G.R. No. 84656 January 4, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR LUCERO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On August 3, 1986, a NARCOM team, including Sgts. Ruben Bazar and Pablito Reyno, conducted a buy-bust operation in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, based on information that accused-appellant Cesar Lucero was engaged in illegal marijuana trafficking. A confidential informant, acting as a poseur-buyer, approached Lucero at his residence. The informant handed marked money to Lucero in exchange for a small plastic bag containing what appeared to be marijuana. The team, positioned about 20 meters away, witnessed the transaction. Upon a pre-arranged signal, they arrested Lucero. Laboratory examination confirmed the substance was marijuana. Lucero was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000. Lucero appealed, claiming he was framed by the arresting officers due to a prior grudge, alleging they entered his house without a warrant, forcibly arrested him, and coerced his confession and signatures. He also challenged the prosecution’s evidence, including the visibility of the transaction, the nature of the “teabag,” the delay in turning him over to authorities, and the failure of the informant to testify.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Cesar Lucero guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as amended (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s decision with modification, stating the proper penalty is “life imprisonment.” The Court held that the constitutional presumption of innocence was overcome by the prosecution’s overwhelming testimonial and real evidence. It ruled that: (1) The testimony of Sgt. Reyno, who clearly saw the informant hand marked money to Lucero and receive the marijuana, was credible and sufficient. The marked money (Exhibit “D”) was presented in court. (2) The absence of the informant’s testimony was not fatal, as the apprehending officers directly witnessed the illegal transaction, making the informant’s testimony merely corroborative. (3) The defense of “frame-up” was unsubstantiated. The claim that the officers harbored a grudge because Lucero previously pleaded guilty to a lesser offense was not a convincing motive for fabrication. (4) The illegal sale occurred at Lucero’s residence, which is a plausible location for such a transaction, as drug pushers may operate even in open or populated areas to camouflage their activities. (5) The delay in turning Lucero over to the Valenzuela police was adequately explained by the officers’ attempt to have Lucero lead them to his drug source, which he declined to do. (6) The item sold was a teabag made of thin transparent polyethylene containing marijuana, not cloth or paper, and its contents were properly identified and examined. The Court also admonished the Office of the Solicitor General for submitting an appellee’s brief that was “totally barren of any page reference to the record or citation of authorities,” contrary to the Rules of Court.