Case Summary (G.R. No. 71942-43)

Conviction and Sentencing Overview

Carlito de Jesus, also known as "Carling," was convicted by the Regional Trial Court in Caloocan City for two separate violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. In Criminal Case No. C-21861, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000 for selling five sticks of marijuana. In Criminal Case No. C-21862, he received a sentence of twelve years and a fine of P12,000 for possession of thirty-two sticks of marijuana.

• Convicted for two offenses under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
• Sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine for selling marijuana.
• Received a separate sentence for possession of marijuana.

Allegations in the Informations

The informations filed against de Jesus detailed two distinct offenses. The first alleged that he unlawfully sold five sticks of marijuana to a police officer acting as a poseur buyer. The second charged him with possessing thirty-two sticks of marijuana, which were discovered during a search following his arrest.

• Criminal Case No. C-21861: Sale of marijuana to a police officer.
• Criminal Case No. C-21862: Possession of marijuana found during arrest.

Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution's case was built on the testimony of law enforcement officers who conducted an operation in a known drug-trafficking area. De Jesus was apprehended after selling marijuana to an undercover officer and was found in possession of additional marijuana. His confession was also presented as evidence.

• Operation conducted in a known drug area led to de Jesus's arrest.
• Confession and physical evidence (marijuana) were key to the prosecution's case.

Defense's Argument

De Jesus's defense claimed he was unable to commit the offenses due to recovering from a tooth extraction at the time of his arrest. He also alleged that his confession was coerced through police violence. However, he did not report any injuries or seek help regarding the alleged abuse.

• Defense argued he was incapacitated due to medical recovery.
• Allegations of police coercion were made but lacked supporting evidence.

Legal Errors Raised on Appeal

De Jesus raised several errors on appeal, including the argument that the possession charge should be absorbed by the sale charge, asserting that both offenses stemmed from the same act. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that his confession was inadmissible due to coercion.

• First error: Possession charge should be absorbed by the sale charge.
• Second and third errors: Insufficient evidence and issues with the confession's admissibility.

Court's Rationale on Separate Charges

The trial court justified the separate convictions by emphasizing the severity of drug offenses and the need for deterrence. It argued that selling drugs is a more serious crime than mere possession, warranting distinct penalties for each offense.

• Court maintained that selling drugs is a more serious offense than possession.
• Emphasized the need for strict penalties to deter drug-related crimes.

Appellate Court's Agreement on First Error

The appellate court concurred with de Jesus's first assigned error, agreeing that possession is inherently part of the act of selling drugs. The court noted that the legislature likely did not intend for separate penalties for these interconnected offenses, especially given the harsh penalties already associated with selling.

• Appellate court agreed that possession is inherent in the sale offense.
• Suggested that separate penalties for both offenses are unnecessary and excessive.

Evaluation of Evidence and Credibility

The appellate court examined the sufficiency ...continue reading