G.R. No. 80436 - People vs. Bolasa

The People of the Philippines charged Samuel Salamanes, Isagani Bolasa, and Gerardo Cabamban with selling, delivering, and transporting marijuana flowering tops.
While Bolasa and Cabamban were acquitted for insufficiency of evidence, Samuel Salamanes was convicted under Section 4 of Republic Act 6425 (as amended) and sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00, and costs.

On 17 May 1985, at approximately 4:30 p.m., a civilian informer reported to the Valenzuela, Bulacan Police Station that a drug pusher was selling marijuana at the basketball court along Daez Street, Karuhatan, Valenzuela.
After evaluation, the Station Commander directed Sgt. Teodoro Sandro, Pat. Eduardo B. Puchero, and Pat. Alfredo Gadiano to conduct a buy-bust operation in coordination with the informer.
A marked P50.00 bill (marked with the initials EBP by Pat. Puchero) was given to the informer with instructions to use a pre-arranged signal (scratching his head) upon receipt of the marijuana.

At the basketball court, the informer approached Gerardo Cabamban, who was later joined by Isagani Bolasa, and eventually by Samuel Salamanes—the last in the chain of money and merchandise exchange.
The sequence of transactions:

Shortly thereafter, Salamanes left the scene and, upon his return, handed an item to the informer.
Following the pre-arranged signal from the informer (scratching his head), the police immediately apprehended Cabamban, Bolasa, and Salamanes.
Two of the three suspects attempted to flee but were quickly apprehended.
An on-the-spot body search was conducted, which failed to reveal marijuana on the persons; however, the marked money was found in the right pocket of Salamanes.
Additionally, a Hope cigarette pack—empty of cigarettes but containing suspected marijuana dried flowering tops wrapped in a mosquito coil wrapper—was recovered from the informer.

The confiscated Hope pack was sent to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for laboratory analysis.
A preliminary certification from the NBI declared that the pack’s contents tested positive for marijuana.
On 21 May 1990, NBI Forensic Chemist Elvira del Rosario submitted a detailed report confirming through microscopic, chemical, and chromatographic analyses that the material consisted of dried marijuana flowering tops.

Testimonies of the arresting police officers (Pat. Puchero, Sgt. Sandro, and Pat. Gadiano) consistently indicated that Salamanes was the last to receive the marked money and that he delivered the marijuana to the informer.
Accused Bolasa testified that he was merely at the basketball court playing when suddenly arrested, and he claimed that the police accused him of being a drug addict.
Accused Cabamban stated he was passing by the basketball court when he was arrested alongside his co-accused.
Salamanes claimed that while he was watching a basketball game, the police officers suddenly arrested him on charges of drug addiction; he further alleged that on the way to the police station, Pat. Puchero manhandled him, compelled him to admit possession of marijuana, and pressured him into naming a supplier—identified as Natividad Yabut.
Salamanes contended that several errors were made by the trial court, including:

Wrongful conviction under Section 4 of RA 6425.
Excessive credence given to the testimonies of the police officers.
Failure to call the civilian informer as a witness, which allegedly hindered a fair trial.
Ignoring the testimonies of the accused and their witnesses that might have established reasonable doubt.

Salamanes argued that the combined errors revolved around the issue of testimonial credibility: that the court should have given greater weight to the defense testimony and required the civilian informer to appear in court.
The prosecution maintained that the careful and consistent testimonies of the police officers established that Salamanes was the final link who received the money and delivered the marijuana.
The court highlighted that the discretion of the prosecuting officer in selecting witnesses—especially in maintaining the anonymity of the informer—is well established.
The corroborative testimony of the three police officers, alongside the forensic confirmation of the substance as marijuana, was deemed sufficient to sustain the conviction of Salamanes despite the defense’s contentions.

Whether the trial court committed reversible error in convicting accused-appellant Samuel Salamanes for selling prohibited drugs.
Whether the trial court erred in placing greater evidentiary weight on the testimonies of the police officers over those of the defense and the accused.
Whether the non-presentation of the civilian informer as a witness materially affected the integrity of the prosecution’s case against Salamanes.
Whether the alleged claims of extortion and police misconduct raised by Salamanes were sufficiently substantiated by independent evidence to warrant acquittal.