G.R. No. 103517 February 9, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDGARDO YAP y BOCA and SIMPLICIO OSMEÑA y OCAYA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Edgardo Yap and Simplicio Osmeña were charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for selling six sticks of marijuana for ten pesos in Ozamiz City on October 1, 1989. They pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted them and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, a fine, accessory penalties, and forfeiture of the drugs. During the appeal, Simplicio Osmeña died, so the proceeding continued only for Edgardo Yap. The prosecution’s evidence established that a buy-bust team was formed based on a civilian informer’s report. Agent Percival Raterta acted as the poseur-buyer, using a marked ten-peso bill. He approached the appellants in the public market, and Osmeña delivered six marijuana sticks after Yap received the marked money. The team members witnessed the transaction. Appellants were arrested shortly after, and the marked money was recovered from Yap’s pocket. Laboratory tests confirmed the substance was marijuana. The defense claimed they were framed, alleging they were drinking with friends when arrested without a warrant.

ISSUE

The main issues, consolidated from the appellants’ assignments of error, are: (1) whether the prosecution’s testimonies were properly offered and admitted in evidence; (2) whether the warrantless arrest was valid; (3) whether the prosecution witnesses were credible; (4) whether the defense of frame-up was valid; and (5) whether the sale of drugs to a stranger in a public place was unlikely.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Edgardo Yap with modification. (1) The presentation and examination of prosecution witnesses constituted a valid offer of evidence; appellants waived any defect by not objecting during trial. (2) The warrantless arrest was valid under Rule 113, Section 5(c), as the offense was committed in the presence of the arresting officers who had personal knowledge. The buy-bust operation constituted a valid entrapment. (3) The trial court’s findings on witness credibility are generally binding on appeal, with no showing of oversight or misapplication. (4) The defense of frame-up is a weak defense requiring clear proof; no improper motive was shown for the narcotics agents. (5) Drug pushers sell to both strangers and acquaintances in public or private places; what matters is the agreement and act of sale. The defense’s failure to present key witnesses weakened their case. The Court modified the penalty to life imprisonment and deleted the reference to accessory penalties of reclusion perpetua.