People v. Tabar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Carmelina Tabar y Carmilotes and her nephew, Rommel Arriesgado y Tabar, were charged with selling marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425. Rommel, who was seventeen years old, pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, and was granted a suspended sentence and probation. Trial proceeded against Carmelina. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City found Carmelina guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, sentencing her to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20,000.00. The RTC's decision was based on the testimony of Pfc. Josephus Trangia, who testified about a buy-bust operation where Rommel was apprehended selling marijuana, and subsequently, Carmelina was found with several packs of marijuana sticks in a pair of pants she was carrying. Carmelina appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which then transmitted the records to the Supreme Court due to the penalty imposed. The Petition: Carmelina appealed, assigning as errors the conviction for selling marijuana when the evidence did not warrant it, and the admission of evidence seized without a search warrant.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the accused-appellant for selling marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425. Whether the marijuana cigarettes seized from the accused-appellant are admissible in evidence despite being obtained without a search warrant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the RTC's decision. It found Carmelina Tabar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment of eight (8) years as minimum to twelve (12) years as maximum, and to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conviction for selling marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425: The Court found the evidence insufficient to prove that Carmelina Tabar sold marijuana. The prosecution failed to establish that the three sticks of marijuana sold by Rommel Arriesgado came from Carmelina or that she employed Rommel as her agent for the sale. The Court noted that the buy-bust operation was initiated based on general information about marijuana pushers in the area, and Pfc. Trangia's testimony did not specifically identify Carmelina as a target or a known pusher. Furthermore, the prosecution's willingness to allow Rommel to plead guilty to a lesser offense of possession, despite being caught in flagrante selling, weakened the claim of conspiracy for sale. On the admissibility of evidence seized without a search warrant: The Court ruled that the evidence seized from Carmelina was admissible. The Court found that the marijuana sticks, contained in cigarette packs, were found inside a pair of pants that Carmelina was carrying. When asked to open the pants, she voluntarily did so, exposing the marijuana packs in plain view. This constituted a lawful search incident to a valid arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, as a crime was committed in the presence of the police officers. Even if the search were considered warrantless, Carmelina's voluntary submission to the search constituted a waiver of her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as established in People vs. Malasugui.
Main Doctrine
While the evidence may not be sufficient to prove the sale of marijuana under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, the accused may still be convicted for illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of the same Act, especially when the contraband was found in her possession during a lawful search incident to a valid arrest based on the plain view doctrine.