Course/Subject Name

CASE NO. 3
PEOPLE v MARCOS
G.R. No. 91646. August 21, 1992 | GUTIERREZ
TOPIC:
DIGEST BY: ABCEDE

RECITATION-READY SUMMARY

Accused. was charged with the illegal sale of marijuana under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, also known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The incident took place on June 7, 1989, in Zamboanga City, Philippines. According
to the information filed by the Office of the City Fiscal of Zamboanga City, Marcos unlawfully sold six sticks of marijuana
cigarettes to Sgt. Amado Ani, a member of the Narcom (Narcotics Command) who acted as a poseur-buyer during a
buy-bust operation. The operation was meticulously planned based on information from a civilian informant named
"Bobby." Surveillance was conducted a day before the raid, and the buy-bust operation was executed the following day.
During the operation, Marcos sold the marijuana to Sgt. Ani, who then signaled his team to arrest Marcos. Although
Marcos initially escaped, he was later apprehended. SC affirmed the conviction.

As to the offer of evidence, Court ruled that while the testimonies of some prosecution witnesses were not formally
offered at the time they were called to testify, they were included during the formal offer of documentary evidence by the
prosecuting Fiscal. Since the appellant did not object to this inclusion, he was estopped from questioning it on appeal.

CASE DOCTRINE(S)

SEC. 34. Offer of Evidence.— The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose
for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
SEC. 35. When to make offer.— As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness
is called to testify.
PARTIES

● Petitioner(s)
○ PEOPLE
● Defendant(s)
○ ROMIL MARCOS Y ISIDRO

I. FACTS
● Appellant Romil Marcos y Isidro was charged with the crime of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 in an information filed by the Office of
the City Fiscal of Zamboanga City with the RTC.
● The information alleged:
○ "That on or about June 7, 1989, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell to one SGT. AMADO ANI six (6) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, knowing
same to be a prohibited drug."
● After trial on the merits. the appellant was found by the court guilty. The trial court gave credence to the buy-bust
operation conducted by the prosecution witnesses, all of them Narcom agents, wherein the appellant sold six (6)
sticks of marijuana to Sgt. Amado Ani, a member of the operation, who acted as the poseur-buyer. The other
target of the operation, a certain Ballena eluded arrest and escaped.

The trial court summarized the buy-bust operation leading to the arrest of the appellant as follows:
The arrest of the accused was carefully planned. After receiving the information from the civilian informant named 'Bobby'
that the accused and another person was selling marijuana at Talon-Talon more particularly at Lucy's Store, the Narcom
Agents conducted a surveillance in said place riding on two motorcycles a day before the raid. They saw the accused
selling marijuana. The following day, again, the Narcom Agents held a conference and each of them was briefed by their
team leader. One of them who was Sgt. Amado Ani was to act as poseur buyer while others, namely: Sgt. Jesus Belarga,
Sgt. Bernardo Lego and Sgt. Julieto Vega as arresting officers.

1
 Course/Subject Name
The following day, June 7, 1989, at about 11:00 a.m.,said team consisting of Narcom Agents proceeded to the place.
Three were left at a vulcanizing shop, namely, Sgts. Belarga, Lego, and Vega; while Sgt. Amado Ani, the poseur buyer,
proceeded to the Lucy's Store. There he met the accused Romil Marcos who asked said poseur buyer how much he was
buying and the latter answered him P10.00 worth. The accused entered the store, gave the P10.00 marked money given
by Sgt. Ani to his companion Ballena and the latter gave the accused Romil Marcos the six sticks of marijuana cigarettes
which were wrapped. Sgt. Ani examined the same and upon verifying that it was marijuana, he proceeded to the street
and made the pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with a handkerchief. The three Narcom Agents rushed to the place
where Sgt. Amado Ani was.

