People v. De Jesus
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On January 17, 1984, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Carlito de Jesus, alias "Carling," was apprehended by the police as part of a campaign against drug trafficking. He was caught selling five sticks of marijuana cigarettes for P10.00 to a poseur-buyer, Pat. Jesus Nadonga. Upon frisking, an additional 32 sticks of marijuana cigarettes were found in his possession. Procedural History: Two separate informations were filed against Carlito de Jesus: Criminal Case No. C-21861 for violating Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 (sale of prohibited drugs) and Criminal Case No. C-21862 for violating Section 8 of the same Act (possession of prohibited drugs). The Regional Trial Court, Branch 124 in Caloocan City, convicted him on both counts, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P30,000.00 fine for the sale, and twelve (12) years imprisonment and a P12,000.00 fine for the possession. The Petition: Carlito de Jesus appealed the decision, raising errors concerning the conviction on two separate informations despite the absorption of the possession offense in the sale offense, the insufficiency of evidence, and the failure of the prosecution's evidence to meet the standard of moral certainty.
Issue(s)
Whether the offense of unlawful possession of marijuana is absorbed in the offense of unlawful sale of marijuana under Republic Act No. 6425. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the extrajudicial confession and the testimony of the poseur-buyer, is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the sale of prohibited drugs. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused despite doubts surrounding the circumstances of his arrest, considering the accused's alibi and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Ruling
The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-21861 for the sale of prohibited drugs is AFFIRMED. The judgment in Criminal Case No. C-21862 for possession, custody, and control of prohibited drugs is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of absorption of offenses: The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant and the Solicitor General that the trial court erred in penalizing de Jesus separately under the two informations. The Court held that possession of prohibited drugs is inherent in the crime of selling them. Therefore, the legislature is presumed to have taken into account the necessity of possession when punishing the act of selling. To impose a further penalty for possession when the accused has already been convicted of selling would be superfluous, especially given the harsh penalty for selling. This ruling effectively reversed the trial court's justification for separate convictions based on the gravity of drug trafficking. On the sufficiency of evidence for the sale of prohibited drugs: The Supreme Court disregarded the appellant's extrajudicial confession, finding no sufficient compliance with the constitutional duty to inform the accused of his rights to silence and to counsel, which are necessary for an intelligent waiver. However, the Court found that even without the confession, there was more than enough evidence to sustain a conviction for the sale of marijuana. Pat. Jesus Nadonga, the poseur-buyer, clearly and positively identified appellant de Jesus as the seller. The Court gave greater weight to the positive testimony of the prosecution witness over the appellant's denial and alibi. The trial court's appreciation of the evidence, including the inconsistencies and incredulities in the appellant's testimony, was given high regard. On the issue of the trial court's conviction: The appellant's defense of having undergone a tooth extraction and recuperating was found unavailing against the positive identification, as it was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime, which occurred on the same street where he claimed to be resting. The Court reiterated the well-established rule that alibi is unavailing against positive identification and that the accused must demonstrate the physical impossibility of being at the scene of the crime. The Court also gave credence to the prosecution witnesses, who are law enforcers, as they are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary and were not shown to be motivated by improper motives.
Main Doctrine
The possession of prohibited drugs is an inherent element of the crime of selling prohibited drugs and, therefore, the offense of possession is absorbed by the offense of sale, precluding separate convictions and penalties for both.