Title
People vs. Gireng y Pinto
Case
G.R. No. 97949
Decision Date
Feb 1, 1995
Accused-appellant convicted for illegal sale and possession of marijuana in a 1989 buy-bust operation; Supreme Court affirmed guilt but modified penalty, ordering immediate release due to served time.
illegal sale of marijuana
witness testimony
marked bills

Case Summary (G.R. No. 97949)

Factual Background

On 24 May 1989, at about ten o’clock in the morning, PC soldier Romeo de Jesus received information from a confidential informant that a suspected drug pusher was operating at DS Garcia, Cabanatuan City. De Jesus relayed the information to his superior, Lt. Macusi, and a buy-bust operation was arranged. Sgt. Teofilo Solis was designated as poseur-buyer. De Jesus gave Solis two marked P10 bills, and Solis was instructed to place a mark (a dot inside the number “0” on the upper right-hand corner) on each bill. De Jesus was assigned as back-up.

At about one o’clock in the afternoon, de Jesus, Solis, and the informant proceeded to the target address. De Jesus positioned himself fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters from the suspect’s house, while Solis and the informant approached and knocked on the door. Accused-appellant came out. After a brief conversation, he handed four (4) plastic tea bags to Sgt. Solis. In exchange, Solis gave accused-appellant the two marked P10 bills. When the transaction was completed, Solis gave the agreed signal by scratching the back of his head. De Jesus then approached, introduced himself as a NARCOM agent, and arrested accused-appellant. De Jesus recovered the marked bills from accused-appellant’s right front pants pocket. The seized items—the four tea bags and a marijuana “roach”—were later examined and confirmed positive for marijuana through laboratory testing conducted first at NARCOM headquarters and subsequently at Camp Olivas, Pampanga, with a chemical report attested by a forensic chemist.

Defense Theory

Accused-appellant took the stand and offered a denial. He claimed that on the day of the incident, while he was sleeping by the window of his house, de Jesus and Solis awakened him and searched for a person named “Larry.” Since he did not know where “Larry” was, he alleged that the officers dragged him outside and took him to the NARCOM Office. He further asserted that his mother tried to prevent the policemen from taking him. The defense did not present the alleged supporting witness at trial.

Trial Court Proceedings and Conviction

The trial court found the testimony of de Jesus credible and supported by the prosecution’s documentary evidence. On 18 March 1991, it found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the essential element of sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt. He emphasized purported evidentiary weaknesses: that neither the poseur-buyer nor the confidential informant was presented; that the marijuana was allegedly not identified in court by de Jesus; and that the prosecution’s documentary evidence was supposedly inadmissible for multiple reasons. These included alleged failures in identifying (a) the marked bills, (b) the certificate of field test through the testimony of its issuer, and (c) a “pagpapatunay” (custodial document) on the ground that it was obtained without assistance of counsel of his choice and without informing him of his constitutional rights.

He further contended that the Information’s filing on 25 May 1989 violated procedural orderliness because the items were endorsed to Camp Olivas only on 29 May 1989, and the NARCOM agents allegedly did not wait for the final laboratory result before charging him. He insisted that proof of the sale between the poseur-buyer and the seller, together with presentation of the corpus delicti, was indispensable.

The Parties’ Contentions

The prosecution maintained that the evidence showed with certainty the elements of illegal sale of marijuana: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment. It relied on de Jesus’s narration of the buy-bust operation, and on laboratory examination results confirming that the seized specimens were marijuana. It also argued that omissions in presenting the informant or poseur-buyer were not fatal, and that the requirement of laboratory confirmation prior to filing was not indispensable.

Accused-appellant pressed that gaps in testimony and documentation created reasonable doubt. He particularly challenged the admissibility and use of the “pagpapatunay” and sought reversal on the basis that he was prejudiced by custodial investigation defects. He also sought relief on the theory that the timing of laboratory processing should have delayed filing of the Information and that the agents effectively charged him without waiting for results.

