People vs. Tandoy

Illegal sale of marijuana is established by proof of agreement and delivery even between total strangers, and secondary evidence of marked money is admissible where only its existence is in issue. The completed exchange proved by the poseur-buyer, corroborated by the seized marijuana positively identified by forensic examination, sustained conviction under Sec. 4, Art. II, Rep. Act No. 6425 beyond reasonable doubt.

On May 27, 1986, at about 3:30 p.m., Lt. Salido, Jr. of the Makati Police Station dispatched Pfc. Herino de la Cruz and Detectives Pablo R. Singayan, Nicanor Candolesas, Luisito de la Cruz, Estanislao Dalumpines, Antonio Manalastas and Virgilio Padua to conduct a buy-bust operation at Solchuaga St., Barangay Singkamas, Makati. The target was a store along the street, with Singayan designated to pose alone as buyer near the store while the rest positioned themselves strategically.

Soon three men approached Singayan, one of them Mario Tandoy y Lim, who said without preamble: "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?" When Singayan answered yes, the exchange was made then and there — two rolls/pieces of marijuana for one P10.00 and two P5.00 bills marked ANU for Anti-Narcotics Unit. The team then moved in and arrested Tandoy, with Manalastas and Candolesas conducting a body search that yielded the marked money as well as eight more rolls/foils of marijuana and crushed leaves. Tandoy was brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit office for investigation by Detective Marvin Pajilan, where after being informed of his constitutional rights he chose to remain silent.

According to the prosecution, De la Cruz, Singayan and Pajilan narrated these events under oath, while forensic chemist Raquel P. Angeles of the National Bureau of Investigation testified that microscopic, chemical and chromatographic examination of the confiscated marijuana was positive. Tandoy, for his part, testified that from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. that day he was playing "cara y cruz" with 15 others along Solchuaga St. when a warning about police arrests caused the players to grab the bet money and scamper. He claimed he and a certain Danny were caught, taken to the Narcotics Command headquarters, mauled, and told they would rot in jail unless they pointed to fellow pushers, denying any sale to Singayan and insisting the bills taken from him were bet money grabbed from the game.

The trial court, having observed the demeanor of the witnesses, gave more credence to the arresting officers and applied the presumption of regular performance of duty. It rejected Tandoy's uncorroborated claim of manhandling and frame-up, noting his admission that he had no quarrel with the officers whom he had met only on the day of arrest.

• Sufficiency of Proof of Sale: Petitioner argued that guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not established because the evidence failed to prove he sold marijuana to the poseur-buyer, maintaining that one will not sell prohibited drugs to a total stranger until certain of the buyer's identity.
• Best Evidence Rule: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit "E-2-A," a mere xerox copy of the P10.00 bill allegedly used as buy-bust money, as violative of the best evidence rule.

• Inapplicability of Best Evidence Rule: Respondent countered that the marked money was not an ordinary document under Sec. 2, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court, because the best evidence rule applies only when contents are the subject of inquiry, while here the prosecution presented the marked money solely to establish its existence, making substitutionary evidence like a xerox copy admissible without accounting for the original.
• Non-Indispensability of Marked Money: Respondent argued that presentation of the buy-bust money at trial was not indispensable because the sale was adequately proved by police testimony and the marijuana actually sold had been submitted as an exhibit, so failure to produce the marked money itself was not a fatal omission.

• Credibility and Proof of Sale: Whether accused was proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling marijuana despite being a total stranger to the poseur-buyer.
• Best Evidence — Xerox Copy of Marked Money: Whether admission of a xerox copy of the P10.00 marked buy-bust money violated the best evidence rule.

• Credibility and Proof of Sale: Yes. Guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the poseur-buyer's testimony on the completed exchange, corroborated by seized marijuana and positive forensic findings, with police credibility upheld absent improper motive.
• Best Evidence — Xerox Copy of Marked Money: No. Admission was proper because the best evidence rule applies only when contents are in issue, and production of the marked money itself was not indispensable to prove the sale.

• Credibility and Proof of Sale: The presumption of regular performance of duty supported the arresting officers, whose testimony was entitled to full faith and credit absent evidence of improper motive, while the uncorroborated frame-up and mauling claim was rejected, especially as Tandoy admitted no prior quarrel with officers met only on arrest day. Small-level drug-pushing may be committed anytime and anywhere and is completed in minutes upon acceptance of the offer and exchange, even in public before others, so unfamiliarity between buyer and seller does not negate the sale where agreement and delivery of marijuana leaves were shown.
• Best Evidence — Xerox Copy of Marked Money: Where the issue is only whether the document was executed, exists, or the circumstances surrounding its execution, testimonial and substitutionary evidence is admissible, and here the marked money was offered solely to establish its existence rather than its contents. Moreover, the sale was adequately proved by police testimony and the marijuana actually sold, positively tested and offered as exhibit, rendering presentation of the original buy-bust money non-indispensable and its absence non-fatal.

• Presumption of regularity and credibility of prosecution witnesses — Absent evidence and any indication that the principal prosecution witness was actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Applied to credit De la Cruz, Singayan and Pajilan over Tandoy's uncorroborated frame-up claim.
• Nature of small-level drug-pushing — Drug-pushing on a small level belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed anytime and anywhere, completed in minutes after offer and exchange, and not necessarily discouraged by public place or presence of others, which may even camouflage the trade. Applied to reject the conjecture that Tandoy would not sell to a stranger, sustaining convictions for sales in a billiard hall, in front of a store or house, and along a street.
• Elements of illegal sale — agreement and delivery — What matters is not existing familiarity between buyer and seller but their agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of marijuana leaves. Applied to find the exchange of two rolls for marked bills completed the illegal transaction.
• Best evidence rule; proof of existence vs. contents — The best evidence rule applies only when contents of the document are the subject of inquiry; where only execution, existence, or surrounding circumstances are in issue, testimonial and secondary evidence is admissible. Applied to allow a xerox copy of the P10.00 marked bill offered solely to establish its existence.
• Non-indispensability of buy-bust money — Presentation of buy-bust money is not indispensable where the sale is proved by police testimony and the drug actually sold is submitted as exhibit. Applied to hold failure to produce the original marked money was not a fatal omission.

• "When there is no evidence and nothing to indicate the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motives, the presumption is that he was not so actuated and his testimony is entitled to full faith and credit." — States the credibility rule applied to uphold the police officers' testimony over the uncorroborated frame-up defense.
• "Drug-pushing when done on a small level as in this case belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at anytime and at any place." — Defines why sale to a stranger in a public place does not discredit the buy-bust account.
• "What matters is not an existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves." — Articulates the controlling test for consummated illegal sale relied upon to affirm conviction.
• "The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of inquiry." — States the canonical limitation of the rule used to admit the xerox copy of the marked money offered only to prove existence.

• People vs. Patog, 144 SCRA 429 — Followed as authority for presuming prosecution witnesses not actuated by improper motives and crediting their testimony absent contrary evidence.
• People vs. Paco, 170 SCRA 681 — Followed for the doctrine that small-level drug-pushing may be committed anytime and anywhere and is not negated by public setting or presence of others.
• People vs. Rodriguez y Teves, 172 SCRA 742 — Followed for the rule that familiarity is unnecessary and agreement plus acts of sale and delivery suffice.
• People vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987, 147 SCRA 252; People vs. Khan; People vs. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, November 22, 1985, 140 SCRA 259; People vs. Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988 — Cited as examples sustaining convictions of pushers caught in a billiard hall, in front of a store or house, and along a street.

• Sec. 4, Art. II, Rep. Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended) — Prohibits unauthorized sale of prohibited drugs including marijuana; applied to convict Tandoy for selling marijuana flowering tops for P20.00, imposing life imprisonment and P20,000.00 fine.
• Sec. 2, Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court — Best evidence rule excluding secondary evidence except in enumerated instances; held inapplicable because the marked money's contents were not in issue, only its existence.

Narvasa (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.