FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 113255-56.
July 19, 2001
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO
GONZALES y SUN, accused-appellant.
PARDO, J.:
The case is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City finding accused Romeo Gonzales y Sun
guilty of possession and sale of marijuana and sentencing him to six (6) years
and one (1) day imprisonment and a fine of P6,000.00[2] and life imprisonment
and a fine of P20,000.00.[3]
On February 27, 1991, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Jaime J.
Bustos of Pampanga filed with the Regional Trial Court, Angeles two informations charging
accused Romeo Gonzales y Sun with violation of R.A. No. 6425, Sections
8[4] and 4,[5] reading as follows:
Crim.
Case No. 91-180:
“That on or about the 13th day of February 1991, in the
municipality of Mabalacat, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this honorable Court, the above-named accused, ROMEO GONZALES y
SUN, without having been lawfully authorized, permitted and/or licensed, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control
two (2) block size of marijuana weighing 1.5 kilos more or less and ten (10)
medium size plastic bags of dry marijuana weighing 300 grams more or less,
which when subjected to examination yielded positive of THC, tetro hydro
canabinol (sic), an active ingredient found in marijuana, a prohibited drug.
“Contrary to law.”
Crim.
Case No. 91-181:
"That on or about the 13th day of February 1991, in the
municipality of Mabalacat, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ROMEO GONZALES y
SUN, not having been previously licensed, authorized and/or permitted by law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell more or less one (1) kilo
of high-grade marijuana, for and in consideration of the amount of ONE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00), Philippine Currency, to a NARCOM poseur
buyer, which said marijuana, when subjected to examination was found positive
of THC, tetro hydro canabinol (sic), an active ingredient found in marijuana, a
prohibited drug.
“Contrary to law.”
On March 25, 1991 and on May 13, 1991, the trial court
arraigned the accused in Tagalog[6] and in English.[7] He pleaded not guilty to
both charges. The cases were tried
jointly.
Early
in February 1991, the police in Agusu, Brgy. San Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga
received an information that accused Romeo Gonzales was selling large
quantities of marijuana. They conducted
a surveillance for four (4) days. On
February 13, 1991, they conducted a buy-bust operation.[8]
The buy-bust team was composed of Pfc. Danilo Cruz, Pfc.
Edgar Arimbuyutan, Sgt. Aurelio Ortiz, Pfc. Celestino dela Cruz, Sgt. Juanito
de la Cruz and a confidential informant.
Sgt. Ortiz acted as
the poseur-buyer.[9] They
conducted the entrapment operation at the backyard of a house in Agusu, San
Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga.[10] Their informant introduced Sgt. Ortiz to accused Gonzales
as a buyer of marijuana. They talked
about the deal, and accused Gonzales handed him a bag containing more or less
one (1) kilogram of marijuana. After
ascertaining its contents, Sgt. Ortiz delivered to accused Gonzales P1,200.00[11]
as payment. He then took out his handkerchief as a
pre-arranged signal to the other members of the team, who immediately rushed to
the scene. They introduced themselves as
Narcom agents and arrested the accused.
Sgt. Ortiz handed over the bag of marijuana to Pfc. Danilo Cruz.[12]
Pfc. Cruz positioned himself about 10-15 meters away from
accused Gonzales and Sgt. Ortiz. When he
saw Sgt. Ortiz take out his handkerchief, he immediately rushed to the scene,
introduced himself as a Narcom agent, and arrested accused Gonzales. They recovered the bag of marijuana sold by
accused Gonzales[13] and the P1,200.00 marked money. Accused Gonzales tried to run away, but Pfc.
Cruz grabbed him at once. The team confiscated one more
bag containing two (2) blocks of marijuana[14] weighing about 1.5 kilograms and
ten (10) medium size plastic bags[15] each containing 300 grams of
marijuana.[16]
Pfc. Cruz prepared a handwritten Confiscation Receipt[17]
which accused Gonzales refused to sign.[18] Pfc. Arimbuyutan conducted a field
test on the confiscated marijuana. The tests yielded positive
indications for the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.[19] The
confiscated bags of marijuana were then endorsed to the PC Crime Laboratory for
examination.[20]
After the arrest, the team brought accused Gonzales to their
office for interrogation. Pfc. Cruz
informed him of his constitutional rights.
Pfc. Cruz testified that accused Gonzales orally admitted that he was selling marijuana to
different buyers, but claimed that somebody else owned the marijuana he
sold. When asked to identify the owner,
he kept silent. He also refused
to give a written statement, so Pfc. Cruz proceeded to prepare the charges
against him.[21]
Inspector Daisy P. Babor, forensic chemist at the PNP Crime
Laboratory, testified that she personally examined the marijuana subject of the
case. She placed her signature on all
the bags of marijuana.[22] The examination gave positive results for
marijuana.[23]
On July 5, 1993, the trial court rendered a decision finding
the accused guilty as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:
“WHEREFORE, considering that the prosecution has abundantly
established the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable doubt, judgment
is hereby rendered finding accused ROMEO GONZALES y SUN guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of
Sections 8 and 4, Art. II., R. A. 6425, and hereby accordingly imposes upon him
the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day and a fine of
P6,000.00 with regard Criminal Case No. 91-180 and the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00 with regard Criminal Case No. 91-181.
“SO ORDERED.
“Angeles City, July 5, 1993.
