G.R. No. 144494 - People vs. Cercado y Mozada

On November 5, 1999, appellant Ferdinand Cercado y Mozada was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
The charge arose from an alleged transaction involving one (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing approximately one (1) kilo, sold without the necessary permit or authority.

The operation originated from a tip provided by a civilian confidential informant who reported that a person known as “Alyas Imoka” (later identified as the appellant) was selling marijuana at Barangay Calipangpang, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan.
The First Regional Narcotics Office of the Philippine National Police (PNP) coordinated a buy-bust operation. PO2 Edgar C. Torres was designated as a poseur-buyer and was given boodle money for the transaction.
The team, led by P/Sr. Inspector Christopher N. Abrahano and assisted by officers including PO2 Teogenes N. Perez and others, coordinated with the local police of Pozorrubio, as shown by a memorandum in the blotter and other official documents.

The team reached the appellant’s residence in the afternoon. The confidential informant introduced PO2 Torres to the appellant, who reportedly negotiated a price of P2,000.00 per kilo of marijuana.
After a waiting period of approximately four hours—during which the parties remained outside the residence—appellant returned, handed over a plastic bag containing the suspected marijuana, and demanded payment.
PO2 Torres, after verifying the contents of the bag, lit a cigarette as a prearranged signal, prompting the backup officers to rush in and arrest the appellant.
PO2 Teogenes N. Perez corroborated these details by noting the recovery of the boodle money and the brick of marijuana, along with identifying elements linking the evidence to the sale.

Prosecution witnesses, including PO2 Torres, PO2 Perez, and P/Sr. Inspector Abrahano, provided detailed and consistent accounts of the staged buy-bust, coordination among the officers, and the sequence of events that led to the arrest.
P/Supt. Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid, a forensic chemist, testified that a white plastic bag containing the brick of marijuana tested positive for Tetra Hydrocanabinol (THC) using both field and laboratory tests.
Documentary evidence, such as a memorandum from the PNP Pozorrubio Station, the arrest report, booking sheet, affidavits of arrest, and certification of the field test, further substantiated the prosecution’s narrative.

The appellant denied the allegations, asserting that on the night of November 5, 1999, he was at home with his wife and children when three unidentified men forcibly entered and ransacked his house.
According to his version, these men, one of whom he later identified as PO2 Perez, coerced him into admitting possession of the marijuana and extorted money from him. He alleged that the brick of marijuana was planted, and he maintained his innocence.
His defense was largely based on his uncorroborated testimony; notably, none of his household members or other independent witnesses supported his version of events.

The trial court found the appellant guilty of the illegal sale of marijuana and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua along with a fine of P1,000,000.00.
On appeal, the appellant raised two major errors: (a) the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, and (b) the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he lacked the legal authority to sell marijuana.

Whether the trial court erred in affording substantial weight to the consistent and corroborated testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PO2 Torres, PO2 Perez, and P/Sr. Inspector Abrahano).
Whether the non-presentation of the confidential informant’s testimony undermined the prosecution’s case.

Whether the trial court erred by not finding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had no legal authority or license to sell marijuana.
Whether the negative allegation—that the appellant was unauthorized to sell marijuana—required the prosecution to adduce additional evidence or if a prima facie case was sufficient.