illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the sale. Hence, the Court has sustained the conviction of drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs in a billiard hall (People vs. . Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329; People vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, January 12,…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 66875
- Promulgated: 1986-06-19
Doctrine
Proof of the sale transaction together with presentation of the corpus delicti suffices to establish violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act; marked buy-bust money is not essential.
Possession of marijuana is generally absorbed in a sale, except when an additional quantity is found that is separate from the sold amount and likely intended for future dealings; such additional quantity supports a separate possession offense.
Under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the proper penalty for illegal sale is life imprisonment (plus the prescribed fine); reclusion perpetua is not the correct penalty for that offense.
Facts
Appellant was accused, tried and convicted of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana based on a buy-bust transaction and related evidence presented at trial.
Appellant claimed the arresting officers were motivated by hate and revenge, citing testimony of Sgt. Guillen.
The record shows discussion about whether the buy-bust money was marked, and the Court treated the marking as immaterial to establishing the offense so long as the transaction and corpus delicti were proven.
The trial court imposed reclusion perpetua for illegal sale, but the Supreme Court examined the proper penalty under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Issues
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that appellant sold marijuana to the buyer (Sgt. Guillen).
Whether the absence or non-presentation of marked buy-bust money defeats the prosecution under Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Whether possession is absorbed in the sale, or may constitute a separate offense.
Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed for illegal sale under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Ruling
The Court affirmed appellant's convictions for illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana, finding the evidence sufficient to prove the unlawful sale and possession.
The Court held that whether the buy-bust money was marked is immaterial; proof of the transaction plus presentation of the corpus delicti suffices for conviction.
Possession is generally absorbed in the sale, except when the seller is also found with an additional quantity not included in the sale, which may support a separate possession charge; here separate convictions were proper.
The Court modified the penalty: reclusion perpetua was improper for illegal sale; the correct imposable penalty under Section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act is life imprisonment and the fine of P20,000–P30,000; judgment affirmed as modified.
Keywords
illegal trade, People vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 66875, June 19, 1986, 142 SCRA 329, People vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987, 147 SCRA 252, People vs. Toledo, G.R. No. 67609, November 22, 1985, 140 SCRA 259, People vs. Policarpio, G.R. No. 69844, February 23, 1988, sale of marijuana, unwarranted convictions, improvident acquittals, drug menace, narcoticismal cancer, presumption of regularity, frame-up, Dangerous Drugs Act, positive narration of facts, negative testimonies of the defense, illegal sale of marijuana, poseur-buyer, illicit drug, buy-bust team, dried marijuana leaves