G.R. No. 88220 October 1, 1990
The People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Ernesto Cina y Gaspar, @ “Ernesto Villanueva y Gaspar”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Ernesto Cina, was charged with the sale and possession of marijuana in two separate Informations. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. Invoking the ruling in People v. De Jesus, he filed a motion to quash the charge for possession, arguing it is inherent in the crime of sale when both arise from a single act. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the possession charge. Trial proceeded solely on the charge of illegal sale under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The prosecution evidence established that on April 9, 1987, Sgt. Paterno Panaga acted as a poseur-buyer and purchased two tea bags of marijuana from the accused for P20.00 at a location in Marikina. Upon consummation of the sale, a pre-arranged signal led to the accused’s arrest. A subsequent search yielded the marked buy-bust money and five additional tea bags of marijuana from his person. Forensic examination confirmed all tea bags contained marijuana.
The defense presented a starkly different version. The accused claimed he was merely a passenger assisting a jeepney driver when he was forcibly apprehended. He alleged the marijuana was discovered inside the jeepney, not on his person, and that he was framed. He admitted giving a false name initially and being under probation at the time of his arrest.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused for the illegal sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, provided by the NARCOM operatives, to be clear, consistent, and credible, thereby establishing all elements of the sale: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the illegal drug. The defense of denial and frame-up was deemed weak and unsubstantiated, especially when juxtaposed with the straightforward narrative of the police officers who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The Court systematically rejected the appellant’s arguments. The claim that the buy-bust operation was improbable because it involved a sale to a stranger was dismissed; the law does not require prior acquaintance, only the agreement and acts constituting the sale. The argument that the marked money should have been treated with ultraviolet ink was found baseless, as the standard operating procedure was not proven, and the handwritten markings sufficed for identification. The Court also noted the accused’s failure to present corroborating witnesses from his own narrative, which undermined his defense. His initial use of an alias and status as a probationer further cast doubt on his credibility. Consequently, the trial court’s decision imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine was upheld.