G.R. No. 86656 . October 31, 1990.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. APOLLO MARIANO y DINGDING, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Apollo Mariano, was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act) for selling and delivering marijuana. The prosecution evidence established that on June 4, 1986, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Meycauayan, Bulacan. Agent Crispin Velarde acted as a poseur-buyer and was given a marked ten-peso bill. Appellant and a companion approached Velarde and offered to sell marijuana. Appellant handed over one plastic tea bag of marijuana in exchange for the marked money. Upon Velarde’s pre-arranged signal, the buy-bust team arrested appellant and recovered the marked bill. The seized item was examined and confirmed to be marijuana.
The accused-appellant denied the charges, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested on June 1, 1986, while fetching water, and was later mauled and forced to admit possession of marijuana. He alleged his arrest and detention preceded the date of the alleged buy-bust operation and that a coerced statement was taken from him, though it was not presented in court.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the prosecution’s version credible and the defense untenable. The legal logic centered on the established elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drug. All were satisfied through the clear, positive, and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses detailing the buy-bust operation. The marked money’s recovery and the forensic confirmation of the substance as marijuana solidified the corpus delicti.
The Court dismissed the appellant’s defenses of denial, alibi, and alleged coercion as flimsy and unsubstantiated. It emphasized that between positive prosecution testimony and negative defense claims, greater weight is given to the former. The Court also noted the appellant’s previous conviction under the same law, which undermined his credibility. While affirming the judgment, the Court modified the penalty from reclusion perpetua to life imprisonment, the precise term mandated by the applicable law. The decision underscored the judiciary’s duty to support lawful efforts against drug trafficking, absent any constitutional infirmity in the enforcement procedures.