PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. EUGENIO CATAN.
- G.R. Number: G.R. NO. 92928
- Promulgated: 1992-01-21
- Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J.
Doctrine
Appellate courts generally will not disturb trial court factual findings on witness credibility unless the trial court plainly overlooked substantial facts that could affect the result.
When multiple offenses are charged in a single information and the accused fails to object before trial, the court may convict and impose the penalty for each offense charged and proved (Rule 120, Sec. 3, 1985 Rules).
A sentence imposing 'reclusion perpetua' may be modified where the statutory penalty or its application is erroneous; the Court reduced the penalty for sale to 'life imprisonment' plus fine.
Facts
Appellant was charged and convicted in the same prosecution of two separate offenses: sale of a prohibited drug under Section 4 of RA 6425 (as amended) and possession of a prohibited drug under Section 6 of the same law.
Trial court sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and P20,000 fine for sale, and eight years and one day to ten years plus P10,000 fine for possession; the contraband were ordered confiscated.
Appellant did not seasonably object to two offenses being charged in one information; he pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
On appeal the issues centered on credibility of witnesses versus appellant's testimony and the appropriate penalties.
Issues
Whether appellant's convictions for sale and possession of marijuana were supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether two offenses charged in a single information may be the basis for conviction for both offenses absent a timely objection.
Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed for sale of marijuana was proper.
Ruling
The Court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both selling and possessing marijuana, affirming the convictions.
Because appellant did not seasonably object to two offenses in one information, the Court may convict and impose penalty for each offense charged and proved.
The penalty of 'reclusion perpetua' for sale was held erroneous and modified to 'life imprisonment' plus fine; the possession penalty was sustained; judgment affirmed in toto.
Keywords
G.R. No. 92928, Dangerous Drugs Act, Republic Act No. 6425, Section 4, Article II, RA 6425, Section 8, Article II, RA 6425, sale of a prohibited drug, possession of a prohibited drug, life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, fine, buy-bust operation, credibility of prosecution witnesses, factual findings of the Trial Court, People v. Sabado, L-76952, 22 December 1988, 168 SCRA 681, People v. Alpetche, L-76149-50, 22 December 1988, illegal sale of marijuana, element of sale, consummation of the selling transaction, People v. Dekingco, L-87685, 13 September 1990, 189 SCRA 512, People v. Mariano, L-86656, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 136