G.R. No. 93728 , August 21, 1995
People of the Philippines vs. Michael Herrera and Francisco Abbu

FACTS

Accused Francisco Abbu and Michael Herrera were charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act for allegedly selling one tea bag of dried marijuana leaves to a NARCOM poseur-buyer for a marked ten-peso bill in Cagayan de Oro City. The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information implicating the accused. During the operation, the poseur-buyer handed the marked money to Abbu, after which Herrera delivered the marijuana tea bag. The police team closed in, but both accused eluded arrest, taking the marked money with them. The seized marijuana was later confirmed by the NBI to be positive for cannabis. At trial, Herrera presented an alibi, while Abbu did not testify, merely adopting Herrera’s evidence. The trial court convicted Abbu but acquitted Herrera.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution successfully proved Abbu’s guilt for the illegal sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt, despite the non-presentation of the marked money and the poseur-buyer, and the alleged gap in the chain of custody of the seized drug.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is threefold. First, the presentation of marked money is not indispensable for proving a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The law punishes the act of delivery or sale of a prohibited drug; the consideration or its recovery is immaterial to the consummation of the crime. The offense was completed upon the delivery of the marijuana to the poseur-buyer.
Second, the failure to present the poseur-buyer is not fatal. The testimonies of the other members of the buy-bust team, who were positioned nearby and witnessed the transaction, constitute competent direct evidence. Their collective testimony sufficiently established the illegal sale.
Third, the alleged break in the chain of custody—the 20-hour period the marijuana was in police possession before laboratory submission—did not render the evidence inadmissible. The integrity of the evidence was preserved, as it was presented in court and identified as the same item seized. No evidence suggested it was tampered with or substituted. Furthermore, conspiracy was established by the concerted actions of Abbu and Herrera during the transaction, indicating a common purpose. However, the penalty was modified in line with the ruling in People vs. Simon, imposing an indeterminate sentence. As Abbu had already served more than the maximum of this new penalty, his immediate release was ordered.