G.R. No. 88589 ; April 16, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO LINSANGAN y DIAZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Police operatives, acting on reports of rampant drug pushing in Tondo, Manila, organized a buy-bust operation on November 13, 1987. Patrolman Tomasito Corpuz, acting as poseur-buyer, and a confidential informant approached the appellant, Carlito Linsangan. The informant signaled to Linsangan, who then approached them. The informant stated they wished to buy marijuana, and Linsangan agreed to sell ten hand-rolled sticks for twenty pesos. Corpuz handed over two marked ten-peso bills, which Linsangan tucked into his waist. Linsangan entered a nearby house, returned shortly, and handed ten cigarette sticks to Corpuz. Corpuz then arrested him, and the backup officers subdued Linsangan as he resisted. The marked money was recovered from his waist.
The appellant denied the charge, claiming he was merely buying breakfast when arrested. He alleged the police officers bore ill will against him because he had previously refused to give them a free tricycle ride to chase a suspect. He argued the marked money was planted and that the informant was the one who actually handed the marijuana to Corpuz. He further contended that being made to initial the recovered marked bills violated his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of illegal sale of marijuana based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, noting that the alleged inconsistencies in their testimonies involved minor details that did not undermine the core narrative of the buy-bust operation. The appellant’s claimed motive for the police to fabricate charges—a prior refusal to give a free tricycle ride—was deemed not credible, as the Court found it improbable that a tricycle driver would defy armed policemen over such a minor matter.
Regarding the constitutional issue, the Court ruled that while the appellant initialed the marked bills without counsel, this did not violate his right against self-incrimination. His act of initialing the bills was not a confession to a crime; the offense was the sale of marijuana, not the mere possession of the marked money. His conviction was based not on the initialed bills but on the credible and categorical testimonies of the police officers who witnessed the illegal transaction. Law enforcers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, and their testimonies prevailed over the appellant’s bare denials. The penalty was modified to life imprisonment in accordance with the applicable law.