People vs. Mendoza (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARMANDO MENDOZA

G.R. No. 220759, July 24, 2017 

PERALTA, J.:

Facts: During a buy-bust operation, PO2 Ricote, together with the CI, met the appellant in a sari-sari store and the CI introduced P02 Ricote as a buyer of marijuana. Appellant then told PO2 Ricote that the price per teabag of marijuana was ₱50.00 to which the latter agreed to buy 4 teabags. Appellant then took out from his right pocket the four teabags of suspected dried marijuana leaves and handed them to PO2 Ricote who, in tum, gave the marked two pieces of one hundred peso bills to the former. PO2 Ricote then scratched his head as a pre-arranged signal, and PO3 Parena, who was inside a parked vehicle which was three meters away from the sari-sari store, immediately run to help in arresting appellant.

Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he, together with friends, were along the road, repairing a pedicab. When they all went to a sari-sari store to rest, they were joined by a certain Andy Makabenta. He then saw the arrival of a white vehicle and a motorcycle with two people riding on it. A person alighted from the motorcycle and held the wrist of Makabenta, while another police officer alighted from the vehicle and pointed to him saying "you also apprehend that.”

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal sale of marijuana.

Ruling: Yes. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of marijuana, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identities of the buyer and. the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.34 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

In this case, PO2 Ricote, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the seller of the four teabags of suspected marijuana and to whom he handed the marked two pieces of one hundred peso bills as payment therefor. The substance sold by appellant to PO2 Ricote was sent for analysis and upon the examination, it showed that the four teabags yielded a positive result for marijuana, a dangerous drug. The marijuana was presented to the court and was identified by PO2 Ricote to be the marijuana he bought from appellant based on the markings he made thereon.

Ratio Decidendi: The positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prevail over appellant's defense of denial.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty of selling marijuana.