E C I S I
As her defense in this
appeal, appellant alleges violation of her constitutional rights
warrantless search and seizure, and to counsel during custodial
However, the search, being merely an incident of a legitimate buy-bust
operation against illegal drugs, needed no warrant. And while her right
to counsel during the custodial investigation was indeed violated,
were other evidence sufficient to warrant her conviction beyond
This appeal seeks the
reversal of the Decision
in Criminal Case No. 925 of the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City,
Branch 13, finding appellant Saturnina Salazar y Palanas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425 Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by Presidential
No. 1675, and imposing upon her the penalty of life imprisonment and
of P20,000.00 as fine, with costs.
According to the
Appellant was tried
under an Information
the accusatory portion of which reads:
"That on or about the
23rd day of August 1988, at 1:35 o'clock in the afternoon, more or
in Barangay Poblacion II, Oroquieta City, Philippines, and within the
of this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there and
authority of law, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver
give away five (5) marijuana sticks to a NARCOM Agent posing as a buyer
in consideration of the amount of Five Peso (P5.00) marked bill with
No. FJ526501; and, as a result of the said Buy-Bust operation,
from the control and possession of the accused were six (6) marijuana
and five (5) grams, more or less, of dried marijuana leaves in addition
to the five (5) marijuana sticks aforestated.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
On arraignment, appellant,
assisted by counsel pleaded not guilty to the crime charged
The prosecution presented Sgt. Jim Cubillan, Cpl. Emilio de Guzman, and
Forensic Chemist Bernabe Arenga and various evidence proving the
After being informed
of the activities of drug pushers in Oroquieta City, Sgt. Cubillan and
Cpl. de Guzman of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) of the Philippine
(PC), left Ozamis City on August 23, 1988, for the former city. Upon
arrival at noon, they were met by the police informer who accompanied
to the place where a pusher operated. Near the City Hall, the informer
pointed to them the residence-cum-store of appellant and thereafter
the two constabulary operatives.cralaw
Right then and there,
Sgt Cubillan took a five-peso bill with Serial No. FJ526501 from his
marked it with his initials and handed it to Cpl. de Guzman. The latter
then went to the store and told the woman seated on the windowsill that
he wanted "to score"
("mag-score nga ako").
The woman nodded. After indicating that he wanted five (5) sticks of
Cpl. de Guzman asked her if what she was about to give him was
and gave her the five-peso bill. After the woman gave him five sticks
marijuana, Cpl. de Guzman unwrapped one stick. He smelled its contents
and at the same time noticed the seeds therein. He then placed the
in his pocket, showed his identification card to the woman and told her
that he was a NARCOM agent.
At that moment, Sgt.
Cubillan approached the two. He had positioned himself at the back of
store, around four or five meters away from Cpl. de Guzman and the
He and Cpl. de Guzman arrested the woman, whom they later learned to be
Saturnina "Nena" :Salazar. They recovered from appellant the
Upon being informed by Cpl. de Guzman that appellant had taken the five
marijuana sticks from a plastic container on the table inside the
Sgt. Cubillan took the container which had six (6) more marijuana
and around five (5) grams of dried marijuana leaves.
The NARCOM agents took
appellant to the local PC headquarters. On board a motorcar, Sgt.
asked her if she knew of other pushers in the vicinity. She pointed to
the place of Josephine Bayotas. When they passed by Bayotas' residence,
the two PC operatives also arrested her.
At the PC headquarters
in Camp Naranjo, Sgt. Cubillan interrogated appellant while Cpl. de
took her bio-data.
Her fingerprints were also taken.
Thereafter, Cpl. de Guzman made her sign her bio-data and the paper
her fingerprints. It was Sgt. Cubillan who instructed her to sign the
of bond paper which was used to wrap the marijuana sticks before they
submitted to the laboratory for examination.
For their part, Sgt.
Cubillan and Cpl. de Guzman executed a joint affidavit to support the
that was to be filed against appellant.
