GR 103393; (August, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103393 August 24, 1993.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO MANZANO y OLEDAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Acting on information from a confidential informant and after a week-long surveillance, members of the Special Operations Group, Marikina Police Force, conducted a “buy-bust” operation on March 21, 1991, against accused Virgilio Manzano. Pfc. Alfredo Pasana acted as the poseur-buyer. He approached Manzano, who was seated inside his tricycle in front of his house, and said, “bibili ako ng damo.” Manzano asked how much he would buy, and Pasana replied, “sitenta pesos.” Pasana gave Manzano a marked fifty-peso bill and a twenty-peso bill. In exchange, Manzano gave Pasana four plastic tea bags of suspected marijuana taken from his pocket. Pasana then gave a pre-arranged signal, leading to Manzano’s arrest. The specimens were tested at the PNP Crime Laboratory and yielded a positive result for marijuana. An Information was filed charging Manzano with violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). The Regional Trial Court convicted him of drug pushing and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine, and forfeiture of the drugs. Manzano appealed, arguing the trial court erred in finding him guilty.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant Virgilio Manzano guilty of the crime of drug pushing (violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425).
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that the prosecution established during the buy-bust operation that appellant sold four tea bags of dried marijuana leaves to the poseur-buyer for P70.00. The Court rejected appellant’s argument that it was improbable he would sell to Pfc. Pasana, whom he had known for eight years, noting that drug pushers often sell to anyone, including strangers or acquaintances, who can pay. The Court cited People v. Simbulan, stating that drug pushing can occur anywhere and that the presence of others does not discourage the trade. The police officers were presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. No reversible error was found in the trial court’s judgment.