PEOPLE V PASCUAL

FACTS:
The accused Edwin Pascual was charged with the violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic
Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Upon the surveillance of police officers assigned in Pateros Police station, the accused was
successfully apprehended when the said officers conduced a buy-bust operation in Pateros
Manila, where a suspected pusher allegedly indulged in the illicit traded of marijuana.

According to the testimony of the policers officers based on the conducted by-bust operation,
the accused handed three (3) tea bags of marijuana in exchange for the amount of P30 paid
to him. The accused was frisked and subsequently brought to the aforesaid police station
where he was investigated.

During the trial, the accused presented an argument that the testimony of the police officers
is not more credible that of his testimony and his three (3) witness. The testimony of the police
officers that they had used xerox copies of three (3) ten-peso bills in the buy-bust operation is
hard to believe. Hence, the incredible testimony of said policemen cannot be considered as
constituting proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the subject capital
offense.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the testimony of three (3) policemen who allegedly
conducted a buy-bust operation against the appellant is more credible that the testimony of
three (3) witnesses of the defense and the appellant;

Whether or not the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of the capital offense charged
based on the testimony of the policeman; and

Whether or not the trial court erred in finding no violation of the constitutional rights of the
appellant against arrest without warrant and against unreasonable search.

RULING:
No. The contention of the accused that the policemen used xerox copies of the ten-peso bills
in the buy-bust operation is completely misleading. Actual and genuine ten-peso bills were
used; only the machine copies thereof were offered in evidence. Arresting officers presumed
to have regularly performed their official duty in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, it is settled that the presentation in evidence that the sale of marijuana is not
indispensable for the conviction of an accused provided that the sale of marijuana is
adequately proven by the prosecution.
The contention of the accused that his constitutional right was violated was unmeritorious.
Accused was arrested while in the act of selling marijuana during the buy-bust operation; he
was caught in flagrante delicto. Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that:
“Arrest without a warrant, when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense”