G.R. No. 80505 - People vs. Tandoy y Lim

Case Summary (G.R. No. 80505)

Factual Background

On May 27, 1986, at about 3:30 p.m., officers of the Makati Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation along Solchuaga Street, Barangay Singkamas, Makati. The operation was conducted under the dispatch of Lt. Salido, Jr., with Pfc. Herino de la Cruz and Detectives Pablo R. Singayan, Nicanor Candolesas, Luisito de la Cruz, Estanislao Dalumpines, Antonio Manalastas and Virgilio Padua as members of the team. Detective Singayan acted as the poseur-buyer in a stakeout near a store in the target area.

Prosecution Evidence

Detective Singayan testified that three men approached him and that the accused-appellant, without preface, asked: "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?" Singayan answered yes, and an immediate exchange followed: two rolls or pieces of marijuana for one P10.00 and two P5.00 bills marked "ANU." The team moved in and arrested Tandoy. A body search by Officers Manalastas and Candolesas produced the marked money, eight additional rolls or foils of marijuana and crushed leaves. The accused was taken to the Anti-Narcotics Unit, Makati Police Station, and elected to remain silent after being informed of his constitutional rights. Forensic chemist Raquel P. Angeles of the National Bureau of Investigation performed microscopic, chemical and chromatographic tests and testified that the seized specimens tested positive for marijuana; the marijuana was offered in evidence.

Defense Evidence

Tandoy testified that he had been playing "cara y cruz" with fifteen other persons on Solchuaga Street from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. When players fled at the sound that policemen were making arrests, he and a companion identified as Danny were caught. He alleged that they were taken to the Narcotics Command headquarters, mauled and threatened to implicate others, and that the bills taken from him were the bet money he had grabbed during the game. He denied selling marijuana to Singayan.

Trial Court Proceedings and Finding

After hearing witnesses and observing their demeanor, the trial court convicted Tandoy of violating Art. II, Sec. 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 and sentenced him to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of P20,000.00 and costs, declared the marijuana forfeited and ordered it turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board. The trial court credited the testimony of the arresting officers and applied the presumption that they performed their duties regularly. It found Tandoy's allegations of having been manhandled and framed to be uncorroborated and insufficient to overcome the prosecution's proof.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused-appellant assigned two errors: first, that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he sold marijuana to the poseur-buyer; and second, that the trial court erred in admitting as evidence Exh. "E-2-A," a xerox copy of the marked P10.00 bill, in violation of the best evidence rule under Sec. 2, Rule 130. The Solicitor General answered these contentions in the Court below and in the brief before the Supreme Court.

Court's Evaluation of Credibility and Sale Element

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's credibility determinations. It noted that where no evidence suggested improper motive on the part of the principal witnesses for the prosecution, their testimony was entitled to full faith and credit, citing People v. Patog as precedent. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that a seller would not transact with a stranger, observing that small-scale drug distribution may be completed within minutes in public places and that familiarity between buyer and seller was not essential; it relied on authorities including People v. Paco, and a line of cases sustaining convictions for sales made in public venues. The Court found that the offer, acceptance and immediate exchange established the elements of sale and delivery.

Court's Analysis on the Best Evidence Rule and the Marked Bill

As to the xerox copy of the marked P10.00 bill, the Court adopted the Solicitor General's reasoning that the best evidence rule applies when the contents of a document are in issue. Where the purpose was to prove existence and not the content of the instrument, secondary evidence such as a xerox copy was admissible without accounting for the original. The Court further observed that the absence of the original marked money was not fatal be

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 80505)

Parties and Procedural Posture

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted for violation of Art. II, Sec. 4, Rep. Act No. 6425 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 133.
MARIO TANDOY Y LIM was the defendant-appellant arraigned and tried on an information charging sale of marijuana.
The trial court convicted MARIO TANDOY Y LIM on October 13, 1987, and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000, and costs, with confiscation and forfeiture of the marijuana.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, First Division, challenging the conviction and the admission of a xerox copy of marked money as evidence.
The Supreme Court issued its decision on December 4, 1990, affirming the trial court in toto.

Key Factual Allegations

The buy-bust operation occurred on May 27, 1986, at about 3:30 p.m. along Solchuaga Street, Barangay Singkamas, Makati.
Detective Pablo R. Singayan acted as the poseur-buyer and stood near a store awaiting a pusher.
Three men approached Singayan and one, later identified as the accused-appellant, allegedly asked, "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?" and consummated a sale.
The poseur-buyer gave marked money consisting of a P10.00 bill and two P5.00 bills marked "ANU," and received two rolls/pieces of marijuana for P10.00.
Arresting officers moved in, arrested the accused, and recovered the marked money plus eight additional rolls/foils of marijuana and crushed leaves from the accused's person.
The arrested accused was brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit office, informed of constitutional rights, and chose to remain silent.
Forensic chemist Raquel P. Angeles of the NBI performed microscopic, chemical, and chromatographic tests and testified positively for marijuana.

Defense Account

The accused testified that he was playing cara y cruz with fifteen others from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. along Solchuaga Street when police raids occurred.
The accused claimed that he and another player named Danny were seized and taken to Narcotics Command headquarters where they were mauled and pressured to identify pushers.
The accused denied selling marijuana to the poseur-buyer and maintained that the bills taken from him were bet money grabbed during the game.

Issues Presented

Whether the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sold marijuana to the poseur-buyer.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit "E-2-A," a xerox copy of the marked P10.00 bill, in violation of the best evidence ru