The confiscated and dried leaves were turned over to Sgt. Dominador
who sent the specimen to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in
Cagayan de Oro City. NBI Forensic Chemist Bernabe Arenga, who conducted
the examination, executed a Certification, dated August 29, 1988, (Exh.
Stating that the laboratory examinations conducted on the eleven (11)
cigarette sticks and the "crushed dried stalks and flowering tops
to be marijuana" yielded "positive results for marijuana."
He also submitted Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-88-107 (Exh. E)
Cross weight of
and chromatographic examinations conducted on the above-mentioned
gave POSITIVE RESULTS for MARIJUANA.
According to the Defense
The defense presented
Jeanife Mission, appellant's 12-year-old daughter, to testify on the
by which the arrest was conducted by the NARCOM agents. According to
at around 1:35 p.m. on August 23, 1988, she was at home with her
Jeanife was watching their sari-sari store in front of their house as
mother took a nap. Two persons arrived and went inside their house. One
of them ransacked their things. When her mother woke up, she was held
one of the two persons and taken to the sala. Jeanife failed to hear
conversation, but she saw the two persons take her mother away. It was
at the jail when she next saw her mother.
In her own defense,
Nena Salazar testified that at around 1:30 p.m. of August 23, 1988, she
was sleeping in the only bedroom of their house which was separated
the sala by a bamboo divider. When she heard someone "doing something"
in the sala, she stood up to see what the matter was, but she was met
a big fellow who, by the identification .card he showed her, was named
Jimmy Cubillan. She also identified the other person as de Guzman by
ID card. Cubillan held her left hand. She tried to untangle
from Cubillan's hold and asked him, "why do you hold my hand, sir"
said, "This is (a) raid, we are looking for something." He did not,
show any search warrant, but he asked her where she had placed the
that she was allegedly selling. She denied selling the contraband as
was still on probation after she had been convicted of selling
Because Cubillan could
not find marijuana in her house, he pulled out his pistol and told her
threateningly that should she refuse to tell him where the marijuana
he would "salvage" her. The two persons brought her to the PC
where she was investigated by Cubillan. She was not informed of her
to counsel nor her right to remain silent. However, she kept silent,
answering any of Cubillan's questions. Later, they held her right hand
and forced her to sign something. They also asked her to affix her
to a piece of paper, telling her that she could refuse to do so only if
she would divulge to them the names of drug pushers in the area. She
signed and affixed her thumbmark to a piece of paper the contents of
she was not even allowed to read. By then, it was almost midnight. The
following day, she was brought to the city jail. Bayotas was also
but she was already in the PC headquarters when she (appellant) was
As stated earlier, Saturnina
"Nena" Salazar was convicted of the crime charged. Thus, the case was
in this wise:
the accused Saturnina Salazar guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling
a prohibited drug without being authorized by law, she is hereby
to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00.
Through her counsel, she
interposed the instant appeal.
After the parties had
filed their respective briefs, appellant, through the Public Attorney's
Office, filed an urgent manifestation and motion stating that since she
was found in possession of five (5) grams of dried marijuana leaves and
eleven (11) sticks of marijuana which, at .02 gram per stick, would all
sum up to less than 6 grams only and therefore would involve a penalty
of only six (6) years, her appeal should be referred to the Court of
for review. As legal basis therefor, she cited the Decision in People
and the August 15, 1994 Resolution in G.R. No. 113360, People vs.
Joseco y Magbanua, where the total weight of the subject illegal drugs
was 400 grams.
However, in the Resolution of March 27, 1995, the Court merely noted
said urgent manifestation and motion.
Hence, notwithstanding the insignificant amount of marijuana involved,
the Court itself shall consider this case.
