G.R. Nos. 88368-69; June 19, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSEPH ESPALLARDO y REYES, and ALFONSO BANGATE y AREVALO, accused. JOSEPH ESPALLARDO y REYES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On November 16, 1985, police officers on patrol in Pasay City observed appellant Joseph Espallardo and four others sniffing a substance from a cellophane bag. As the officers approached, the group fled. Espallardo was caught after a brief chase. A search of his person yielded fifteen hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes from his pants pocket. While being escorted to the police station, Espallardo pointed to Alfonso Bangate as a customer. The police accosted Bangate and, with his consent, found two marijuana sticks in his wallet. All seized items were marked and submitted to the NBI, where Forensic Chemist Aida Viloria Magsipoc confirmed they were positive for marijuana. Separate Informations were filed: one against Espallardo for selling marijuana, and another against Bangate for possession thereof.
At trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the apprehending officers and the forensic chemist. The officers consistently identified Espallardo as the person caught sniffing rugby and from whom the fifteen marijuana sticks were confiscated. They also testified that Espallardo identified Bangate as a buyer. Espallardo denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested while playing billiards and that the marijuana was planted. He denied selling to Bangate. The trial court convicted Espallardo of selling prohibited drugs and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Joseph Espallardo y Reyes is guilty of selling marijuana in violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is affirmed. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the prosecution evidence established Espallardo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The legal logic rests on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the admissibility of the evidence obtained. The testimonies of the five police officers were consistent and credible, detailing the apprehension, the search yielding fifteen marijuana sticks from Espallardo, and his subsequent identification of Bangate as a buyer. The Court applied the presumption that law enforcers regularly perform their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary, which Espallardo failed to overcome with his bare denials.
Regarding the search, the Court ruled it was valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. Espallardo was initially apprehended for sniffing rugby, a volatile substance punishable under P.D. 1619. The subsequent discovery of marijuana during a search of his person was incidental to that arrest, making the evidence admissible against him. The forensic chemist’s expert testimony, detailing her qualifications and the examination confirming the substance as marijuana, was also deemed sufficient. The minor inconsistency in one officer’s testimony was clarified on re-direct examination. Consequently, all elements of the crime were proven, warranting the affirmation of the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine.