G.R. No. L-72782. April 30, 1987.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONALDO ROSAS Y MILLIOMEDA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ronaldo Rosas, together with Peter Javier, was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana. The prosecution evidence established that based on a tip, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation. Pfc. Martin Orolfo acted as a poseur-buyer. Upon entering the compound, Rosas immediately approached Orolfo and asked, “Pare, ilan ang scoring mo?” (How much are you buying?). Orolfo replied he wanted two foils. Javier then handed over the marijuana foils to Orolfo in exchange for marked money. During the transaction, Rosas assured Orolfo about the drug’s potency by stating, “Malakas yan.” Upon the pre-arranged signal, the officers arrested Javier and apprehended Rosas as he attempted to flee. Two tin foils of marijuana were confiscated from Rosas’s person.
The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Javier did not appeal. Rosas appealed, contending he was a mere bystander, denying conspiracy, and alleging a violation of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation, specifically regarding his signatures on the receipt for seized property (Exhibit H) and a marked bill (Exhibit G).

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether conspiracy in the illegal sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the alleged violation of appellant’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation renders the evidence inadmissible.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, conspiracy was duly established. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it. The appellant’s actions were not those of a passive onlooker. His immediate inquiry to the poseur-buyer about the quantity to be purchased and his act of vouching for the drug’s strength constituted active participation and inducement. These acts, performed in concert with Javier who physically handed the drugs, demonstrated a common design to sell prohibited drugs. The law does not require a prior agreement; conspiracy can be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
Regarding the second issue, the alleged constitutional violation does not warrant the exclusion of the evidence. Exhibits G and H are not confessions or extrajudicial statements but were merely receipts for seized property and marked money. The signatures thereon were for identification purposes to prevent later charges of evidence tampering. Even assuming the signatures were improperly obtained, the conviction rests on the positive and credible testimony of the poseur-buyer, Pfc. Orolfo, who categorically identified Rosas and detailed his active role. The forensic confirmation that the seized items were marijuana further solidifies the case. The Court gives greater weight to the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses over the denial of the accused. Therefore, the evidence sustains the judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.