G.R. No. L-72899 January 30, 1987
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARCO POLO y FULLANTE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Marco Polo y Fullante, was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act) for the alleged sale of five aluminum foils of dried marijuana leaves. The prosecution evidence established that on February 7, 1984, police officers, acting on a tip, conducted a buy-bust operation at Wennen’s Snack Bar in San Juan, Metro Manila. A confidential informer, acting as a poseur-buyer, was given marked money and successfully purchased the marijuana from the appellant. The transaction was witnessed by a police officer. Appellant was arrested and subsequently gave an extrajudicial confession, stating he obtained the marijuana from a certain “Bobby.”
The defense presented a different version, claiming the appellant was a victim of a frame-up. He testified that two students had asked him to buy marijuana, which he refused, and that he was later arrested without cause. He denied selling any drugs and repudiated his extrajudicial confession, alleging it was extracted through force and without being informed of his constitutional rights. The trial court rejected these defenses, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the prosecution proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the appellant’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution evidence sufficiently established the elements of the crime. The testimonies of the police officers, who witnessed the transaction through the poseur-buyer, were credible and consistent on material points. The Court found the claim of a frame-up to be a mere conjecture, unsupported by evidence. The failure to present the marked money in court was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as the direct testimony on the sale was clear and the appellant himself admitted obtaining the marijuana from “Bobby.” The arrest was lawful, having been made in flagrante delicto.
On the second issue, the Court ruled the extrajudicial confession was admissible. The appellant’s belated claim of coercion and violation of his rights was not credible. The Court noted the absence of physical injuries or any formal complaint of maltreatment. The confession contained details only the appellant could have known. Furthermore, even disregarding the confession, the eyewitness accounts of the buy-bust operation alone constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found no reversible error in the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and credibility of witnesses. The appealed judgment was affirmed in toto.