G.R. No. 71681 , September 5, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CORNELIO MARILAO y SAMSON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s case established that on May 18, 1984, a NARCOM team conducted a buy-bust operation in Antipolo, Rizal, based on a tip regarding the drug activities of a certain “Nelio.” Policewoman Pfc. Armenia Pilueta, acting as the poseur-buyer and accompanied by a confidential informant, approached appellant Cornelio Marilao in front of his residence. Pilueta expressed her desire to buy marijuana, and Marilao quoted a price of P180 per “line” or 100 grams. Pilueta handed over four P100 bills. Marilao left briefly, returned, and handed her approximately 200 grams of marijuana fruiting tops. Upon Pilueta’s pre-arranged signal, the NARCOM team arrested Marilao. A body search recovered two of the marked P100 bills, and a subsequent search of his residence yielded an additional 100 grams of marijuana. Forensic analysis confirmed the substances were marijuana.
The defense presented only the uncorroborated testimony of Marilao, who denied the sale. He claimed he was merely conversing with a woman named Myra Matangga when he was suddenly accosted by individuals who forced him into a vehicle, manhandled him, and demanded money. He asserted the evidence was planted and argued the prosecution’s narrative was improbable, as the alleged sale occurred openly on a street without him posting a look-out.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Cornelio Marilao unlawfully sold marijuana, thereby violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court meticulously applied the legal principles governing buy-bust operations and evidence evaluation. It held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Pfc. Pilueta and Pfc. Eslomot who positively identified Marilao as the seller and witnessed the transaction, were credible, straightforward, and consistent. The Court found no evidence of ill motive on the part of the NARCOM agents to fabricate such a grave charge. The defense of frame-up, being inherently weak, must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, which Marilao failed to provide. His bare denial could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers.
The Court also rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the improbability of the incident. It ruled that the absence of a look-out is not an element of the crime and does not render the sale incredible. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the arresting officers stands in the absence of proof to the contrary. Furthermore, the forensic report conclusively established the corpus delicti. Between the positive, categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the appellant’s unsubstantiated denial, greater weight is accorded to the former. Thus, all elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the fine were upheld.