In the Philippines, a conviction for the sale of illegal drugs can stand even if there’s no marked money presented as evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the crucial element is proving the exchange of drugs between the seller and the buyer. This decision reinforces the idea that law enforcement’s primary focus should be on capturing drug offenders and preventing the spread of illegal substances, rather than getting caught up in procedural technicalities.

Entrapment or Frame-Up: Did the Accused Really Sell Marijuana?

The case of People of the Philippines v. Francisco Antinero Beriarmente (G.R. No. 137612, September 25, 2001) centered on whether the accused, Francisco Beriarmente, was guilty of selling marijuana. Beriarmente was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Barili, Cebu, based on evidence presented by the prosecution. The prosecution’s evidence detailed a buy-bust operation where Beriarmente was caught handing over a sack of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, Randy Sinarlo. Beriarmente appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to produce the money used in the operation, any surveillance report, and that his guilt wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt.

At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from SPO2 Orlando Caballero and Randy Sinarlo, the poseur-buyer, detailing how Beriarmente was caught handing over a sack of marijuana plants. The plants were later confirmed by forensic analysis to be marijuana. Beriarmente claimed he was merely doing a favor for a cousin-in-law and didn’t know the sack contained marijuana. The trial court found the prosecution’s version more credible, leading to Beriarmente’s conviction.

The Supreme Court tackled several key issues. First, the appellant argued that the lack of marked money and a prior “test” buy-bust invalidated the operation. Second, he claimed the absence of a surveillance report undermined the claim he was under surveillance. Finally, he asserted his lack of knowledge about the sack’s contents constituted a valid defense.

Regarding the marked money, the Supreme Court firmly stated that its absence is not critical to the prosecution’s case. The Court has consistently held that what matters is proving the transaction occurred, as the Supreme Court noted,

In the prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the goods from the accused-appellant and the same was presented as evidence in court. Neither is there a rule of law which requires that there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher.

This principle underscores that the core element is the illicit transaction itself.

Similarly, the court dismissed the necessity of a “test” buy-bust operation. It emphasized the dynamic nature of drug transactions, stating, “There is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations.” Drug dealers, the court recognized, adapt quickly, necessitating flexibility in law enforcement tactics. Requiring preliminary operations would only forewarn offenders, undermining the effectiveness of buy-busts.

It is of judicial notice that drug pushers sell their wares to any prospective customer, stranger or not, in both public or private places, with no regard for time. They have become increasingly daring and blatantly defiant of the law. Thus, the police must be flexible in their operations to keep up with the drug pushers. Practice buy-bust operations will not only hinder police efforts to apprehend drug pushers, but would even render them inutile as these would only forewarn the drug pushers.

The Supreme Court referenced a prior ruling to highlight the permissibility of warrantless arrests when an individual is caught in the act of committing a crime. Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court states a person may be arrested without a warrant if they are committing, have just committed, or are attempting to commit an offense in the presence of an officer. Therefore, Beriarmente’s arrest was lawful because he was caught selling marijuana during the buy-bust operation.

Concerning the lack of a surveillance report, the Court cited People v. Ganguso, clarifying that prior surveillance isn’t mandatory for a valid buy-bust operation. While the police claimed to have observed Beriarmente for a month, the absence of a formal report didn’t invalidate the arrest. The Court acknowledged that immediate action is sometimes necessary when an informant provides critical information. Waiting for formal surveillance could allow the suspect to escape or continue illegal activities.

Beriarmente’s defense of ignorance—claiming he didn’t know the sack contained marijuana—was also rejected. The Court emphasized that the crime in question is mala prohibita, meaning the act itself is illegal, regardless of intent. Therefore, his lack of knowledge was not a valid defense.

The crime under consideration is mala prohibita, and therefore, the lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances. Consequently, the accused-appellant’s contention that he did not know that the sack he handed over to the poseur-buyer contained marijuana plants is not a valid defense. Mere possession and/or delivery of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The Court also noted Beriarmente’s denial was weak, especially given the testimonies of the arresting officer and poseur-buyer, who positively identified him. The Supreme Court has consistently held that positive identification by witnesses generally outweighs a simple denial by the accused.

What constitutes a valid buy-bust operation?	A valid buy-bust operation requires the exchange of illegal drugs between the seller and the buyer, with proper identification and presentation of the evidence in court. The absence of marked money or prior surveillance does not necessarily invalidate the operation.
Is prior surveillance always required for a buy-bust operation?	No, prior surveillance is not always required. If the police receive credible information about an ongoing drug transaction, they can act immediately without conducting prior surveillance.
What is the significance of marked money in drug cases?	While marked money can be used as evidence, its absence does not invalidate a drug sale conviction. The crucial factor is the proven exchange of drugs.
What does mala prohibita mean?	Mala prohibita refers to acts that are illegal simply because they are prohibited by law, regardless of whether they are inherently immoral. Lack of criminal intent is not a defense in such cases.
Can a person be arrested without a warrant during a buy-bust operation?	Yes, a person can be arrested without a warrant if they are caught in the act of selling illegal drugs. This falls under the “in flagrante delicto” exception to the warrant requirement.
What is the role of a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation?	A poseur-buyer is an individual who pretends to purchase illegal drugs from a suspected seller to gather evidence and facilitate an arrest. They play a critical role in the operation by directly engaging with the suspect.
What happens to the confiscated drugs after an arrest?	Confiscated drugs are subjected to forensic analysis to confirm their nature. They are then presented as evidence in court and eventually disposed of according to legal procedures.
What is the penalty for selling marijuana in the Philippines?	The penalty depends on the quantity of marijuana involved. In this case, the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00 for possessing 1,500 grams of marijuana.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Beriarmente clarifies the legal standards for buy-bust operations in the Philippines, emphasizing the importance of capturing drug offenders while maintaining a balance between effective law enforcement and protecting individual rights. This ruling serves as a guide for law enforcement and legal practitioners alike.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Beriarmente, G.R. No. 137612, September 25, 2001