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 entrapment operation was set up in Lingayen, Pangasinan, using a civilian informer and marked money. The informer negotiated with Pabona and Pirreras in front of Pabona’s house. After the informer handed the marked money to Pabona, Pirreras handed two matchboxes to the informer. Upon the pre-arranged signal, police officers emerged, prompting both accused to flee. They were apprehended after a chase, with the marked money recovered from Pabona and the matchboxes, later confirmed to contain marijuana, recovered from the informer.
Pirreras denied the charges, claiming he was merely accompanying a stranger named “Antonio” (the informer) to find Pabona when the transaction occurred. He testified he had no knowledge of the drug sale and fled out of fear when he saw others running. The trial court convicted both accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Pabona withdrew his appeal, leaving Pirreras as the sole appellant challenging the verdict based on the credibility of prosecution witnesses and the failure to present the civilian informer.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Jose Pirreras conspired in the illegal sale of marijuana.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, upholding the trial court’s assessment of the evidence. The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers, absent any proof of improper motive. Pirreras’s own testimony undermined his defense. He admitted deviating from his alleged plan to watch a movie to accompany a complete stranger to Pabona’s house without a plausible reason, placing him at the scene of the crime.
Crucially, the police officers positively identified Pirreras as the one who physically handed the matchboxes containing marijuana to the informer immediately after Pabona received the payment. This act directly constituted the sale. His subsequent flight with Pabona upon the officers’ appearance was indicative of guilt, inconsistent with the behavior of an innocent bystander. The Court found no reason for the officers to falsely testify against him, and the failure to present the informer did not weaken the case, as the officers’ testimonies provided direct and corroborative evidence of the illegal transaction. Thus, his participation in the sale was established beyond reasonable doubt.