G.R. No. 84951 November 14, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SUSANA NAPAT-A y MACABIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Susana Napat-a was convicted of drug-pushing by the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The prosecution’s case stemmed from a buy-bust operation on February 3, 1985. Acting on information that Napat-a was selling marijuana, a team led by CIC Leo Quevedo as poseur-buyer conducted an operation. After a deal was arranged at the public market for three kilos at P800 per kilo, Napat-a led Quevedo and an informer to Brookside. There, she handed a brown carton box to Quevedo, who gave a pre-arranged signal. Back-up officers Peralta and Artizona then rushed in to arrest her. Forensic examination confirmed the box contained marijuana.
The appellant presented a different version. She claimed she was merely a vegetable vendor on her way home when she met a co-vendor, Naty Doguiwen. She alleged that after Doguiwen handed a box to a man and fled upon the approach of two other men, she was inexplicably arrested instead. During custodial investigation, she was assisted by counsel and signed a receipt for the seized property.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) the admissibility of the receipt she signed for the seized marijuana; (2) the sufficiency of prosecution evidence despite the death of the poseur-buyer and the non-presentation of the informer; and (3) the effect of the loss of the physical drug exhibits.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court found no violation of the appellant’s constitutional rights. She admitted during trial that she was assisted by counsel from the IBP Legal Aid Office when she signed the receipt (Exhibit “J”) and the investigation report, which explicitly stated she was informed of her rights. Thus, the waiver of her rights was valid and the document was admissible.
Regarding the second issue, the Court held the prosecution’s case remained strong. The death of poseur-buyer Quevedo did not fatally weaken the case because the actual sale and delivery were directly witnessed by Pat. Peralta, whose positive testimony prevailed over the appellant’s denial and frame-up defense. The Court reiterated the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by law enforcers and noted that defenses of frame-up are common and unpersuasive without clear evidence.
On the third issue concerning the lost drug exhibits, the Court ruled their absence did not undermine the conviction. The forensic chemist had testified and identified the exhibits in court, and their descriptions were incorporated into the records. The appellant’s counsel had also cross-examined witnesses on these exhibits. Following precedent, the Court held that the testimonial evidence on the identity and nature of the drugs was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. The conviction for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act was therefore sustained.