G.R. No. 105805 August 16, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EVELYN GARCIA Y DELIMA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Evelyn Garcia y Delima was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, for selling and delivering fifteen (15) sticks of marijuana cigarettes to a poseur-buyer for P20.00 in a buy-bust operation on April 12, 1991, in Cebu City. The Regional Trial Court found her guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine. The prosecution evidence established that the NARCOM, acting on a tip, conducted surveillance on the accused and subsequently organized a buy-bust operation. Sgt. Basilio Sarong acted as the poseur-buyer, using a marked P20.00 bill. The accused sold him the marijuana cigarettes, after which she was arrested. The seized items were tested and confirmed to be marijuana. The accused denied the charges, claiming she was playing bingo at home when she was forcibly taken, frisked, and money was taken from her. She appealed the conviction.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the evidence presented, specifically concerning the credibility of witnesses, the admissibility and integrity of the evidence (the marijuana cigarettes and marked money), the identification of the accused, and the legality of the arrest and search.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The Court held that the trial court correctly gave credence to the prosecution witnesses, as there was no evidence of improper motive on the part of the NARCOM agents. The buy-bust operation was a valid entrapment, and the accused was caught in flagrante delicto, justifying a warrantless arrest and search. The Court rejected the accused’s claims that the evidence was planted, noting that the condition of the exhibits was due to normal handling and testing. The non-issuance of a receipt for the marked money and the manner of its presentation in court did not impair the evidence’s integrity. The Court also found that the accused was sufficiently identified during the trial. However, applying the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7659, and considering the quantity of marijuana (15 sticks), the proper penalty under the second paragraph of Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to six (6) years of prision correccional as maximum. The decision of the RTC was affirmed with this modification.