Case Digest (G.R. No. 88697)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Mario Barredo Valeriano, G.R. No. 88697, July 31, 1990, Supreme Court Second Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution charged accused-appellant Mario Barredo Valeriano with selling marijuana in violation of Section 4, Article II, R.A. No. 6425 as amended by Section 1, P.D. No. 1675 (1980). On 11 August 1988 the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit received confidential information that a certain “Mario” was illicitly selling marijuana along J.P. Rizal Street, San Juan. Captain Carlos Villafuerte organized an undercover team—Sgt. Roberto Angeles (poseur-buyer), Sgts. Jaime Raposas and Armando Isidro (lookouts), and others—which, guided by the confidential informant, proceeded to the location.
According to the narcom officers’ testimony, Sgt. Angeles asked the subject where marijuana could be bought; the subject (later identified as the appellant) left, spoke to a bald man (later identified as Brando Manuel), returned, accepted a marked P100 bill from Sgt. Angeles, passed it to the bald man, then received a transparent plastic bag from the bald man and handed it to Sgt. Angeles. The lookouts observed these acts, Sgt. Angeles signalled, and the team arrested the appellant; the bald man allegedly fled with the marked money. The seized plastic bag was brought to Camp Crame, marked, and, on 12 August 1988, indorsed to the PC Crime Laboratory where Forensic Chemist Lt. Tita Advincula tested samples and reported they were marijuana.
Appellant testified that he only identified Brando when asked and denied selling marijuana, acting as broker, or receiving the marked bill; a companion corroborated that appellant did not participate in any sale. The trial court, however, found the prosecution witnesses credible, rejected appellant’s version, and on 24 May 1989 convicted him of violating the Dangerous Drugs Law and sentenced him to reclusion perp...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant sold or acted as broker in the sale of marijuana in violation of Section 4, Article II, R.A. No. 6425 as amended by P.D. No. 1675?
- Was the identity and integrity of the seized marijuana sufficiently preserved and established so as to admit the specimen and the chemist’s testimony?
- Was the penalty imposed by the trial court proper, or should it be ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)