People v. Dansico
GR No. 178060
February 23, 2011
Facts:
The appellants Romeo Dansico and Augusto Cuadra were charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for the illegal sale of marijuana. They were arrested during a buy-bust operation conducted on September 7, 1998.
During the operation, the poseur-buyers informed the appellants that they wanted to buy Php5,000 worth of marijuana. They handed the buy-bust money to the appellants who left in a motorcycle to get the drugs. After about three hours, the appellants returned with a brick, allegedly the marijuana, wrapped in a newspaper. It was then that the police arrested the appellants. The team then proceeded to the NARGROUP Office where an officer prepared a booking sheet and the arrest report. The confiscated marijuana was placed in a plastic bag, which was then initialed by Inspectors Vargas and Paz.
On the other hand, the appellants contend that they were victims of frame-up and police extortion. According to them, Danisco had a farm where Cuadra worked. On the afternoon of September 7, 1998, Cuadra was on his way back to the farm when he was accosted by Inpector Vargas, who poked a gun at him. Then the latter struck the former’s head with a gun.
The RTC found Danisco and Cuadra guilty of the illegal sale of marijuana. The CA, on appeal, affirmed the decision.
The appelants contend that the two elements of the crime, namely (1) the sale and delivery of marijuana and (2) the knowledge of the sale of marijuana were not established. Furthermore, they contend that the evidence failed to establish the existence of the buy-bust operation.
Issue:
Were the RTC and CA correct in convicting the appellants?
Ruling:
Yes. To convict an accused of the illegal sale of marijuana, the prosecution must establish the following elements:
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration and
2. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment
All these elements were duly proven during the trial. The fact that there was indeed a buy-bust operation was supported not only by the testimonies of Inspectors Vargas and Paz but also by the documentary evidence consisting of photocopies of the serial numbers of the marked money, a blotter showing the arrest of the appellants, the booking sheet and arrest report, and the joint affidavit of arrest of Inspector Vargas and a civilian volunteer.
The defenses of denial, frame-up, and police extortion only become weighty when inconsistencies and improbabilities cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution evidence.
It's a Ping Thing 