After all, the penalty actually imposed by the trial court was life
Ruling of the Trial
The trial court gave
full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution
On the other hand, it found that the defense was unable to sufficiently
rebut the presumption of regularity in the government witnesses'
of their duty, finding it hard to believe that the NARCOM agents
her to their headquarters to force her into divulging the identity of
drugs pushers in the area and that the case against her was only a
charge". Appellant's defense consisting of denials did not overcome the
positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses.cralaw
Assignment of Errors
Appellant alleges in
this appeal that the trial court gravely erred in (a) convicting her of
the crime charged despite the unreasonable and unlawful search and
conducted by the NARCOM agents; (b) disregarding her constitutional
to presumption of innocence, and (c) finding her guilty beyond
doubt of the offense charged.cralaw
The Court's Ruling
Section 4, Article II
of R.A. 6425 provides:
"Sec. 4. Sale,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give
to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited
drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Indispensable in every
prosecution for illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is the
of proof that the sale of the illicit drug took place between the
and the seller thereof, coupled with the presentation of the corpus
as evidence in court.
The element of sale must be unequivocally established in order to
This is precisely the
import of the testimony of Cpl. de Guzman when he said:
"Q. And what was your
purpose in coming to Oroquieta City?
"A. We came here
we were informed by our informant that there were drung (sic) pushers
"Q. And after you
your informant in Oroquieta City what happened next?
"A. He accompanied
to the store of the pusher.
"Q. And what
when you reached the place where the pusher was?
"A. When he
to us the alleged drug pusher we talked with Sgt. Cubillan who got a
money and I posed as a buyer.
"Q. Did you
the store pointed to you by your informant?
"Q. And what
at the store (sic) of the alleged pusher?
"A. I went to the
and talked to the owner that I wanted to buy marijuana.
"Q. How exactly
you tell the owner of the store?
"A. I said I
"Q. Do you know
is the meaning of score?
"A. That is the
used by the users so that they will not be identified.
"Q. And what did
suspected pusher say?
"A. She nodded.
"Q. What happened
she gave you the five sticks of marijuana?
"A. I bought five
of marijuana and I asked her if this is genuine and I gave the money. I
opened one stick, I smelled and saw that there were seeds inside. I
it in my pocket and then I showed my ID and I identified (sic) myself
a NARCOM agent.
"Q. What made you
that the 5 cigarette sticks which the alleged pusher gave you were
"A. I learned that
my training and schooling.
"Q. What happened
you identified yourself as a NARCOM agent?
"A. Sgt. Cubillan
near and he arrested her.
"Q. What happened
"A. I informed
Cubillan that the container from where the marijuana was (sic) taken is
on the table and in it were 6 sticks and 5 grams of dried leaves.
"Q. What did Sgt.
do when you pointed to the container?
"A. He took it and
"Q. And what
"A. We brought her
Sgt. Cubillan corroborated
Cpl. de Guzman's account testifying that:
"Q. And what did you
do upon (sic) being informed that there is a pusher in Oroquieta City?
"A. I asked him to
me to where is (sic) pusher is.
"Q. Did your
lead you to where the pusher was?
"Q. And what
"A. He led us and
to a woman inside a store and said that she is a pusher.
"Q. And after your
pointed to you a particular woman inside a store as a pusher what step
if any did you take?
"A. I and Cpl. de
decided to conduct a buy bust operation
"Q. Please explain
(sic) that is done?
"A. That is
by the use of marked money.
"Q. And from whom
this marked money came from?
"A. From me.
"Q. And who will
the buyer in that buy bust operation?
"A. Cpl. de Guzman.
"Q. And so you
a buy bust operation against the woman with Cpl. de Guzman as the
what happened next?
"A. I got a P5.00
in my folder and signed my signature thereon and gave it to Cpl. de
to buy marijuana.
"Q. How much was
"Q. What happened
after you gave this P5.00 bill to Cpl. de Guzman?
"A. He went to the
"Q. And how about
where were you?
"A. I was just
at the back of the store.
"Q. And did you
what happened after Cpl. de Guzman went to the store?
"A. Cpl. de Guzman
to the woman.
"Q. Did you hear
"A. No, because
has a low voice.
"Q. What else did
"A. I saw that the
gave something to Cpl. de Guzman.
"Q. And what did
de Guzman do after receiving that something given by the woman?
"A. He looked at
and examined it and smelled it.
