#14 People vs.

Mario Tandoy

Facts:

In 1986, Lt. Salido, Jr. of the Makati Police Station dispatched Pfc. Herino de la Cruz, and
Detectives Pablo R. Singayan and others to conduct a buy-bust operation. The target area was
a store and Singayan was to pose as the buyer. Soon, three men approached Singayan. One of
them was the accused-appellant, who said without preamble: "Pare, gusto mo bang umiskor?"
Singayan said yes. The exchange was made then and there two rolls/pieces of marijuana for
one P10.00 and two P5.00 bills marked ANU (meaning Anti-Narcotics Unit). The team then
moved in and arrested Tandoy. A body search of was made and the marked money was taken,
as well as eight more rolls/foils of marijuana and crushed leaves. Tandoy chose to remain silent
after having been informed of his constitutional rights.

These events were narrated under oath by De la Cruz, Singayan and Pajilan. The forensic
chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation also testified that the confiscated items were
tested for marijuana and the findings were positive. The marijuana was offered as an exhibit.
Likewise, a xerox copy of the P10.00 bill allegedly used as buy-bust money was presented in
the trial court.

The trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and to
listen to their respective testimonies, gave more credence to the statements of the arresting
officers. Applying the presumption that they had performed their duties in a regular manner, it
rejected Tandoy's uncorroborated allegation that he had been manhandled and framed while
playing playing "cara y cruz".

Issue:

1. Whether or not evidence is sufficient to prove that Tandoy sold marijuana to the poseur-
buyer.

Ruling:

Yes, the evidence is sufficient. Tandoy submits that "one will not sell this prohibited drug to
another who is a total stranger until the seller is certain of the identity of the buyer."

The conjecture must be rejected. In People v. Paco, the Court observed: 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. "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."

2. Whether or not a mere xerox copy of the P10.00 bill allegedly used as buy-bust money is
admissible (meaning, not in violation of the best evidence rule).

Yes, the Xerox copy is admissible.

The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the subject of
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was actually executed, or
exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule
does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Since the aforesaid marked money was
presented by the prosecution solely for the purpose of establishing its existence and not its
contents, other substitutionary evidence, like a xerox copy thereof, is therefore admissible
without the need of accounting for the original.

Moreover, the presentation at the trial of the "buy-bust money" was not indispensable to the
conviction of the accused-appellant because the sale of the marijuana had been adequately
proved by the testimony of the police officers.

Conviction of Tandoy for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act is affirmed.

#33 Yu Tek & Co v. Gonzales

Facts:

Yu Tek & Co. and Basilio Gonzales entered into a Purchase Agreement covering 600 piculs of
sugar at any place within the municipality of Santa Rosa for P3,000, to be paid in advance. The
validity of the Purchase Agreement was from January 1, 1912 up to March 31, 1912 only. It was
also stipulated that failure of Gonzales to deliver the 600 piculs of sugar within 3 months would
rescind the contract, thereby obligating Gonzales to return the P3,000 to Yu Tek & Co., along
with another P1,200 as indemnity for loss and damages.

Due to total failure of his sugar crop that year, Gonzales failed to comply with his obligation. As
a defense, he claimed that the agreement between him and Yu Tek required delivery of the
sugar from his own plantation and nowhere else. Yu Tek & Co., however, claimed that there was
no such restriction as to the source of the sugar to be delivered. Gonzales was free to buy the
sugar from the market or raise it himself, so long as he complied with his obligation.

Issue: Should parol evidence be allowed to determine the true intent of the agreement between
Yu Tek & Co. and Gonzales?

Held: NO.

This case appears to be one to which the rule excluding parol evidence to add to or vary the
terms of a written contract is decidedly applicable. There is not the slightest intimation in the
contract that the sugar was to be raised by the defendant. Parties are presumed to have
reduced to writing all the essential conditions of their contract. While parol evidence is
admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of written contracts, it cannot serve the
purpose of incorporating into the contract additional contemporaneous conditions not mentioned
at all in the contract, in the absence of fraud or mistake.

In this case, Gonzales undertook to deliver a specified quantity of sugar within a specified time.
No restriction was placed as to matter of obtaining the sugar. He was equally at liberty to
purchase it on the market or raise it himself. Though Gonzales owned a plantation and expected
to raise the sugar himself, he did not limit his obligation to his own crop of sugar. Therefore, the
condition which Gonzales seeks to add to the contract by parole evidence cannot be
considered. The rights of the parties must be determined by the writing itself.
Doctrine: Parties are presumed to have reduced to writing all the essential conditions of their
contract. While parol evidence is admissible in a variety of ways to explain the meaning of
written contracts, it cannot serve the purpose of incorporating into the contract additional
contemporaneous conditions which are not mentioned at all in the writing, unless there has
been fraud or mistake.