G.R. No. 88515 -16 April 7, 1992
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Willy Bagawe y Pagalla, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Willy Bagawe, was eighteen years old when charged with illegal sale of marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. On April 14, 1987, an informer reported to the NARCOM in Baguio City that a certain “Willy” was selling marijuana. A buy-bust team was formed with A2C Serafin Artizona as the poseur-buyer, provided with three marked P20.00 bills. The informer led the team to the accused at a billiard hall. An initial meeting occurred, and a transaction was set for 5:00 p.m. that day. At the meeting, the accused quoted a price of P20.00 per matchbox of marijuana. Artizona ordered three boxes. The accused then led Artizona and the informer to the back of a market, where he handed over three matchboxes of marijuana. Artizona gave the marked money and then signaled his teammates, who arrested the accused. A search yielded the marked money, a marijuana cigarette butt, and a parcel containing marijuana flowering tops. Forensic tests confirmed the substances were marijuana. The accused denied the charges, claiming he was framed by the informer and the NARCOM agent, and that he was given the marijuana parcel and money while urinating. His mother testified she gave money to a sergeant for the case’s withdrawal. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of illegal sale of marijuana.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution’s evidence, provided by the NARCOM agents involved in the buy-bust operation, was deemed credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court rejected the defense’s arguments: (1) The prosecution’s failure to present the informer was not fatal, as the choice of witnesses is a party’s prerogative, and the defense could have subpoenaed him. (2) The agents’ decision not to arrest the accused while he was smoking marijuana earlier was tactical, to catch him for the more serious offense of drug-pushing. (3) The amount of buy-bust money was appropriate for a small-time operator. (4) The location of the transaction (billiard hall and market) did not negate the crime, as drug-pushing can occur in public places. The claim of being “framed” was found not credible, as no motive was shown for the agents to falsely accuse him. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty stood. The constitutional presumption of innocence was overcome by the prosecution’s evidence. The appealed judgment was affirmed in toto.