Title
People vs. Gonzales y Sun
Case
G.R. No. 113255-56
Decision Date
Jul 19, 2001
Romeo Gonzales, charged with marijuana possession and sale, was convicted after a valid buy-bust operation; the Supreme Court affirmed his guilt but adjusted the penalty for possession.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 113255-56)

Facts:

  • Filing of Informations and Charges
    • On February 27, 1991, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Jaime J. Bustos of Pampanga filed two informations with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City.
    • The informations charged accused Romeo Gonzales y Sun with violations of Republic Act No. 6425.
      • Crim. Case No. 91-180 charged him with possession and control of marijuana composed of two block-size marijuana batches (approx. 1.5 kilograms) and ten medium-sized plastic bags each containing about 300 grams.
      • Crim. Case No. 91-181 charged him with the sale of roughly one (1) kilogram of high-grade marijuana for P1,200.00 to a poseur buyer.
    • Both informations alleged that the accused acted willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously without the requisite legal authorization.
  • Investigation and Arrest
    • Early in February 1991, intelligence regarding large-scale marijuana selling prompted a surveillance operation in Agusu, Brgy. San Francisco, Mabalacat, Pampanga.
      • Surveillance lasted four (4) days, confirming suspicions against the accused.
    • A buy-bust operation was conducted on February 13, 1991 by a specialized police team comprising:
      • Pfc. Danilo Cruz, Pfc. Edgar Arimbuyutan, Sgt. Aurelio Ortiz, Pfc. Celestino dela Cruz, Sgt. Juanito de la Cruz, plus a confidential informant.
    • Details of the Operation:
      • The informant introduced Sgt. Ortiz to the accused as a prospective buyer.
      • During the operation at the backyard of a house in Agusu, the accused handed over a bag containing approximately one (1) kilogram of marijuana.
      • After verifying its contents, Sgt. Ortiz exchanged P1,200.00 with the accused.
      • A pre-arranged signal (the use of a handkerchief) alerted other members of the team who then rushed to the scene.
      • The police identified themselves as Narcom agents, arrested the accused, and confiscated not only the bag involved in the transaction but also another bag containing two blocks of marijuana and ten additional plastic bags.
    • Subsequent Procedures:
      • A handwritten Confiscation Receipt was prepared, which the accused refused to sign.
      • Forensic tests conducted by Pfc. Arimbuyutan and later by the PNP Crime Laboratory (with testimony from Inspector Daisy P. Babor) confirmed the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the confiscated marijuana.
      • The accused was brought in for interrogation where Pfc. Danilo Cruz testified that the accused admitted to selling marijuana to various buyers, yet he refrained from identifying any purported owner when pressed.
  • Trial, Decision, and Sentencing
    • The accused was arraigned on March 25, 1991, and May 13, 1991, being given the option of either Tagalog or English. He pleaded not guilty to both charges.
    • The cases were tried jointly with the prosecution presenting robust evidence including eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, and forensic reports.
    • On July 5, 1993, the trial court rendered its decision:
      • In Criminal Case No. 91-180 (possession): The accused was sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day of imprisonment along with a fine of P6,000.00.
      • In Criminal Case No. 91-181 (sale): He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.
  • Appeal and Arguments Presented
    • Accused-Appellant’s Claims:
      • The accused contended that he was a victim of a frame-up, alleging that circumstances of his arrest (such as being found in his neighbor’s comfort room wearing only underwear) supported his innocence.
      • Arguing even on the assumption of his guilt, he sought a modification of the sentence imposed upon him.
    • Prosecution and Appellee’s Position:
      • The Solicitor General argued that the trial court’s findings were firmly rooted in credible evidence and witnessed observations, leaving no room for a frame-up theory.
      • Emphasized that factual findings from the trial court, where live testimonies and physical details were observed, are entitled to deference.
    • Evidentiary Support:
      • Testimonies of police officers—particularly those of Pfc. Danilo Cruz and Sgt. Aurelio Ortiz—established the factual matrix surrounding the buy-bust operations.
      • Forensic evidence corroborated the presence and identification of marijuana, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
    • Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law:
      • The trial court’s imposition of fixed penalties was scrutinized regarding the alleged omission to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law in Criminal Case No. 91-180.

Issues:

  • Sufficiency of Evidence
    • Whether the evidence on record, including physical evidence, witness testimonies, and forensic tests, conclusively established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for both possession and sale of marijuana under RA 6425.
  • Validity of the Buy-Bust Operation
    • Whether the procedures adopted during the surveillance and subsequent buy-bust operation complied with constitutional and legal safeguards.
    • Whether warrantless arrest and searches conducted in flagrante delicto were legally permissible under the circumstances.
  • Credibility of the Frame-Up Defense
    • Whether the accused’s claim of being framed holds any merit when juxtaposed with the overwhelming evidence of his involvement in the drug transactions.
    • Whether the circumstances of the arrest (his attire and location at the time) could reasonably support the frame-up allegation.
  • Appropriate Application of Sentencing Laws
    • Whether the trial court correctly imposed a straight penalty in Criminal Case No. 91-180 or should have applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
    • Whether the modification of the sentence to include an indeterminate period is supported by the legal standards and precedents related to penalties under RA 6425.
  • Retroactivity of Amendatory Laws
    • Whether provisions such as the Death Penalty Law and the amendatory effects of subsequent legislation should have been applied retroactively, particularly when such application would be favorable to the accused.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms