Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DVSON

G.R. No. 92928 January 21, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EUGENIO CATAN, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Jose O. Galvan for accused-appellant.

MELENCIO-HERRERA,
The Appellant herein was, in the same criminal prosecution, charged with and convicted of two (2)
separate offenses of sale of a prohibited drug punished by Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act
(Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended), and of possession of a prohibited drug punished under Section 6
of the same law. The dispositive portion of the Court a quo's verdict reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused Eugenio Catan y
Gerona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling dried marijuana, a
prohibited drug, defined and punished under Section 4, Article , RA 6425, as
amended, without any mitigating nor aggravating circumstance attendant thereto and
sentences him to suffer life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua), and to pay a fine of
Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay
the costs.
The Court further finds the same accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the
same information of the crime of possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, defined
and punished under the second paragraph of Section 8, Article , RA 6425, as
amended, without any mitigating nor aggravating circumstance attendant thereto and
sentences him to suffer imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
years, and to pay a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, without subsidiary
imprisonment, and to pay the costs.
n both cases the dried marijuana and one stick of marijuana cigarette subject of the
offense are confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance
with law.
Challenging the above adjudication, Appellant is before us on appeal.
The facts follow: On 8 April 1989, the Special Action Team, NARCOM, headed by Lt. Maximo
Valiente, decided to conduct a "buy-bust" operation at No. 49-A Madrigal Compound, Bgy. Corazon
de Jesus, San Juan, Metro Manila. A team of operatives was dispatched to the place at around 10:30
to 11:45 a.m. on said date. Two (2) members of the team, C2C Crisostomo and C2C Bascuna, acting
as poseur-buyers, sought out Appellant at the said address. nside the latter's house, they negotiated
for the purchase of 300 grams of marijuana worth P450.00. n the meantime, the other members of
the team positioned themselves outside. Crisostomo and Bascuna gave the amount of P500.00 to
Appellant consisting of five (5) marked P100.00 bills with serial numbers DG 664874, CN 548451, GS
003354, DR 757996 and HH 793977 (TSN, 7 Nov. 1989, p. 8), which numbers had been earlier
recorded in the logbook of the NARCOM. Appellant then gave them the change of P50.00 and the
300 grams of marijuana (TSN, 7 Nov. 1989, pp. 3-5).
Soon after receiving the marijuana from Appellant, Crisostomo and Bascuna went out of the house
and gave a pre-arranged signal to their companions who were waiting outside. The other team
members rushed inside the house and arrested Appellant. Appellant, however, was able to pass the
marked bills to a companion inside the house who was able to escape during the commotion that
ensued. The marked bills were never recovered.
mmediately thereafter, the NARCOM team conducted a search of the premises (TSN, 7 Nov. 1989,
pp. 7-10) in the presence of barangay official, Jess Abundo, a certain Mrs. Catan, the house owner,
and Appellant. The search yielded the following: a) 3.6287 kilos of dried marijuana fruiting tops in four
separate bundles wrapped in newspaper and transparent plastic all placed in a carton box marked
"Windmill Wrappers;" b) 0.9407 kilos of dried marijuana flowering tops inside a plastic bag marked "5
& Up Textile Mart;" c) one (1) stick of marijuana cigarette; d) 23.49 grams of dried marijuana flowering
tops wrapped in newspaper with markings and placed in a transparent plastic bag; and e) 189.71
grams of marijuana seeds wrapped in a pink plastic bag and placed inside another plastic bag marked
"Bakers Fair." All the above were confirmed as marijuana after a laboratory examination.
For his part, Appellant denies both charges although he admits that he was inside the house on 8
April 1989. He claims, though, that he was sick at the time. He testified that Crisostomo and Bascuna
arrested him without a warrant and conducted a search of the premises without any search warrant.
He denied that a buy-bust operation took place, much less having received P450.00 as payment for
marijuana. He further alleged that the search yielded nothing and that he saw the marijuana, which
was presented in Court, for the first time inside a box in a van in which he rode when he was taken by
the operatives to Camp Karingal.
The Trial Court, finding no reason to doubt the veracity of the buy-bust operation conducted by the
NARCOM operatives, found Appellant guilty as charged. His present appeal hinges on the following
allegations:

That the lower court erred in convicting accused appellant for an alleged violation of
Sec. 4 and 8, Art. , Rep. Act 6425 as amended, beyond reasonable doubt.

