G.R. No. 92849 October 20, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TIRZO CELIZ and JULIUS BANGERO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Tirzo Celiz and Julius Bangero were convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, for selling marijuana. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00 jointly and severally, and costs. The prosecution’s evidence established that on May 24, 1986, during a buy-bust operation in San Enrique, Iloilo, a civilian NARCOM agent, Danilo Layao, approached the appellants and inquired about buying marijuana. The appellants agreed to sell a matchbox of dried marijuana flowering tops for P30.00. After receiving marked money from Layao, they left and returned 25-30 minutes later to deliver the matchbox. NARCOM agent C1C Raul Labramonte, who observed the transaction, immediately arrested the appellants. The marked bills were recovered from them, and the matchbox contents were confirmed positive for marijuana by Forensic Chemist Lt. Zenaida Sinfuego. The defense claimed mistaken identity and alleged they were forced to sign documents under duress, denying any involvement in drug peddling.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Information filed against the accused-appellants is defective for failing to allege that the marijuana produces “the physiological effects of a narcotic or a hallucinogenic drug.”
2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. The Information is not defective. The allegation that the marijuana produces physiological effects is not an essential element of the offense defined under R.A. 6425. The law penalizes the act of selling any prohibited drug, and marijuana (Indian Hemp) is explicitly defined as a prohibited drug under Section 2(i) of the Act, which “embraces every kind, class, genus or specie of the plant cannabis sativa L.” The descriptive phrase regarding physiological effects is part of the general definition of “dangerous drugs” but does not form part of the description of the offense itself.
2. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The prosecution established the corpus delicti through the testimonies of the buy-bust team and the forensic chemist. The alleged minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses, given the two-year lapse before they testified, do not undermine the core finding of a completed sale. The trial court’s findings on credibility are accorded great weight. The defense of mistaken identity and frame-up was properly rejected. The argument regarding the “sex” of the marijuana plant (male vs. female) is irrelevant, as the law prohibits every kind and class of cannabis sativa L. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.