"Q. And what
next after Cpl. de Guzman examined and smelled that something given by
"A. Cpl. de Guzman
an ID and when I saw him do that I went near him.
"Q. What happened
you went near him?
"A. We arrested
"Q. And will you
tell us why you arrested that woman?
"A. We arrested
because our Narcom agent bought marijuana fromher (sic) and after that
we arrested her.
"A. We arrested
because she sold a suspected marijuana cigarette.
"Q. How many
marijuana cigarettes were sold to Cpl. de Guzman?
"A. Five sticks.
"Q. Were you able
recover those five sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes?
"A. These were
to Cpl. de Guzman and those five; suspected sticks of marijuana were in
the possession of Cpl. de Guzman.
"Q. What else if
were you able to recover from the woman?
"A. The marked
P5.00 bill, and also Cpl. de Guzman told me that the marijuana was
by the woman from the table in a plastic container.
"Q. And this table
(sic) the plastic container was placed from where the five suspected
cigarettes were taken, where was it located?
"A. Inside the
"Q. And what did
do after you were informed by de Guzman that the five suspected
cigarettes : were taken from the plastic container?
"A. I got the
container and I saw six sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes and
grams of dried j marijuana leaves.
"Q. What did you
after confiscating from the woman the 6 suspected marijuana cigarettes
and 5 grams more or less dried marijuana leaves in addition to the five
rolled suspected marijuana cigarettes, what happened next?
"A. I brought the
to the PC headquarters at Camp Naranjo."
Combined with the findings
of Forensic Chemist Arenga that the cigarette sticks confiscated from
were marijuana, the corpus delicti of the crime had thus been
with certainty and conclusiveness.
Search Warrant Unnecessary
In alleging that the
NARCOM agents conducted an unlawful search and seizure in her house,
contends that, because said agents had known of alleged drug-pushing
in Oroquieta City, they should have obtained a search warrant before
into her residence. Appellant's contention is devoid of merit as the
of acquiring a search warrant has not been proven in this case.
In going to Oroquieta
City on the strength of reports of drug-pushing activities, the NARCOM
agents did not know of the identity of the alleged pushers.
When they conducted the buy-bust operation, it was precisely for the
of entrapping and identifying the culprit. A buy-bust operation has
considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If
out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust
operation deserves judicial sanction.
Because the drug pusher
had been caught in flagrante delicto, the arresting officers were
to apprehend the culprit immediately and to search her for anything
may be used as proof of the commission of the crime.
The search, being an incident of a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for
its validity. In fact, in People vs. Figueroa,
this Court said:
and seizure, as an incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may extend
the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surrounding
his immediate control. Objects in the "plain view" of an officer who
the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
and may be presented as evidence."
Hence, appellant may not
successfully claim the right against a warrantless search,
even as regards the plastic container with dried marijuana leaves which
was found on the table in her house/store. Contrary to appellant's
the contraband seized from her, having been obtained as a result of the
buy-bust operation to which the defense failed to impute any
was correctly admitted in evidence.
Neither is her right
to confront witnesses against her affected by the prosecution's failure
to present the informer who pointed to her as a drug pusher. The
of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for
nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his
would be merely corroborative and cumulative.
In a case involving the sale of illegal drugs, what should be proven
reasonable doubt is the fact of the sale itself. Hence, like the
of the marked money used in buying the contraband, the non-presentation
of the informer on the witness stand would not necessarily create a
in the prosecutions' evidence.
