beautiful
marriage, a happy family, a successful career, even fame and fortune at the end
of the rainbow. But for the
accused-appellant the future is grim
and bleak. He has been sentenced to
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P30,000.00 for violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act. And he is
only 25.

The trial court found
that on February 25, 1990, an informer reported to Kalookan City Police that
the accused-appellant Gilberto Yumang was selling marijuana along Buklod ng Nayon Street, Kalookan City. Acting on this report, the Anti-Narcotics Unit organized a buy-bust team composed of P/Cpl. Agapito
Quimson, P/fc. Reynaldo Valdez, Bienvenido Santos, P/fc. Reynaldo Ventinilla
and Police Aide Francisco Garcia. Police Aide Francisco Garcia was to pose as the buyer using a P10.00 bill with serial number LC-628026.^[1]

The team headed for the
target place at 5 o’clock in the afternoon of that date. While the rest of the team posted themselves
where they could see the sham transaction, Garcia approached Yumang and asked
to buy marijuana cigarettes. Yumang
handed three cigarette sticks to Garcia, who unrolled the rolling paper and
verified the marijuana leaves inside. Garcia then placed Yumang under arrest and together with the other
members of the team took him to the police station. The three sticks of marijuana cigarettes were marked by Garcia
with his initials and, upon subsequent examination by the National Bureau of
Investigation, yielded positive results.^[2] An information for violation of Section 4,
Article II of RA 6425 was later filed against Yumang in the Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City.

The prosecution presented
Garcia, Quimson and Ventinilla to testify on the entrapment and arrest of the
accused.^[3] Mrs. Virginia Perez, evidence custodian,
identified the three sticks of marijuana turned over to the NBI.^[4] Her testimony complemented the certification
and the Dangerous Drug Report issued by NBI Forensic Chemist Ma. Carina M.
Javier, which were presented as Exhibits A and B respectively.^[5] The marijuana cigarettes, marked as Exhibit
D, were positively identified by Garcia as the corpus delicti of the
offense.^[6]

The accused told an entirely different story. He said
that on February 25, 1990, he was in the store of his aunt at Buklod ng
Nayon, Dagat-dagatan, Kalookan City, when Bienvenido Santos called him and for
unknown reasons placed him under arrest.^[7] He
was later brought to the Kalookan City police station, where he was charged as
a pusher of marijuana under Art. II, Section 4 of RA 6425, as amended. This testimony was not corroborated.

Under Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, as amended, the penalty
of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000.00 to P30,000.00
shall be imposed upon 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 such
transactions.

We have held that in the
illegal sale of marijuana, what matters is the agreement between the buyer and
the seller, and the acts constituting the sale and the delivery of
marijuana leaves.^[8]
It is true that the money allegedly used for the purchase of the marijuana was
never submitted in evidence. However,
it is now settled that the presentation in evidence of the buy-bust money is
not indispensable to the conviction of an accused provided that the sale of
marijuana is adequately proven by other evidence and there is unrebutted
testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the actual handling over the marijuana in
exchange for money.^[9]
Such testimony came from the other members of the team, namely, Quimson and
Ventinilla. At any rate, the fact that
Yumang handed the three marijuana sticks of cigarette corresponding to the
P10.00 offered by Garcia suffices to constitute, if not sale, the delivery of
the prohibited drug, which is also prohibited and covered by the information
reading as follows:

That on or about the 25th day of February 1990 in Kalookan City,
MM. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and deliver to others three (3) sticks of handrolled marijuana
cigarette, knowing the same to be prohibited drug.

Contrary to law.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto.^[10]
It has been defined as the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of
trapping or capturing a law breaker.^[11] The
idea to commit the crime originates from the accused; nobody induces or prods
him into committing the offense.^[12] In
the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was formed by the police officers
precisely to test the veracity of the tip and in order to apprehend the
perpetrator. Having caught the culprit
red-handed as a result of the buy-bust operation, Garcia and his team-mates
were not only authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug
pusher even without a warrant of arrest.

Garcia’s testimony as corroborated
by Ventinilla and Quimson clearly and positively identified Gilberto Yumang as
the marijuana peddler. The alleged
contradiction pointed out by the defense in Garcia’s testimony and his
affidavit regarding the time the examination of the marijuana was done is
inconsequential. It is undisputed that
Yumang handed the marijuana in question to Garcia. The apparent lapse of memory on the part of P/fc. Ventinilla
regarding the officer to whom Garcia handed the marijuana after the incident is
too trivial to impair the essential veracity of the evidence of the
prosecution.

The long-settled rule in criminal jurisprudence is that when what
is in issue is the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally
not disturb the findings of the trial court unless it has plainly overlooked
certain facts of substance and value that, if considered, might affect the
result of the case^[13]. The reason is that the latter is in a better
position to observe the witnesses on the stand and to determine by their
deportment whether they are stating or falsifying the truth.

The accused-appellant’s denial cannot prevail over the detailed
and unshaken testimonies of the apprehending officers who caught him
red-handed. It has not been shown that
they had any ulterior motive that might have prompted them to testify falsely
against him. On the contrary, the
presumption is that NARCOM agents are performing their functions when they
conduct buy-bust operations and entrap and arrest violators pursuant to the
campaign against the illicit traffic in dangerous drugs. The evidence submitted by the prosecution is
strong enough to rebut the constitutional presumption of innocence and to
establish the accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE,      the
decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs
against the accused?appellant. It
is so ordered.

Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, May 7, 1990, pp. 6-7.

^[2]
Records, p. 23.

^[3]
TSN, May 7, 1990, pp. 5-9; 13-14; May
28, 1990, pp. 3-7.

^[4]
Ibid., May 7, 1990, pp. 2-5

^[5]
Records, pp. 22-23.

^[6]
TSN, May 28, 1990, pp. 6-7.

^[7]
Ibid., May 29, 1990, pp. 2-3.

^[8]
People v. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762.

^[9]
People v. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393; People v. Alerta, Jr., 198 SCRA
656.

^[10]
People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791.

^[11]
People v. Ramos, Jr., 203 SCRA 237.

^[12]
People v. Ramos, Jr., 203 SCRA 237.

^[13]
People v. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393.