G.R. No. 93407 January 20, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO PINTO y CAPATULAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ricardo C. Pinto, was convicted for selling marijuana in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The conviction stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Valenzuela police on February 22, 1990, after receiving confidential information about a pusher named “Ric.” The team, led by Pat. Rafael Tamayo and including Pat. Wilfredo Quillian, P/Aide Crisanto Soriaga, and Pat. Federico Patag, proceeded to the appellant’s address. Pat. Tamayo was provided with a marked P20.00 bill. At the house, Pat. Tamayo knocked, and a man (the appellant) opened the door, identified himself as Ric, accepted the marked money, went upstairs, and returned with two tea bags of marijuana. Upon the exchange, Pat. Tamayo signaled his teammates, who arrested the appellant. The police retrieved the marked bill and found three more tea bags of marijuana in his pocket. All five tea bags were placed in a plastic bag, and the appellant was taken to the police station. At the station, Pat. Tamayo identified two of the tea bags as those sold to him and the marked money. Forensic chemist Constancia Salazar confirmed the tea bags contained marijuana. The appellant’s defense was that he was training his fighting cocks when approached by a stranger asking to buy marijuana; he denied selling any, was handcuffed, his house was searched without a warrant, and the tea bags were “planted” on him at the station. The trial court rejected this defense as an afterthought, noting the appellant did not raise it before the inquest fiscal and offered no corroborating witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution evidence proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the prosecution evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court found the alleged inconsistency in Pat. Tamayo’s testimony regarding how he approached the appellant to be trivial and not detrimental to his overall credibility. It rejected the appellant’s contention that a pusher would not sell to a stranger, noting that drug pushers often operate openly and daringly. The Court also held that Pat. Tamayo’s act of picking two tea bags from the plastic container for identification did not impair the exhibits’ probative value, as all five tea bags were similarly packaged and illegally possessed. The penalties of life imprisonment and a P20,000.00 fine were affirmed.