Appellate Court’s Assessment of the Buy-Bust Evidence

The Court held that the prosecution proved the elements of the illegal sale through the testimony of de Jesus. De Jesus had narrated in detail the transaction he observed from fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters away. While he could not hear the conversation due to distance, he testified that he saw the suspect hand something to Solis and that Solis then handed something back. De Jesus also testified that after the signal, he approached and arrested accused-appellant. He further testified that at the moment of arrest, the marijuana was already in the possession of Solis, and that he recovered the payment from accused-appellant’s right front pants pocket.

The Court recognized that de Jesus could not see the object at the time of the exchange because of the distance; nevertheless, when he approached immediately after the transaction, the marijuana was already under the control of the poseur-buyer. The Court viewed this as sufficient corroboration of the buy-bust consummation for purposes of illegal sale.

The Court further declared that the testimony of the poseur-buyer or the confidential informant was no longer material because the drug pushing was positively attested to by de Jesus. It added that informants are generally not presented in court due to the need to protect their identities and maintain the efficacy of anti-narcotics work. Thus, the absence of the informant and poseur-buyer did not, by itself, destroy the prosecution’s case where the transaction was already affirmatively established through credible police testimony.

Laboratory Examination and Corpus Delicti

The Court emphasized that the seized specimens were examined on the same day at the chemical laboratory of NARCOM headquarters, and were later turned over to the PC Crime Laboratory at Camp Olivas for another examination. The items, weighing 3.8 grams, tested positive for marijuana. The Court held that the chemistry report, attested to by the forensic chemist, conclusively established the corpus delicti.

Documentary Evidence Issues

With respect to the marked bills, the Court held that de Jesus properly identified them because he was the one who gave Solis the marked money and Solis placed the dot inside the number “0” on the bills. De Jesus then recovered the marked bills from the accused’s pocket. The Court also noted, alternatively, that even assuming imperfect identification of the marked money, the absence of the marked bills would not create a hiatus in the prosecution’s evidence if the sale itself was adequately proved.

On the certificate of field test, the Court ruled that the omission to present in court the person who issued it did not weaken the case because the omission was rectified when the forensic chemist testified on the certificate that she issued.

The Court acknowledged accused-appellant’s contention that the “pagpapatunay” was inadmissible for being obtained in violation of his rights during custodial investigation. It noted that he was not informed of his right not to be compelled to sign the document and was not informed of his right to counsel and the fact that the document could be used as evidence against him. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that acquittal did not automatically follow. It held that other evidence on record was more than adequate to sustain conviction.

Filing of the Information and Laboratory Timing

Accused-appellant argued that the Information was procedurally premature because the items were endorsed to Camp Olivas only on 29 May 1989, and because the NARCOM agents allegedly did not wait for final laboratory results before charging him. The Court rejected this argument. It agreed with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the laboratory examination result of the confiscated items was not an indispensable requirement before filing an Information under R.A. 6425, as amended. Requiring agents to await laboratory results that typically take weeks or months, the Court reasoned, would expose agents to potential liability and would be incompatible with law enforcement operations.

Credibility, Frame-up, and Failure to Present Corroborative Witnesses

The Court conducted a careful review and found no sufficient reason to deviate from the trial court’s findings on witness credibility. It stressed that de Jesus’s testimony was consistent with the prosecution’s documentary evidence and that there was no proof that the officers were engaged in abuse, extortion, or personal vengeance.

The Court then addressed accused-appellant’s insinuation of frame-up. It invoked People v. Ale to recognize the risk of abuse inherent in anti-narcotics operations using informants and secrecy, and the ease with which drugs might be planted. However, it held that accused-appellant failed to persuade the Court that de Jesus and Solis were unscrupulous officers motivated by extortion or personal revenge. It also held that, if accused-appellant were truly innocent, he should have substantiated his claim with testimony of his mother, who was allegedly present at the time of arrest, or with other weighty evidence. Accused-appellant’s failure to present his mother reinforced the prosecution’s case.

The Court further characterized frame-up as a defense treated with disfavor, noting that it is akin to alibi in that it can be fabrica

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms