G.R. No. 97959 . April 7, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO ESGUERRA Y SEMINIANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alejandro S. Esguerra was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) for the illegal sale of marijuana. The prosecution’s case, based on a buy-bust operation, established that three weeks before August 20, 1989, police officers conducted surveillance on Esguerra in Navotas, Metro Manila, confirming he was a drug pusher. On August 20, 1989, at around 2:30 p.m., a buy-bust team was formed. Pat. Rizalito Francisco acted as poseur-buyer and approached Esguerra at the corner of Roldan Street. Esguerra informed him one tea bag of marijuana cost P10.00. Francisco handed a marked P50 bill to Esguerra, who in turn gave Francisco five tea bags of marijuana. Francisco then identified himself as a police officer, and the other officers apprehended Esguerra, who voluntarily returned the marked money. At the police station, Esguerra surrendered another five tea bags of marijuana. Forensic examination confirmed all ten tea bags contained marijuana. The defense presented alibi, with Esguerra claiming he was at his parents’ house to ask for money for milk and was later apprehended without involvement in any drug sale. His mother corroborated his whereabouts. The trial court found Esguerra guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of illegal sale of marijuana based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution proved all elements of illegal sale: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object (marijuana), the consideration (P50), and the delivery and payment. The Court rejected the defense’s argument that the delayed discovery of five tea bags at the police station negated the buy-bust operation, explaining that immediate body search is not always required, especially when the suspect poses no imminent danger. The Court also held that familiarity between buyer and seller is not necessary for the crime, as drug pushers often sell to strangers. The testimony of the poseur-buyer was credible and corroborated by other officers. The defense of alibi and frame-up was unconvincing, as it was supported only by the testimony of the accused’s mother and lacked evidence to explain the marked money. The positive identification by prosecution witnesses prevailed over the accused’s denial. The penalty was modified to life imprisonment in accordance with Republic Act No. 6425 .