G.R. No. 106639 May 31, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Saturnino Solon y Jabenes and Roberto Sali y Yu, accused-appellants.

FACTS

Accused-appellants Saturnino Solon and Roberto Sali were charged with the sale of marijuana in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The prosecution evidence established that on March 1, 1990, following a prior test-buy operation, a buy-bust team conducted an entrapment in Sto. Niño, Zamboanga City. Posing as a buyer, Sgt. Mamuad approached Solon, handed him marked money, and requested marijuana. Solon then looked at his companion, Sali, who subsequently pulled out and handed eight sticks of marijuana to the poseur-buyer. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the other NARCOM agents moved in and arrested both appellants. Forensic examination confirmed the cigarettes were marijuana.
The defense presented a denial and frame-up theory. Appellants claimed they were merely walking home when accosted and illegally arrested by NARCOM agents, who found nothing on them. They presented witnesses to corroborate their account of an arbitrary arrest and alleged that one witness had himself been a prior victim of the same agents.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of the poseur-buyer, Sgt. Mamuad, to be clear, convincing, and sufficient to establish the illegal sale. The crime of drug pushing is consummated upon the delivery of the illicit drug to the buyer in exchange for payment. The sequence where Mamuad gave money to Solon, who then signaled Sali to hand over the marijuana, constituted a completed sale. The defense of denial and frame-up could not prevail over the positive identification by the police officers, absent any evidence of improper motive. The Court also rejected the claim regarding the absence of counsel during custodial investigation, as the constitutional rights on this point apply to extrajudicial confessions, not to the buy-bust operation itself.
However, applying the ruling in People v. de Guzman, the quantity of marijuana involved—eight sticks—was deemed minimal. Consequently, the penalty was reduced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The appellants were sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of four months and twenty days of arresto mayor maximum, as minimum, to four years and two months of prision correccional medium, as maximum. The fine and subsidiary imprisonment were deleted. As the appellants had already been detained for over five years, exceeding the new maximum penalty, their immediate release was ordered.