G.R. No. 137612 ; September 25, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO ANTINERO BERIARMENTE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that a police informant alerted SPO2 Orlando Caballero that accused-appellant Francisco Beriarmente was seeking buyers for a sack of marijuana. Randy Sinarlo, nephew of police officer SPO2 Marcial Sinarlo, agreed to act as a poseur-buyer. Sinarlo met Beriarmente at a restaurant, and they proceeded via tricycle to a house along Sawang Street where Beriarmente retrieved a straw sack. Upon reaching another location, Beriarmente handed the sack to Sinarlo. Arresting officers, who had followed them, immediately apprehended Beriarmente. Laboratory analysis confirmed the sack contained 1,500 grams of marijuana. The prosecution witnesses positively identified Beriarmente in court as the seller.
The defense presented a different narrative. Beriarmente testified he was in Badian to buy corn grits. He was invited for drinks by his cousin-in-law, Roel Beona, who later introduced him to Randy Sinarlo. Beona instructed him to fetch a sack from a certain Rosita and deliver it to the NFA Milling. Claiming ignorance of its contents, Beriarmente retrieved the sack and handed it to Sinarlo. He was subsequently arrested by the police while Sinarlo was not apprehended.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, finding their testimonies clear, consistent, and corroborative on material points. The defense of denial and frame-up, being inherently weak, could not prevail over the positive identification and affirmative testimonies of the poseur-buyer and the arresting officer. There was no evidence of any ill motive on the part of the police to falsely implicate the accused-appellant.
The Court clarified that even assuming no consummated sale occurred due to the lack of marked money or prior surveillance, the accused-appellant’s conviction remained valid. The act of delivering the sack of marijuana to the poseur-buyer, without legal authority, by itself constitutes the offense of delivery of a prohibited drug under the law. The information adequately charged him with possession and control of the prohibited substance, which was proven by his act of handing over the contraband. The elements of the crime were thus established beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 were affirmed.