However, after Sgt. Ani gave the signal, he returned to where the accused Romil Marcos and alias Ballena were,
introduced himself as Narcom Agent and grabbed the accused Romil Marcos but the latter was able to escape. While
escaping, the Narcom Agents saw him throw a stick of marijuana cigarette which Sgt. Belarga retrieved. Later, they
apprehended Romil Marcos and brought him to their office at Upper Calarian, this City. He was turned over to the chief
investigator Sgt. Mihasun together with the six sticks of marijuana cigarettes that were sold by the said accused Romil
Marcos to the poseur buyer, Sgt. Ani. The six sticks were examined by the PCCI and found the same to be positive of
marijuana.

● The trial court rejected the appellant's defense that he was not the object of the buy bust operation and that he
was arrested when he refused to testify against Ballena who was actually the target of the buy-bust operation.

He testified as follows:
That on June 7, 1989, past 11:00 o'clock in the morning, he was at Lucy's Store waiting for a jeep going to Sta. Catalina to
find out en he was going to work at the Peninsula Construction Company because he was temporarily laid off. That while
he was at the Lucy's Store, a motorcycle stopped in the store. Immediately, the people on board said motorcycle chased a
certain Ballena who is his neighbor. That Ballena's complete name is Romeo Ballena who is known as Mimi or Mi. Then
he heard a shot when they were chasing Ballena but does not know who fired the same.

The people on board the motorcycle were not able to catch up with Ballena, so they returned to the store. Upon returning
to the store, one of them pointed at him and said that he was a companion of Ballena at the same time handcuffing him.
At that time there were many people at the Lucy's Store numbering about thirty; that there were three CAFGUs who
arrived in the place and one of them asked the people who were riding earlier in the motorcycle what were those shots for.

One of them in the motorcycle answered that they must not interfere as they are Narcom Agents, and the CAFGU did not
interfere. After that they placed him between the motorcycle driver and the other person and took him with them to
Calarian; that the persons who took him were the same people who chased Ballena; that while on their way to Calarian,
one of the two persons who chased Ballena in a motorcycle told him that he must act as witness against Ballena.
However, said accused told them that he would not like to testify because he does not know what was that about. They
said that they are going to place him in jail because he does not want to be a witness against Ballena."

II. ISSUE(S)
1. Did the trial court err in convicting the accused based on testimonies and evidence that were allegedly not
properly offered? – NO

III. RULINGS (S)

In the first assigned error, the appellant contends that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Sgt. Jesus Belarga, Sgt.
Amado Ani, Jr. and Mrs. Athena Elias Anderson were not formally offered, hence, the trial court erred in considering their
testimonies. He cites sections 34 and 35, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court to prove his point, to wit:

SEC. 34. Offer of Evidence.— The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose
for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
SEC. 35. When to make offer.— As regards the testimony of a witness, the offer must be made at the time the witness is
called to testify.

Contrary to the assertion of the appellant, Sgt. Amado Ani's testimony was formally offered by the prosecution.
Hence, when Sgt. Ani was called to testify for the prosecution, Prosecuting Fiscal Deogracias Avecilla said that Sgt.
Amado Ani's testimony was being offered "to the effect that he was the poseur-buyer of this case.”

As regards the other mentioned prosecution witnesses, court agree with the appellant that their testimonies were not
formally offered at the time the said witnesses were called to testify. However, the records reveal that the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses were offered during the formal offer of documentary evidence by the prosecuting Fiscal.
2
 Course/Subject Name
The appellant did not object to such offer. In such a case, we rule that the appellant is now estopped from questioning the
inclusion of the subject testimonies by the trial court in convicting him of the crime charged. At any rate, the appellant was
not deprived of any of his constitutional rights in the inclusion of the subject testimonies. The appellant was not deprived
of his right to cross examine all these prosecution witnesses.

