G.R. No. 104494 September 10, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PAUL BANDIN Y NARCISO @ “ABLING”, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On June 24, 1991, an informer reported to the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) in Legazpi City that drug trafficking by a pusher named “Abling” was rampant at Bagtang Terminal, Daraga, Albay. A buy-bust operation was organized. Marked money was given to Sgt. Felipe Tuzon, Jr., who acted as poseur-buyer. The team, with the informer, proceeded to the terminal. The informer first approached appellant Paul Bandin alias “Abling,” who confirmed he had marijuana for sale. The informer then returned with Sgt. Tuzon, who bought a tea bag of marijuana from the appellant using the marked money. After giving a pre-arranged signal, the other NARCOM agents arrested the appellant. A body search recovered the marked money and a stick of marijuana cigarette from him. The appellant was brought to the NARCOM office where a Receipt of Property Seized and a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report were prepared, which the appellant signed without the assistance of counsel. An initial field test on the confiscated items conducted by Sgt. Tuzon yielded positive for marijuana. The items were later forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory, whose Chemistry Report confirmed they were marijuana. The Regional Trial Court convicted the appellant of drug pushing under Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The case was certified to the Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Receipt of Property Seized and the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report signed by the appellant without counsel are admissible in evidence.
2. Whether the tea bag of marijuana, the marijuana stick, and the marked money were obtained through an illegal search.
3. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the forensic chemist.
4. Whether the appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. The appellant’s signature on the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report is admissible. It is not an admission of guilt or an extra-judicial confession but merely a police report documenting the arrest, useful for potential charges of arbitrary detention. However, the appellant’s signature on the Receipt of Property Seized is inadmissible. It is a declaration against interest and a tacit admission of the crime, constituting an uncounselled extra-judicial confession in violation of Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution .
2. The warrantless search was valid. The appellant was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation, a valid form of entrapment. The search following his lawful arrest was justified.
3. The trial court did not err in crediting the forensic chemist’s findings. An initial field test conducted by Sgt. Tuzon, an experienced NARCOM agent, was admissible. A chemical analysis is not indispensable for establishing a substance as a prohibited drug; a witness’s familiarity with drugs affects the weight, not the competency, of testimony. The appellant’s conjecture about possible tampering or mix-up of the specimens is not proof.
4. The appellant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence, primarily the clear and convincing testimonies of the apprehending officers. The buy-bust operation was legitimate, and the police are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect. The decision of the trial court is affirmed in toto.