That the lower court erred in giving too much emphasis on the testimonies of
prosecution witness rather than the testimonies of the defense.

That the lower court erred in admitting as evidence the marijuana fruiting top and the
like which were illegally searched by the Capcom allegedly taken from the residence
of accused-appellant.
V
That the lower court erred in not acquitting accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.
The foregoing assignments of error are far from impressive. Basically, the appeal revolves around the
issue of credibility of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis Appellant's own testimony. Pertinent to this
point, it is well-settled that Appellate Courts will generally not disturb the factual findings of the Trial
Court, as the latter is in a better position to decide the same, having heard the witnesses themselves
and having observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial unless it has plainly
overlooked certain facts of substance and value which, if considered, might affect the result of the
case (People v. Sabado, L-76952, 22 December 1988, 168 SCRA 681). A thorough review of the
records of this case does not reveal any flaw in the assessment by the Trial Court of the evidence
before it. We, therefore, apply the time-honored rule that the findings of the Trial Court are to be given
great weight and the highest degree of respect by Appellate Courts (People v. Alpetche, L-76149-50,
22 December 1988).
Appellant was correctly convicted of selling marijuana in violation of Section 4, Rep. Act No. 6425.
The element of sale was unequivocally established. What the law proscribes is not only the act of
selling but also, albeit not limited to, the act of delivering. The commission of the offense of illegal sale
of marijuana requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction (People v. Dekingco, L-
87685, 13 September 1990, 189 SCRA 512). n a "buy-bust" operation, such as in the case at bar,
what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the Appellant and that
the same was presented as evidence in Court. Proof of the transaction suffices (People v. Mariano, L-
86656, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 136). Tested by the foregoing criteria, Appellant's culpability has
been sufficiently established. He had sold, delivered and given away to two (2) undercover agents
approximately 300 grams of marijuana in exchange for P450.00.
Prosecution witness C2C Jesus Bascuna positively identified Appellant as the person who sold the
prohibited drug during the "buy-bust" operation (TSN, 6 November 1989, pp. 16-18). His testimony
was corroborated by another poseur-buyer, C2C Francisco Crisostomo, who likewise narrated to the
Trial Court the circumstances relating to the "buy-bust" operation involving Appellant as the seller of
marijuana (TSN, 7 November 1989, pp. 27-30). The other members of the team testified on the
manner Appellant was arrested and the accompanying search conducted in his premises (TSN, 6
November 1989, pp. 2-5, 7 November 1989, pp. 32-34). All these testimonies point to Appellant as
the seller of marijuana during the "buy-bust" operation. Whatever discrepancies there may have been
in their testimonies, such as the number of bills and their denominations, will not detract from their
credibility since their declarations dovetailed on all material points.
The mere fact that Appellant denied that a "buy-bust" operation ever took place does not render the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses less credible. As between the positive declaration of
prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of Appellant, the former deserves more credence
and weight (People v. Adap, L-66237, 12 September 1990, 189 SCRA 413). The prosecution
witnesses are law enforcers, hence, presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence
of proof to the contrary (People v. Mariano, supra). Even Appellant himself testified that he.knew of no
reason why he would be charged falsely by the members of the team that arrested him (TSN, 22
December 1989, p. 66).
Appellant's assertion that he was illegally arrested and that the search of his premises was likewise
illegal is not well taken. Appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto in the act of selling and delivering
marijuana to the poseur-buyers. His case therefore falls under the category of a valid warrantless
arrest (Sec. 5, Rule 113, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure). The subsequent search of his house
which immediately followed yielding other incriminating evidence, and which became the basis of his
conviction for possession of a prohibited drug, was a search contemporaneously made and as an
incident to a valid warrantless arrest in the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made (Nolasco v.
