People v. Doroja
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A buy-bust operation was conducted by a NARCOM team based on confidential information that Alberto Doroja and his brother Pedro were selling marijuana. Carlos Molina, acting as poseur-buyer, was introduced to the brothers. Molina offered to buy P20.00 worth of marijuana leaves. Alberto Doroja went inside their house and returned with two aluminum foils, which he handed to Molina. Upon a pre-arranged signal, Alberto was arrested. A subsequent search of Pedro's room yielded dried marijuana leaves and sticks contained in a milk can. The confiscated items were examined and found to be positive for marijuana. Procedural History: Alberto Doroja was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II, in relation to Sec. 21(b), Art. IV, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. He pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted him, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00. After the promulgation, Pedro Doroja claimed guilt, but the trial court considered this an afterthought. Alberto Doroja appealed. The Petition: Alberto Doroja appealed his conviction, arguing that the lower court erred in admitting illegally obtained evidence and in convicting him despite insufficient evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence obtained during the warrantless search is admissible against the accused, and whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of the accused. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is proper in light of Republic Act No. 7659.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Alberto Doroja y Pacansa for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act but modified the penalty. The Court reduced the indeterminate sentence to six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional, as maximum, and deleted the fine imposed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of evidence and sufficiency of evidence: The Court held that even if the confiscated marijuana obtained during a warrantless search were inadmissible against Pedro (now deceased), the evidence on record concerning the buy-bust operation was sufficient to warrant Alberto's conviction. The Court found no reason to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, who were law enforcement officers performing their duties. The Court reiterated that a bare denial by the appellant, a common defense in drug cases, cannot overcome positive evidence to the contrary. The Court noted a minor discrepancy regarding who received the buy-bust money but emphasized that what truly mattered was that Alberto handed over the marijuana to the poseur-buyer after the transaction, which is the essence of the offense of selling prohibited drugs. On the penalty: The Court considered the enactment of Republic Act No. 7659, which amended the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Applying the ruling in People v. Martin Simon, the Court held that the amendatory law, being more lenient, should be applied retroactively. The quantity of marijuana involved was 2.5 grams, which is less than the 750 grams threshold for the imposition of higher penalties under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. In the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the applicable penalty was prision correccional in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court imposed a penalty ranging from six (6) months of arresto mayor to two (2) years and four (4) months of prision correccional in its medium period. Furthermore, Section 17 of Republic Act No. 7659 does not prescribe a fine for cases involving less than 750 grams of marijuana, thus the fine imposed by the trial court was deleted.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the conviction for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act but reduced the penalty based on the quantity of the drug involved and the amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 7659, deleting the fine imposed by the trial court.