G.R. No. 93712 June 15, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALEJANDRO WILLIAM Y BANEGA, ROMULO M. CALOGCOG Y FERRAREN, and BENJAMIN SAMIA Y MARTINEZ, accused.

FACTS

The accused were charged with violating Section 4 of Republic Act 6425, as amended (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), for selling, delivering, or acting as brokers in a transaction involving marijuana on January 18, 1986, in Pasay City. Following a surveillance operation at the Starlight Disco based on information about drug pushers, a NARCOM team conducted a buy-bust operation. Pfc. Manuel Olivas posed as a tourist guide with a U.S. Navy tourist. Accused Romulo Calogcog approached them, offered to contact a seller for marijuana priced at P200.00, left, and returned with Alejandro William, who provided the marijuana. After the exchange of marijuana for money, Calogcog and William were arrested. Accused Benjamin Samia and Virgilio Apura arrived after the transaction and were noted as mere onlookers (“usyosos”) but were also arrested. The seized marijuana was forensically examined and tested positive. At trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses. The defense presented Calogcog, Apura, and Samia (Alejandro William jumped bail). Calogcog claimed he was a “watch-your-car” boy, was approached about marijuana, denied knowledge, and was later arrested and forced to sign documents. Apura testified he was eating “lugaw” when arrested, did not know the other accused, and was beaten. Samia claimed he was at a store, was invited to a van, and was told he was just an onlooker. The Regional Trial Court convicted Calogcog and William of Reclusion Perpetua and a P20,000 fine each, and acquitted Samia and Apura due to insufficient evidence, finding them mere onlookers.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court gravely erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the law enforcers who are presumed to be regularly performing their duties.
2. Whether the trial court seriously erred in considering that the evidence submitted constituted the corpus delicti of the crime.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court found no error in crediting the testimonies of the NARCOM agents. It recognized the pernicious evil of drug addiction and the necessity of entrapment operations like buy-busts to apprehend criminals in flagrante delicto, while also cautioning vigilance against possible abuse. The records showed careful planning, including weeks of surveillance, and no evidence suggested the agents were motivated by anything other than curbing drug abuse. The accused were positively identified as the sellers, and the operation was a legitimate entrapment. On the second issue, the Court found the evidence established the corpus delicti. The chain of custody was intact: the Receipt for Property Seized (Exhibit C) signed by the appellants described the seized items; the Affidavit of Arrest (Exhibit A) described the containers; the request for laboratory examination (Exhibit J) and the Certificate of Laboratory Result (Exhibit D) consistently described the specimens; and the forensic chemist identified the presented specimens (Exhibits I, I-1, I-2) as those tested, which were positive for marijuana. The Court deemed it highly improbable that the specimens examined were different from those seized, rejecting the defense’s claim of possible “commingling” with other evidence. Therefore, the conviction of Alejandro William and Romulo Calogcog was upheld.