G.R. No. 90738, December 9, 1991
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Enrique, Jr.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Antonio Enrique, Jr. was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution evidence established that on May 9, 1988, in Aparri, Cagayan, a buy-bust operation was conducted by NARCOM agents based on information from a confidential informant. Patrolman Danilo Natividad acted as the poseur-buyer and was provided with a marked ten-peso bill. He approached the appellant, who handed over five sticks of marijuana cigarettes in exchange for the marked money. Upon confirmation, the arrest was effected. The seized items tested positive for marijuana.
On appeal, the appellant assailed the admissibility of the evidence, contending that the marked money and marijuana were inadmissible as they were allegedly seized during an unlawful custodial investigation without a proper receipt. He also argued that the non-presentation of the confidential informant and the non-allegation of the marked money’s serial number in the information violated his right to due process.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of the appellant for the illegal sale of marijuana is valid despite the alleged evidentiary and procedural errors.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification on the penalty. The legal logic is clear: the offense of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is consummated upon the delivery of the illicit substance and the receipt of the payment. The appellant was caught in flagrante delicto, making his warrantless arrest lawful under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the seizure of the marked money and marijuana was valid as an incident to a lawful arrest, not as a product of custodial investigation. The non-presentation of the marked money’s serial number in the information is immaterial, as it is not an essential element of the crime. The non-presentation of the confidential informant is also not fatal; the informant’s testimony would be merely corroborative, and their identity may be kept confidential for practical and safety reasons. The positive testimonies of the arresting officers, corroborated by the chemistry report, sufficiently established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the penalty was modified from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment, conforming to Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.