G.R. No. L-72353. January 30, 1987.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMULO CERELEGIA y CABUGAL @ MULO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Romulo Cerelegia was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Bohol for selling one matchbox of dried marijuana leaves for fifteen pesos, a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution evidence established that a civilian informant alerted NARCOM agents about Cerelegia’s activities. The agents marked three five-peso bills and gave them to the informant for a buy-bust operation. On October 10, 1984, near the University of Bohol, the informant met Cerelegia. Agents Biñan and Puagang, positioned nearby, witnessed Cerelegia hand over a matchbox in exchange for the marked money. They immediately apprehended him, recovering the marked bills from his pocket. Forensic tests confirmed the matchbox contained marijuana.
Cerelegia, a 22-year-old college student, denied the charge and claimed he was framed. He testified that the informant, Butch Sarmiento, showed him the matchbox and then threw it and a wallet near him during the arrest. He alleged maltreatment during investigation and a denial of his right to counsel. His benefactor, Major Ermac, testified to his good moral character and pleaded for compassion, noting Cerelegia had no criminal record and did not smoke or drink.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved Cerelegia’s guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt, overcoming his defenses of frame-up, good moral character, and alleged violations of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence clear and convincing. The testimonies of the NARCOM agents, who were eyewitnesses to the actual sale, were credible and constituted direct proof of the crime. The detailed account of the buy-bust operation, the marked money recovered from Cerelegia, and the positive forensic report established all elements of the illegal sale beyond reasonable doubt.
The defense of frame-up was rejected for being unsubstantiated and inherently weak. The claim of good moral character, while noted, cannot prevail over positive identification and direct evidence of the crime. The Court also highlighted that evidence suggested Cerelegia had pilfered the marijuana from a legitimate depository, which further undermined his character defense. The alleged denial of the right to counsel during investigation was deemed immaterial to his culpability, as no extrajudicial confession was used against him; his conviction was based solely on the eyewitness accounts of the arresting officers. However, in line with the trial court’s consideration of his youth, the Supreme Court joined the recommendation for executive clemency after he serves part of his sentence of reclusion perpetua.