G.R. No. 83286 November 16, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FERNANDO HERNANDEZ Y TOLENTINO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Police Corporal Renato del Poso received intelligence that a drug pusher known as “Boy Cubao” was selling marijuana on Calderon Street in Marikina. A police team, after a week of surveillance confirming the report, planned a buy-bust operation. On July 21, 1987, operatives positioned themselves in the area. Patrolmen Dominador Cruz and Romeo Caviso, acting as poseurs-buyers, approached the suspect, later identified as Fernando Hernandez. They asked to buy marijuana, and Hernandez agreed to sell a plastic tea bag of marijuana fruiting tops for ten pesos. Upon Cruz handing over the marked money and receiving the contraband, Caviso gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to Hernandez’s arrest. A search incident to arrest yielded three more plastic tea bags of marijuana from his pocket.
The confiscated items were examined by a forensic chemist and tested positive for marijuana. Hernandez was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended. The Regional Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine. Hernandez appealed, claiming the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory testimonies, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and his constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of Fernando Hernandez for the illegal sale of marijuana is valid despite the alleged inconsistencies in prosecution testimony and the claim of non-advisement of constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic centers on the sufficiency of the evidence for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which requires proof of the transaction’s occurrence and the presentation of the illicit drug as corpus delicti. The prosecution clearly established these elements through the coherent testimonies of the police officers who directly participated in the buy-bust operation. The minor inconsistencies in their accounts pertained to collateral details and did not undermine the core narrative of the sale.
The Court upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the arresting officers, as the appellant failed to present clear evidence of any ill motive for them to falsely testify. His denial and claim of being framed were deemed insufficient to overcome the positive identification and evidence presented. Regarding the custodial investigation claim, the Court ruled it irrelevant to the conviction’s validity. No extrajudicial confession was extracted or used as evidence against him. His guilt was proven solely by the evidence from the buy-bust operation—the marked money, the confiscated marijuana, and the testimonies of the poseurs-buyers. Thus, any alleged defect in the custodial investigation did not affect the prosecution’s independent proof of the crime.