GR 81332; (April, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 81332 , April 25, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALLAN RODRIGUEZ Y TEVES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Allan Rodriguez y Teves, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Makati for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 6425). The information alleged that on June 2, 1987, in Makati, he willfully and unlawfully gave away, distributed, and sold three sticks of marijuana cigarettes. The prosecution evidence, primarily from Pat. Marvin Pajilan, established that police, acting on a tip, conducted surveillance at a specified address. They observed the appellant emerge from a house, approach a tricycle driver, return inside, and later hand over “a suspicious stuff of a cigarette” to the driver, who in turn gave something to the appellant.
Upon apprehension, the appellant was found in possession of two small plastic bags containing suspected marijuana leaves, and the tricycle driver, Enrico Bacod, was found with three sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes. These items were later confirmed by the NBI to be marijuana. The defense stipulated to the genuineness and due execution of the police investigation report and the NBI forensic report, admitting the specimens were marijuana and were the same items confiscated from the appellant.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the sale, delivery, and distribution of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the police officers credible and accorded them the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, absent any proof of ill motive. The defense’s stipulations effectively admitted the corpus delicti—that the substances were marijuana and came from the appellant. The act observed by the police, where the appellant handed marijuana cigarettes to the tricycle driver in exchange for something, constituted the acts of sale, delivery, or distribution punishable under the law.
The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the setting (his own home) and the small amount (P10.00) made the transaction improbable, citing precedent that drug pushing can occur anywhere and that the absence of marked money does not weaken the case when the drug itself is presented. The agreement and the physical act of handing over the prohibited drug are the essential elements, not any pre-existing familiarity between the parties. The defense’s mere denials could not prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.