G.R. No. 91500 - Allied Broadcasting Center, Inc. vs. Republic

The accused, Antonio Enrique, Jr., was charged under RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for violating Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 2, paragraphs (e) and (1) of the Act.
On or about May 9, 1988, at Aparri, Cagayan, the accused allegedly engaged in selling five (5) sticks of marijuana cigarettes.
The transaction occurred at Valdez Restaurant, where a poseur-buyer (Patrolman Danilo Natividad) acted on behalf of law enforcement.
The payment for the drugs was made using a pre-marked P10.00 bill, the serial number of which was later designated as Exhibit “A-2” though not explicitly mentioned in the information.

The information, provided by a confidential civilian informer (alias Bong), asserted that the accused was involved in drug selling.
The arrest was executed when the poseur-buyer received the marijuana, paid with the marked money, and then signaled the coordinated team led by Pat. Alejandro Quebalayan to arrest the suspect.
Seized evidence included:

The P10.00 bill marked as Exhibit “A” along with its annotations (“A-1” for the serial number and “A-2” for the initial mark).
Two sets of marijuana cigarettes – one pack (designated as Exhibit “B”) and a second pack (comprising Exhibits “B-1” to “B-5”).
Additional documents such as a certificate of field testing and laboratory results (Exhibits “D”, “D-1”, “E”, “E-1”, and “E-2”).

Shortly after the arrest, an immediate field test was conducted by Major Geary Barias using a NARCOTEST DISPOSAKIT 9 which yielded a positive result for marijuana.
Subsequent chemical analysis conducted at the PC/INP Crime Laboratory confirmed the presence of marijuana.
The collection and handling of evidence were properly documented, including the issuance of a confiscation receipt signed by the arresting officers.

At the trial before the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, the accused pleaded not guilty.
The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on:

The eyewitness testimonies of the arresting officers.
Documentary evidence (the marked bill and seized marijuana cigarettes).
The field and laboratory test results which corroborated the presence of marijuana.

The alleged use of inadmissible evidence.
The admission of the P10.00 bill whose serial number was not clearly set forth in the information.
The non-appearance of the confidential informer in court, thereby allegedly depriving the accused of his right to cross-examine.

Whether the trial court erred in basing its findings of guilt on what the accused argued to be inadmissible evidence.
Specifically, whether the marked P10.00 bill (Exhibits “A”, “A-1”, and “A-2”) should have been excluded on the ground that its serial number was not alleged in the information.

Whether the trial court erred in admitting the evidence by not requiring the prosecution to call the NARCOM informer to testify.
Whether the non-presentation of the informer, and thus the denial of the accused’s opportunity to cross-examine, amounted to a violation of his due process rights.

Whether the immediate field testing and the belated chemical analysis were sufficient to establish the accused’s guilt.
Whether the delay in the laboratory examination and the method of packaging (enclosed in a stapled brown envelope) raised reasonable doubts about the possibility of evidence tampering or substitution.