Title
People vs. Enrique Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 90738
Decision Date
Dec 9, 1991
Antonio Enrique, Jr. was convicted for selling marijuana in a 1988 entrapment. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment, ruling evidence admissible and informer testimony non-essential.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 90738)

Charges and Legal Context

Antonio Enrique, Jr. was charged under Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 2, paragraph (e), No. 1 and paragraph (l), Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, which is known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The specific accusation was that on May 9, 1988, Enrique unlawfully sold five sticks of marijuana to Patrolman Danilo Natividad for ten pesos.

Trial and Initial Verdict

Upon arraignment, Enrique pleaded not guilty. After a trial, the Regional Trial Court of Aparri rendered a decision on September 14, 1989, finding him guilty of the charges and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, a fine of P20,000, and ordering the forfeiture of the seized marijuana cigarettes in favor of the government.

Appellant's Arguments

In his appeal, Enrique raised several arguments:

  1. He contested the trial court's reliance on what he deemed inadmissible evidence.
  2. He pointed out that the serial number of the ten-peso bill was not mentioned in the information, claiming it invalidated the evidence.
  3. He asserted that the prosecution failed to present the informer, thus denying him the opportunity to cross-examine a key piece of evidence.

Factual Background from Trial Court

The trial court established that a civilian informer alerted the narcotics officers about Enrique's drug sales. Following an elaborate entrapment operation, Patrolman Natividad acted as a poseur buyer, receiving five sticks of marijuana in exchange for a marked ten-peso bill. The subsequent field tests confirmed the presence of marijuana.

Evaluation of Evidence and Admission

Enrique's defense contended that no evidence linking him to the marijuana was seized during his arrest. However, the court highlighted the lawfulness of his arrest under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as he was caught during the commission of the crime. The seized items and marked money were admitted into evidence as they were obtained incident to a lawful arrest.

Examination of Appellant's Claims

The court clarified that the serial number of the marked money was not necessary for conviction. Furthermore, even if the ten-peso bill's number was not included in the original information, this omission did not undermine the prosecution's case, given that the fact of the transaction was established through credible testimonies and physical evidence.

Additional Admissions and Handling of Evidence

During custodial investigation, Enrique affixed his name on the marijuana sticks, an act that the trial court interpreted as an acknowledgment of his wrongdoing. Although procedural flaws concerning representation during the investigation were noted, these did not suffice to overturn his conviction, given the weight of direct evidence against him.

Analysis of Delay in Laboratory Testing

Enrique raised concerns over the delay in laboratory testing of the seized marijuana, suggesting potential mishandling or substitution of evidence. Nevertheless, the initial field tests corroborated that the substance was indeed marijuana, and the eventual laboratory examinations confirmed this assertion, countering any claims of alteration.

Admissibility of Informer’s Testimon

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.