G.R. No. 73818 . February 27, 1987.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LESLIE LAGASCA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Leslie Lagasca was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City for Dope Pushing under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 , as amended, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The Information alleged that on March 27, 1985, in Dumaguete City, Lagasca unlawfully sold and delivered two sticks of marijuana cigarettes. The prosecution evidence, primarily from a buy-bust operation, established that NARCOM agent Pfc. Arthur Alcoran, acting as a poseur-buyer, approached a group including Lagasca. Alcoran gave a marked five-peso bill to Lagasca, who in turn handed over two sticks of cigarettes. Upon confirmation they were marijuana, Lagasca was arrested, and the marked money was recovered from him.
The defense presented a different version. Lagasca, then 17 years old, testified that he was given two cigarettes made of “catyubong” by a stranger as a purported remedy for his asthma. He claimed that when an old man (agent Alcoran) signaled a desire to smoke, he gave him the cigarettes and was given money in return, after which he was arrested. He denied knowledge that the cigarettes contained marijuana and asserted it was his first offense.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting Lagasca of the crime of drug pushing based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the straightforward testimony of agent Alcoran, credible and sufficient to prove the illegal sale beyond reasonable doubt. Alcoran’s detailed account of the buy-bust operation—the pre-marked money, the direct exchange, and the immediate recovery of the marijuana and the marked bill—constituted an unbroken chain of events leading to Lagasca’s guilt. The defense of lack of knowledge was correctly rejected by the trial court as inherently improbable and inconsistent with ordinary human experience; it was illogical for Lagasca to readily sell cigarettes he allegedly just received for medicinal purposes.
The Court noted that Lagasca, being a minor (17 years, 6 months, and 21 days old at the time of the offense), was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. However, because the penalty for drug pushing under the applicable law (Presidential Decree No. 1675) is life imprisonment to death, an indeterminate sentence could not be applied. Consequently, while affirming the penalty of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court, the Supreme Court, in the interest of justice, recommended to the President, through the Minister of Justice, that executive clemency be extended to Lagasca after he shall have served a term consistent with retributive justice and the objectives of the Dangerous Drugs Act.