GR 63462; (November, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 63462 November 6, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE PIRRERAS AND PIO C. PABONA, JR., defendants-appellants; JOSE PIRRERAS, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Jose Pirreras, together with Pio Pabona, Jr., was charged with violating Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act for selling marijuana. The prosecution evidence established that on September 13, 1981, a police team conducted an entrapment operation in Lingayen, Pangasinan, using a civilian informer and marked money. The informer approached Pabona at his residence, where Pirreras was also present. After the informer handed the marked money to Pabona, Pirreras himself handed two matchboxes containing marijuana to the informer. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the police officers revealed themselves, prompting both accused to flee. They were apprehended after a chase, with the marked money recovered from Pabona and the marijuana confirmed by forensic examination.
Pirreras denied the charges, claiming he was merely an innocent bystander. He testified that a man named “Antonio” (the civilian informer) approached him to ask for directions to Pabona. He claimed he merely accompanied Antonio to Pabona’s location, and when Antonio suddenly ran toward the police and Pabona fled, he also ran out of fear. He asserted he was forced to sign a document and had no involvement in any drug transaction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Jose Pirreras for the sale of marijuana.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the police officers credible and consistent, enjoying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Their positive identification of Pirreras as the one who physically handed over the marijuana to the informer was crucial. The Court rejected Pirreras’s defense as inherently improbable. His claim of innocently accompanying a stranger to Pabona’s house, thereby deviating from his alleged plan to watch a movie, lacked a credible motive and defied ordinary human experience.
Furthermore, his conduct was inconsistent with innocence. His flight alongside Pabona upon the arrival of the authorities was a strong indication of guilt. The Court reasoned that an innocent person with no knowledge of the illegal transaction would have no reason to flee from police officers; if anything, such a person would likely run toward them for assistance or clarification. The collective circumstances—his presence during the negotiation, his act of delivering the contraband, and his immediate flight—conclusively established his criminal conspiracy with Pabona in the sale of prohibited drugs. Therefore, his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.