G.R. No. L-65349 October 31, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARMANDO ADRIANO Y MALLORCA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Armando Adriano, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Manila for peddling marijuana and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with a fine. The prosecution evidence established that on March 29, 1982, a civilian informer, under police direction, successfully purchased four plastic bags of marijuana from Adriano at his residence. Subsequently, on April 1, a police team executed a search warrant at the same location. The informer again engaged in a buy-bust operation, and upon Adriano handing over five plastic bags of marijuana, he was arrested. A search of his house yielded eight more plastic bags of marijuana from an aluminum casserole. Adriano also executed a confession admitting to being a peddler. Forensic analysis confirmed the substances as marijuana.
At trial, Adriano denied all allegations, claiming no knowledge of the marijuana found and suggesting a frame-up by the police. He testified about his work as a casual laborer and his family circumstances. On appeal, his counsel contended that the conviction relied on hearsay, as the civilian informer did not testify, and argued the crime was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of Armando Adriano for selling and possessing marijuana is valid despite the non-presentation of the civilian informer as a witness.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is valid. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution, independent of the informer’s testimony. The Court found the testimonies of the police officers, who directly witnessed the buy-bust operation and the subsequent search, to be credible and sufficient. The recovery of seventeen bags of marijuana, particularly the eight bags found in an aluminum casserole in Adriano’s kitchen during a lawful search conducted in the presence of his wife and neighbors, constituted concrete, physical evidence that strongly corroborated the entrapment. This discovery reinforced the prosecution’s case, making it a clear instance of res ipsa loquitur.
The Court rejected the defense of frame-up, noting Adriano’s failure to object during the search if evidence was being planted. His allegations of police extortion and maltreatment were deemed insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the arresting officers. The non-presentation of the informer did not render the evidence hearsay, as the police officers testified based on their personal knowledge of the operations. The offense was proven beyond reasonable doubt and fell under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, warranting the imposed penalty.