“(Sgd.) MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
“J u d g e”[24]
Hence, this appeal.[25]
In his brief, accused-appellant claimed that he was a victim of a frame-up. And, assuming arguendo that he was guilty in
both charges, he was entitled to a modification of the sentence imposed upon
him.[26]
The Solicitor General contends that the trial court’s ruling
was based on facts and evidence on record, and that it correctly imposed the
appropriate penalty.[27]
The doctrine is well-entrenched that factual findings of the
lower courts are accorded great respect as trial judges had the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses.
Such findings are binding on this Court unless substantial facts and
circumstances were overlooked which, if considered, would materially affect the
result of the case.[28]
In the case at bar, accused-appellant’s contention of
frame-up is incredible. He claimed that he was inside
the comfort room of a neighbor from whom he borrowed P100.00 to buy medicines
for his sick mother. He was just wearing
underwear when he was brought out of the house. As pointed out by the trial court, his
version of facts defies logic.[29]
The defense of frame-up like an alibi is viewed with
disfavor as it can be easily concocted.[30] Evidence therefor must be clear and
convincing. In the absence of proof of
any ill-motive on the part of the apprehending officers, this defense will not
prosper.[31]
A
buy-bust operation, normally preceded by surveillance, is an effective mode of
apprehending drug pushers and, “if carried out with due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards, [it] deserves judicial sanction.”[32]
A warrant of arrest is not
essential because the violator is caught in flagrante delicto. Searches made incidental thereto are valid.[33]
Pfc. Danilo Cruz testified that accused-appellant tried to
run away when the buy-bust team approached him and confiscated the bag of
marijuana he sold. When asked further on
how the team confiscated the other bags of marijuana, Pfc. Cruz said that they
found those bags beside accused-appellant while the latter was sitting under a
tree. The testimony of Pfc. Cruz[34]
runs, thus:
Q: And what is the
contents (sic) of this plastic bag?
A: The contents (sic)
is 1 kilogram of marijuana.
Q: How about the
second and third plastic bags?
A: They contain two
blocks of marijuana of approximately 1.5 kilos, and the ten medium size plastic
bags also contained marijuana.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Where did you find
these two blocks of marijuana weighing approximately 1.5 kilos?
A: I found it near
the accused where he was sitting besides (sic) a tree.
Q: Besides (sic) a
tree near where the accused was sitting?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How far was the
tree from the accused?
A: Very near from him
because near the tree is a bamboo bench and they were waiting there.
Q: Can you not approximate
the distance between where you arrested the accused to the tree where you found
the two blocks of marijuana?
A: One meter.
Q: How about the ten
medium size plastic bags of marijuana, where did you find the same?
A: Also in the brown
paper bag.
To corroborate Pfc. Cruz’s testimony, Sgt. Ortiz
testified[35] in this wise:
Q: Did you tell us a
while ago that Romeo Gonzales delivered to you one (1) kilogram marijuana did
you not notice at that time where these two (2) block size and ten (10) medium
plastic bag of marijuana were?
A: It was placed
together with the one (1) kilogram I purchased from Gonzales in a bag, brown
paper bag, sir.
Q: For clarification
purposes, do you want us to understand that all these marijuana contained only
in one (1) brown paper bag?
A: Yes, sir.
Lastly, accused-appellant’s view on the imposable sentence
is misplaced.
Accused-appellant cannot invoke the beneficial application
of the Death Penalty Law[36] inasmuch as the evidence showed that he sold over
one (1) kilogram of marijuana.[37] During the search conducted after the
arrest, some 4.5 kilograms of marijuana were found in his possession.[38]
Under our criminal justice system, an amendatory law can not
be given retroactive effect unless it is favorable to the accused.[39] In the
case at bar, accused-appellant, therefore, shall suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment imposed by the trial court.[40]
However,
the trial court erred in imposing a straight penalty in Crim. Case No.
91-180. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
applies.[41]
The
Dangerous Drugs Act,[42] Section 8, prescribes as penalty for possession of
Indian hemp (marijuana), regardless of amount, an imprisonment ranging from six
(6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, and a fine ranging from P6,000.00
to P12,000.00. This is the equivalent of
prision mayor under the Revised Penal Code.
The question now arises as to whether the scale and graduation of
penalties under the Revised Penal Code will apply for purposes of determining
the imposable indeterminate sentence.[43]
Republic Act 6425[44] is a special law. In People vs. Simon,[45] we categorically
stated that it is amendatory to and in substitution of Articles 190 to 194 of
the Revised Penal Code.[46] The Court said that we “must be guided by the rules
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code concerning the application of penalties
which distill the ‘deep legal thought and centuries of experience in the
administration of criminal laws.”[47]
Applying
the pro reo doctrine in criminal law,[48] we hold that the penalty prescribed
in R. A. No. 6425, Section 8 while not using the nomenclature of the penalties
under the Revised Penal Code is actually prision mayor. Consequently, it is the first part of Section
1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which shall apply in imposing the
indeterminate sentence. There are
no modifying circumstances; hence, the maximum penalty shall be within the
medium period of prision mayor, and the minimum penalty shall be any period
within the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the offense, or
prision correccional.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In Criminal Case No. 91-181, the
accused-appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P20,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 91-180,
the accused-appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years
and four (4) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and
one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P6,000.00.
With costs in each case.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and
Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
