G.R. No. 177573 - People vs. Asis

On or about November 14, 1995, in Calamba, Laguna, Alvin Jose and Sonny Zarraga were charged with selling 98.40 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 21(b), Article IV in relation to Section 29, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended.
The information alleged that the accused, in conspiracy, unlawfully sold and delivered the shabu to a poseur-buyer using an orchestrated buy-bust operation by law enforcement.

An unnamed informant, introduced by former Narcom P/Senior Inspector Recomono, reported that a major drug pushers group would deliver 100 grams of shabu at Chowking Restaurant in Calamba.
A team composed of P/Supt. Joseph R. Castro, SPO1 Bonifacio Guevarra, and other officers (SPO2 William Manglo and SPO2 Wilfredo Luna) was mobilized:

SPO1 Guevarra was equipped with marked money—a genuine P1,000.00 bill atop a bundle of make-believe amoney bills purporting to total P100,000.00—to act as the buyer.
The team arrived at the location around 11:00 in the morning and maintained a strategic parking position to monitor the premises.
At about 4:00 in the afternoon, a Toyota Corolla arrived with Sonny Zarraga as the driver and Alvin Jose as a passenger. An unnamed informant approached and indicated that Sonny Zarraga had 100 grams of shabu.
SPO1 Guevarra confirmed he had sufficient cash, and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal (scratching his head), the deal was consummated.

Following the completion of the transaction, Narcom operatives, SPO2 William Manglo and SPO2 Wilfredo Luna, introduced themselves and arrested both suspects.
The buy-bust bundle and the shabu were recovered and processed:

The drug was subsequently sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory where P/Senior Inspector Mary Jean Geronimo testified that it was a second or low grade methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Evidence such as the conduct of the suspects during the transaction played a central role in establishing the details of the offense.

The accused, particularly Alvin Jose and Sonny Zarraga, claimed that on November 13, 1995, they were at SM Mega Mall in Mandaluyong for money-changing when they were accosted by men in civilian clothes.
They alleged that:

The alleged mob, which included individuals later identified as police (including Police Supt. Joseph Roxas Castro and SPO3 Noel Seno), forced them to comply by employing coercion and threats.
During the abduction, Sonny Zarraga was taken and forced into a car, while Alvin Jose remained behind, culminating in an arrangement involving a ransom demand of P1.5 million peso.
There were indications that certain personal effects (jewelry, cash, and car accessories) were taken by one of the arresting officers.

This version introduced doubts regarding the voluntariness of the alleged transaction and the roles played by the accused.

On June 10, 1998, the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, convicted both accused beyond reasonable doubt for the drug-related offense, imposing an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years of imprisonment, a fine of P2 million each, as well as the cost of the suit.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s decision with modifications:

The penalty for Alvin Jose was reduced on the ground that he was only thirteen (13) years old and thus entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority.
The CA denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration, which contested that the prosecution failed to prove that he acted with discernment.

Alvin Jose, now petitioner, filed a petition challenging the CA’s decision on two primary grounds:

The failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he acted with discernment despite being only thirteen (13) years old when the alleged crime was committed.
The absence of any clear judicial finding that he acted with discernment, a necessary determination under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code.

The petitioner emphasized that under the law, a minor between nine (9) and fifteen (15) years of age is exempt from criminal liability unless it is expressly proven that he acted with discernment.

Whether the trial court (and by extension, the appellate court) erred in convicting a minor who was only thirteen (13) years old without establishing that he acted with discernment.
Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner knowingly and willfully engaged in a conspiracy to sell shabu.
Whether the mere presence of the shabu and the conduct during the buy-bust operation was enough to impute discernment on the part of the petitioner, given his age and the circumstances of the transaction.
Whether the imposition of the fine and the penalty, as well as the additional cost findings, were appropriate considering the statutory exemption available to minors under Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code.