G.R. No. 90602 , January 18, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO PACLEB y DAY-AT, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rolando Pacleb was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act ( R.A. No. 6425 , as amended) for the illegal sale of marijuana. The prosecution evidence established that on April 23, 1987, based on confidential information, a buy-bust operation was conducted at the Hangar Market in Baguio City. Sgt. Godofredo Fider acted as the poseur-buyer, with Sgt. Domingo Pejuro and A2C Serafin Artizona as back-up. The confidential informant introduced Fider to appellant “Roland,” who agreed to sell 100 grams of marijuana for P100.00. After receiving the marked money, appellant left and returned an hour later to deliver a brown paper bag containing dried marijuana leaves. Upon Fider’s pre-arranged signal, the back-up team arrested appellant. A marked twenty-peso bill was recovered from him. The confiscated marijuana was brought to the NARCOM office, then forwarded to the PC Crime Laboratory, where examinations by Capt. Elias Canapi and Lt. Noelita Pineda confirmed the substance was marijuana. Appellant denied the charge, claiming he was a “cargador” and was framed after a friend tried to hand him an envelope; he alleged the arresting officer later demanded P5,000.00 for his freedom. The trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the corpus delicti of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged discrepancy between the quantity of marijuana stated in the information (50 grams) and the quantity submitted for examination (35 grams).

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction. The corpus delicti was established with certainty. The prosecution presented the brown envelope and its marijuana contents, which were positively identified by the poseur-buyer (Sgt. Fider) and a back-up officer (Sgt. Pejuro) as the very items seized from appellant during the buy-bust operation. The forensic chemists confirmed the substance was marijuana. The Court held that the minor discrepancy in weight (50 grams in the information vs. 35 grams in the chemistry report) was inconsequential, as the essential fact of the sale of a prohibited drug was proven. The chain of custody of the evidence was intact, and the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prevailed over appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up. The Court emphasized the severity of drug offenses and the need to impose the law strictly against drug traffickers.