PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WILLY BAGAWE Y PAGALLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused was only eighteen years old when he was charged with illegal
sale of a prohibited narcotic under Section 4, Article II, of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.  Subsequently tried and
convicted, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of
P20,000.00.^[1]
He is now before this Court and asks for a reversal of the judgment against
him, pleading error on the part of the lower court and his own innocence.

The evidence for the prosecution showed that on April 14, 1987,
an informer reported to the First Narcotic Regional Unit in Baguio City that a
certain Willy (who was subsequently identified as the accused-appellant) was
engaged in selling marijuana at Poliwes in front of the Milton Hotel on Kennon
Road.  A buy-bust team was forthwith
organized, with A2C Serafin Artizona as poseur-buyer and Lt. Macusi, Sgt.
Godofredo Fider and Sgt. Domingo Pejoro as back-up members.  Artizona was provided with three P20.00
marked bills to be used in the sham purchase.

At 11 o’clock in the morning of the same date, the informer led
the team to the accused-appellant who was then inside a billard hall.  As the other team members deployed themselves
covertly, the informer introduced Artizona to Willy as an interested buyer of
marijuana.  Willy told them to see him
that afternoon at 5 o’clock.

The team was back at the appointed hour but Willy arrived about a
half-hour late.  He invited Artizona and
the informer to a store about a hundred meters away where they could have some
drinks.  The other team members
discreetly followed and later watched the three as they drank rum and talked.  While Willy smoked a stick of marijuana
cigarette, he quoted P20.00 as the price for a matchboxful of marijuana.  Artizona ordered three boxes, and Willy asked
the two to come with him to the back of the market in front of the Milton
Hotel.  The other team members went along
from a distance without Willy noticing them.

When they reached the market, Willy drew three matchboxes from
the right front pocket of his trousers and handed them to Artizona, who in turn
gave him the three marked P20.00 bills. 
After checking the contents of the matchboxes and finding that they
appeared to be marijuana, Artizona gave the pre-arranged signal to his
teammates by scratching his head.  He
then identified himself as a NARCOM agent and placed the accused-appellant
under arrest.  Sgt. Fider, who had
approached with the other two members of the team, searched Willy and took from
him the marked money, a suspected marijuana cigarette butt, and a parcel of
brown paper containing what looked like marijuana flowering tops.

The cigarette butt, dried leaves and flowering tops were examined
by Capt. Elias R. Canapi III of the PC/INP Crime Laboratory at Camp Bado,
Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, and found to be positive for marijuana.  A second
examination was conducted by Carlos Figueroa, a forensic chemist in the same laboratory, who later testified
that the specimens he had subjected to the Duquenase-Levine test and thin layer
chromatography test were positive for marijuana.^[2]
The examination reports^[3]
and the specimens themselves were submitted in evidence.^[4]

The other witnesses for the prosecution were Artizona and Fider,
who described the buy–bust operation. 
The three marked P20.00 bills were also offered as exhibits.^[5]

In his defense, the accused-appellant flatly denied the charges against
him.  He said that in the morning of
April 14, 1987, he was approached by Joseph Sumedca and Artizona and asked if
he knew where they could buy marijuana.  He said no. 
Later that afternoon, he met the two again and they drank gin at the
Bacoco store.  He wanted to go home
afterwards, but the two asked him to accompany them to the parking lot
nearby.  On the way, Joseph gave him
P60.00.  As he was urinating at the back
of the market, Joseph handed hid a small parcel, and it was at this precise
time that a policeman arrived and arrested him. 
He was forced to admit ownership of the marijuana wrapped in the parcel
given to him by Joseph, and Sgt. Fider mauled him at the NARCOM station.

His mother, for her part, testified that she gave P5,000.00 to a
certain Sgt. Domingo Pejoro in consideration of the withdrawal of the case
against her son.^[6]

It is plain from a comparison of the evidence of the parties that
the prosecution had a more plausible case than the defense.  The testimony of the accused-appellant is
hardly believable and is obviously a tissue of lies.  As for his mother, all she did was give the
impression that she herself believed her son to be guilty and was willing to
pay good money to prevent his imprisonment.

In the accused-appellant’s brief, it is argued that the failure
of the prosecution to present the informer was a fatal omission.  We do not think so.  The rule is well settled that each party has
the prerogative to determine which witnesses to present and to dispense with
the testimony of persons who will only give corroboration.^[7]
Artizona and Fider had already described the details of the buy-bust operation;
the testimony of the informer was not really necessary.  At any rate, if the defense felt that the
prosecution did not call the informer to the stand for fear that he would give
adverse testimony, there was nothing to prevent him from testifying for the
accused-appellant.  The informer was
known to the defense as Joseph Sumedca. 
It would have been simple enough to have him subpoenaed for examination
as a defense witness.

The defense suggests that if Willy really lighted a marijuana
cigarette at the Bacoco store, Artizona should have immediately arrested him
red-handed.  It also asks why the team
brought with it the exact amount of P60.00 when it did not know beforehand
about the quantity and quality of the marijuana Willy would be selling.

If the NARCOM agents did not arrest Willy while he was smoking
the marijuana cigarette at the Bacoco store, it was because they wanted to
catch him for the more serious offense of drug-pushing.  And if they brought with them only P60.00 for
the operation, the explanation is that they knew Willy to be a small-time
operator who would be selling only a limited quantity of the prohibited
narcotic at the current price of P20.00 per matchboxful.

The defense also wonders why the agents and Willy first met at
the billiard hall and says it was an unlikely place to transact the illicit
sale.  It forgets that only the initial
approach was made there and that the actual sale was made at the back of the
market, which was a less crowded place. 
In any event, we have already remarked on the growing recklessness of
drug-pushers, who have plied their trade in the most open settings, regardless
of conscience and consequences.  Thus:

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 billard 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 vs.
Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988).^[8]

The claim of the accused-appellant that he was “framed”
taxes credibility; more bluntly, it is absurd. 
He has not shown why the NARCOM agents, who did not know him before the
operation and certainly had no grudge against him, would single him out and
arrest him for a crime that could mean his imprisonment for life.  By contrast, the agents enjoy the presumption
of regularity in the discharge of their functions.  This and the substantial evidence adduced
against the accused-appellant have overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence in his favor and proved his guilt beyond the whisper of a doubt.

And so Willy Bagawe, now 23 years old, faces a life of punishment
– and, it is hoped, also remorse – for his terrible offense.  It is a lamentable future for one so young,
but let us not forget the victims of his trade who, trapped in the clutches of
drug addiction, suffer a fate more cruel than prison bars.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED in toto.  It is so
ordered.

Griño-Aquino and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Narvasa, C.J., and
Bellosillo, J., on leave.

^[1]
Through Judge Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.

^[2]
TSN, November 18, 1987, p. 8.

^[3]
Records, pp. 93-95.

^[4]
Exhibits “D,” “E,” “F,” and “G.”

^[5]
Exhibits “I,” “J,” and “K.”

^[6]
TSN, November 22, 1988, p. 3.

^[7]
People vs. Gupo, 190 SCRA 7;
People vs. Vocente, 188 SCRA 101; People vs. Andiza, 164 SCRA
642.

^[8]
People vs. Tandoy, 192 SCRA 28.