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 Summary (G.R. No. 199338)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Informations filed: February 27, 1991.
Arraignments: March 25, 1991 and May 13, 1991 (in Tagalog and English).
Trial court decision convicting the accused: July 5, 1993 (guilty on both counts).
Appeal: Decision reviewed on appeal; Supreme Court affirmed with modification.

Applicable Law and Legal Framework

Primary statutory basis: Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended (Section 4 for sale; Section 8 for possession).
Sentencing regime: Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) for offenses treated under the Revised Penal Code framework; Article 22, Revised Penal Code (non-retroactivity of ameliorative laws) referenced in sentencing analysis.
Constitutional basis: the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs the exercise of constitutional safeguards applicable to law enforcement operations and criminal procedure in this decision.

Factual Summary — Surveillance and Buy‑Bust Operation

Police received information that the accused was selling large quantities of marijuana and conducted surveillance for four days. On February 13, 1991, a buy‑bust operation was executed in the backyard of a house in Agusu, San Francisco. A confidential informant introduced Sgt. Ortiz (poseur-buyer) to the accused. Sgt. Ortiz purchased one kilogram of marijuana from the accused for P1,200.00, signaled other team members by using a pre-arranged handkerchief signal, and the team immediately arrested the accused. At the scene the officers recovered the sold one‑kilogram bag, marked P1,200.00, and additional packages consisting of two block-size packages (approximately 1.5 kilos) and ten medium plastic bags (each approximately 300 grams). The accused attempted to flee but was apprehended.

Evidentiary Record — Tests, Receipts, and Lab Reports

A field test conducted by Pfc. Edgar Arimbuyutan yielded positive indications for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). The seized items were endorsed to the PNP Crime Laboratory and examined by Inspector Daisy P. Babor, who signed the bags and whose technical reports (Exhs. I and J) showed positive results for marijuana. A handwritten confiscation receipt was prepared by Pfc. Danilo Cruz but the accused refused to sign it. Marked buy money and physical exhibits of the seized marijuana were offered in evidence.

Trial Court Findings

The Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for both sale (Section 4) and possession (Section 8) of marijuana. The trial court imposed a straight prison term and fines: for possession (Crim. Case No. 91‑180) the trial court initially imposed imprisonment of six years and one day and a fine of P6,000.00; for sale (Crim. Case No. 91‑181) it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00.

Appellant’s Contentions on Appeal

The accused-appellant claimed he was the victim of a frame‑up and offered an alibi explanation (that he was inside a neighbor’s comfort room and had borrowed money). He further argued, alternatively, that any sentencing should be modified in his favor.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Credibility and Frame‑up Claim

The Supreme Court accorded substantial weight to the trial court’s factual findings, emphasizing the trial judge’s opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The accused’s frame‑up/alibi claim was rejected as inherently implausible and lacking clear and convincing proof. The Court reiterated the general principle that allegations of frame‑up, like alibi defenses, are viewed with disfavor and require strong proof of ill motive or fabrication by the arresting officers, which was absent in the record.

Legality of the Buy‑Bust and Evidence of Flagrante Delicto

The Court found the buy‑bust operation legitimate when conducted with due regard to constitutional and statutory safeguards. It held that a warrant of arrest is not required when the offense is committed in flagrante delicto and that searches incidental to a lawful arrest are valid. The sequence of events — surveillance, controlled purchase by a poseur‑buyer, immediate identification and arrest by Narcom personnel, recovery of the sold marijuana and other nearby packages, and seizure of marked money — supported the finding of possession and sale in flagrante.

Analysis of Possession and Sale Evidence

Testimony of Pfc. Danilo Cruz and Sgt. Ortiz established that the package purchased by the poseur-buyer and the other seized packages were located together in one brown paper bag near where the accused was sitting; Cruz approximated the distance between accused and the tree where the larger packages were found as about one meter. The field test and the PNP Crime Laboratory reports corroborated that the seized substances were marijuana containing THC. The accused’s alleged oral admission that he sold marijuana but that someone else owned the contraband was not sufficient to counter the physical evidence and arrest circumstances.

Sentencing Law and Application — Indeterminate Sentence Law

The Court held that R.A. No. 6425 is a special law that is amendatory to and in substitution of Articles 190 to 194 of the Revised Penal Code, and that courts must be guided by the penalty application principles of the Revised Penal Code. Applying the pro reo doctrine where interpretation favors the accused, the Court concluded that the penalty prescribed in Section 8 (possession of marijuana) is equivalent to prision mayor. Consequently, the first part of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (applying to crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code) governs imposition of an indeterminate sentence for the po

...continue reading

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