Pao, G. R. 69803, 30 January 1987, 147 SCRA 509). That is a recognized exception to the general
rule that any search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant (Manipon v. Sandiganbayan, G.
R. No. 58889, 31 July 1986, 143 SCRA 267). The inclusion of the seized items, therefore, as
evidence for the prosecution, was in conformity with the provision on lawful searches (People vs.
Castiller, G. R. No. 87783, 6 August 1990, 188 SCRA 376).
Appellant also faults the Trial Court for having convicted him of selling marijuana under Section 4,
Rep. Act No. 6426, as amended
1
and of possession of marijuana under Section 8 of the same
law.
2
He postulates that the possession of marijuana is absorbed in the act of selling thereof, hence,
he cannot be charged with two separate offenses, one for selling, and the other for possession of
marijuana. ndeed, this Court has held that possession of marijuana is generally inherent in the crime
of selling them and that conviction for both offenses is not feasible (People v. Dekingco, L-87685, 13
September 1990, 189 SCRA 512). However, as held also in !eople v.Manalansan,
(L-76369-70, 14 September 1990, 189 SCRA 619), the rule that the possession of marijuana is
absorbed in the sale thereof is true only with respect to the marijuana delivered to the poseur-buyer
and not to the marijuana found in the seller's possession, not covered by the sale and probably
intended for a different purpose like another sale, or its direct use by the possessor. Consequently,
Appellant can be convicted separately of the offense of selling a prohibited drug in connection with the
marijuana sold by him to the poseur-buyers under Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and
of the crime of possession of marijuana under Section 8 of the same law, with respect to the
marijuana found in his premises after this arrest.
The fact that Appellant was charged with the two offenses in one nformation does not alter the
conclusion arrived at. Firstly, Appellant was not denied his right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him and to fully defend himself. The nformation filed against him
clearly and distinctly charged two separate offenses, thus:
That on or about the 8th day of April, 1989, in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without having been duly authorized by law, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another 221.57
grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops which is a prohibited drug, in violation of the
above-cited law; that on the same occasion, the accused had in his possession, and
under his control the following to wit:
1) 3.6287 kilos of dried marijuana fruiting tops into four (4) separate
bundles wrapped with newspaper, transparent plastics and placed in
a cartoon box marked "WNDMLL WRAPPERS" with markings
respectively;
2) 0.9407 kilos of dried marijuana flowering tops with markings
placed ip a plastic bag marked "5 & UP TEXTLE MART;"
3) One (1) stick of marijuana cigarette;
4) 23.49 grams of dried marijuana flowering tops wrapped with
newspaper with markings and placed in a transparent plastic bag;
which are prohibited drugs, and
5) Eight (8) bundles of rolling paper wrapped with pink papers and
placed into two (2) separate wrappers marked "CAPTOL."
Secondly, the general rule is that an nformation must charge only one offense. However, "when two
(2) or more offenses are charged in a single nformation and the accused fails to object to it before
trial, the Court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him
the penalty for each and every one of them setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each
case" (Rule 120, Section 3, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure). n the proceedings at bar, the
records do not show that Appellant seasonably objected to the two offenses charged in a single
nformation. On the contrary, he merely pleaded not guilty thereto during arraignment. Under the
circumstances, possession of marijuana, other than that which was the object of the sale, having
been also charged and proved, his additional conviction therefor can withstand any challenge from
the defense. t should also be noted that the Trial Court had set out separately the findings of fact and
the law in each case, as required (ibid.).
n sum, the Court finds that Appellant's guilt of selling and possessing marijuana has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty for selling marijuana, however, of "life imprisonment (reclusion
perpetua)" imposed by the Trial Court is erroneous and is hereby changed to "life imprisonment" only
plus the fine. The penalty for possession of marijuana is sustained.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
!aras, !adilla, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.