The appellant also faults the trial court for considering the six (6) marijuana sticks as evidence for the prosecution despite
the fact that they were not offered as evidence. The record reveals that when the prosecuting Fiscal offered the
prosecution's documentary evidence among those offered was Exhibit "E" which was described as "the wrapper
containing the six (6) sticks handrolled cigarette which were sold by the accused Romil Marcos to the poseur-buyer Sgt.
Ani, and as part of the testimony of the Forensic Chemist Athena Anderson and Sgt. Belarga and also Sgt. Mihasun."

Marcos alleges that nowhere in the offer of documentary evidence is there a mention as regards the six (6) sticks of
marijuana sold by the appellant to Sgt. Ani during the buy-bust operation. Under these circumstances, the appellant
argues that the appellant should be acquitted for failure of the prosecution to offer the six (6) sticks of marijuana sold by
the appellant to Sgt. Ani. This argument is not well taken.

Court ruled that Exhibit "E" does not refer to the wrapper alone but also refers to the six (6) marijuana sticks sold by
the appellant to Sgt. Ani during the buy-bust operation. It is to be noted that Exhibit "E" was offered as evidence in
relation to the testimonies of Sgt. Belarga, Forensic Chemist Athena Anderson and Sgt. Mihasun. The record is clear to
the effect that in their testimonies, Sgt. Belarga, Forensic Chemist Athena Anderson and Sgt. Mihasun referred to Exhibit
"E" as the six (6) sticks of marijuana sold by the appellant to Sgt. Ani during the buy-bust operation.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:
As to the credibility of the witnesses
the appellant points out alleged circumstances of the prosecution witnesses which "render their testimonies lacking in
probative weight or value." The appellant focuses on the alleged inconsistent statements of the Narcom agents as regards
how long they have known their informant named "Bobby" to the point that the appellant suggests that there was no
informant and that the surveillance on June 6, 1989 and the buy-bust operation conducted on June 7, 1989 never took
place at all.

Court ruled that whether or not the prosecution witnesses, particularly the Narcom agents have known their informant
Bobby for one year is not a material point in the crime of illegal sale of marijuana drug. This crime requires merely the
consummation of the selling transaction. In case of a "buy-bust operation", the crucial point is that the poseur-buyer
received the marijuana from the appellant and the same was presented as evidence in court. Proof of the transaction is
sufficient. In the case at bar, the transaction was established by the evidence on record. Prosecution witness Sgt. Ani who
acted as poseur-buyer positively identified the appellant as the one who sold him six (6) sticks of marijuana for the amount
of P10.00.

The appellant also points out the supposed inconsistency of the testimonies of Sgt. Ani, the poseur buyer and prosecution
witness Athena Elias Anderson, document examiner and forensic chemist who examined the six (6) marijuana sticks
(Exhibit "E") submitted for analysis as regards the wrapper containing the six (6) marijuana sticks which were sold to the
former by the appellant. Thus, while Sgt. Ani testified that the six (6) sticks of marijuana sold to him by the appellant were
wrapped in a newspaper, Anderson declared that the wrapper used and submitted to her containing the six (6) sticks of
marijuana was a primary ruled pad and not a newspaper. The appellant submits that what was obtained from the
appellant is different from the one submitted for examination by Anderson. Court was not impressed.

The records show that when Sgt. Ani turned over the six (6) marijuana sticks wrapped in paper sold to him by the
appellant, Sgt. Belarga placed his initial, the date as well as the sign of a star on the six (6) sticks for identification
purposes. The records further reveal that the six (6) sticks of marijuana examined and analyzed by Anderson were
identified in court by Sgt. Belarga as the same six (6) sticks of marijuana sold by the appellant to Sgt. Ani during the
buy-bust operation.

In sum we find no compelling reason to disturb the findings of facts of the trial court. We give credence to the narration of
the incident by the prosecution witnesses who are police officers and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular
manner in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the buy-bust operation was methodically executed with
surveillance operations done one (1) day before the arrest of the appellant. We find the procedure adapted by the police
officers in consonance with the application of regularity in the performance of official duties. However, the trial court erred
in sentencing the appellant to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. The proper penalty to be imposed on appellant
should be life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua.