G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Armando Gireng y Pinto, alias “Mandy”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Armando Gireng y Pinto was charged with violating Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, for unlawfully selling four plastic tea bags of marijuana and possessing one marijuana cigarette roach on May 24, 1989. The prosecution evidence, primarily from PC soldier Romeo de Jesus of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM), established that a buy-bust operation was conducted after a confidential informant reported a suspected pusher. Sgt. Teofilo Solis acted as the poseur-buyer, using two marked P10-bills provided by de Jesus. De Jesus observed from 15-20 meters away as Sgt. Solis and the informant approached appellant’s house. Appellant handed four plastic tea bags to Sgt. Solis, who in turn gave the marked money. After Sgt. Solis gave the pre-arranged signal, de Jesus arrested appellant and recovered the marked bills from his pants pocket. The confiscated items, weighing 3.8 grams, were examined at the NARCOM chemical laboratory and later at the PC Crime Laboratory in Camp Olivas, both tests confirming the substance was marijuana. Appellant testified in his defense, claiming he was sleeping when de Jesus and Sgt. Solis awakened him, looking for a certain “Larry,” and that he was dragged from his house and brought to the NARCOM office. The Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of accused-appellant for the illegal sale of marijuana has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the guilt of accused-appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the penalty is modified. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty pursuant to Sec. 20 of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, in relation to People v. Simon. The prosecution successfully proved all elements of illegal sale of marijuana: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery and payment. The testimony of de Jesus, who witnessed the transaction, was credible and supported by the chemical analysis reports confirming the substance as marijuana. The Court held that the presentation of the poseur-buyer or informant was not indispensable as the sale was positively attested to by de Jesus. The marked bills were properly identified by de Jesus, and their absence would not weaken the case as the sale was adequately proved. The “pagpapatunay” (affidavit) was deemed inadmissible for being obtained in violation of appellant’s rights during custodial investigation, but this did not exonerate him as other evidence was sufficient. The filing of the Information before the final laboratory result was not a procedural violation, as awaiting such results could make agents liable for delay under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant’s defense of frame-up was not substantiated. Since the marijuana involved was only 3.8 grams (below 250 grams), the proper penalty is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium as maximum. As appellant had been detained since May 24, 1989, exceeding his maximum sentence, his immediate release was ordered unless lawfully held for another cause.