Appellant's claim that
she was threatened by the NARCOM agents is self-serving. That her
corroborated that portion of appellant's account did not make her claim
credible. The trial court, which was in a better position than this
in determining the issue of credibility, unequivocally said:
The Court finds that
the defense has not sufficiently rebutted the presumption of regularity
in the government witnesses' performance of duty. Jennife (sic)
for the defense, sought refuge from cross-examination by resorting to
"I don't knows" and her demeanor on the stand did not inspire this
faith in her testimony. Accused herself claimed that she has stopped
marijuana after being charged in 1986, for which she is now under
but she had no satisfactory explanation as to why she was brought to PC
headquarters despite the fact that the Narcom agents did not find any
in her house. The Court finds it hard to believe that the Narcom agents
brought her to headquarters only for the purpose of forcing her to
the names of drug pushers in the city, failing in which they would hie
her off to court on trumped-up charges.cralaw
It should be added that,
according to appellant, she recognized the NARCOM agents by the 5" x 7"
identification cards they pulled from their shirts, which they showed
It is simply contrary to human experience for an officer of the law to
exhibit his identification card if his intention in arresting an
is to commit mischief.cralaw
Violation of Appellant's
Right to Counsel
We find appellant's
claim that she was not informed of her right to counsel during
investigation to be correct. Moreover, the NARCOM agent's admission
they made her sign and thumbmark the bond paper which they used to wrap
the marijuana found in her possession was violative of her
right to counsel. While the bond paper does not appear to have been
as a pivotal piece of evidence against appellant, such act of the
agents is worth noting if only to provide guidance to law enforcement
In People vs. Simon,
where the accused was made to sign the booking sheet and arrest report
stating that he was arrested for selling two tea bags of suspected
and the receipt for the seized property, the Court said:
to these documents are declarations against interest and tacit
of the crime charged. They were obtained in violation of his right as a
person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense,
there being nothing in the records to show that he was assisted by
Although appellant manifested during the custodial investigation that
waived his right to counsel, the waiver was not made in writing and in
the presence of counsel, hence whatever incriminatory admission or
may be extracted from him, either verbally or in writing, is not
in evidence. Besides, the arrest report is self-serving and hearsay and
can easily be concocted to implicate a suspect."
As in the Simon case,
where the non-admission of certain pieces of evidence did not weaken
prosecution's case, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt of the
of the sale of marijuana by appellant to a NARCOM agent. Hence, the
of innocence in her favor has been sufficiently overturned in
with law. Her contention that a mother-of-five like her would not
to selling illegal drugs in such a small amount as the marijuana
in this case, is belied by her own admission that when she committed
crime, she was still on probation for having been caught in another
selling marijuana in 1986.
Neither could the location
of her residence and store behind the DSWD office and near the city
as well as the fact that she did not know Cpl. de Guzman deter her from
committing the offense. In People vs. Simon,
the Court noted that
when done on a small scale as in this case, belongs to that class of
that may be committed at any time and in any place. It is not contrary
to human experience for a drug pusher to sell to a total stranger, for
what matters is not an existing familiarity between the buyer and
but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of
the marijuana leaves.".
that she could not have taken the risk of selling the five (5)
sticks for only five pesos and therefore the contraband was "planted,"
is totally baseless. She herself did not bring out this alleged
in the performance of the NARCOM agents' duty at the witness stand. On
the other hand, the testimony of the two (2) peace officers carried
it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
Appellant claims that
the prosecution evidence is weak because Sgt. Cubillan was allegedly
lying on the witness stand. She alleges that the prevarication of said
witness was reflected by his testimony that after arresting appellant,
they proceeded to the PC headquarters. Later, he testified that they
dropped by Bayotas' residence to arrest her. This alleged change in
which was explained by the witness himself,
is too inconsequential to dent the prosecution's compelling evidence on
the fact of sale of illegal drugs.cralaw
The Court also finds
too preposterous to merit scrutiny appellant's contention that in
her, the trial court relied on her previous conviction for violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Law. Her being under probation was not alleged in
Information. It was brought out in the trial where she herself admitted
that she was on probation when she committed the offense in this case.
However, while the trial court mentioned that fact in the Decision of
1, 1991, it based its findings on evidence presented by both the
and the defense and not on the fact that appellant was a probationer
of engaging in the abominable trade of illegal drugs when she committed
The Proper Penalty
As in all other cases
decided by the Court after the effectivity of Republic Act. No. 7659 on
December 31, 1993, the beneficial provisions of said law shall be
to this case although the offense was committed prior thereto. Because
the marijuana recovered from appellant was less that 750 grams, the
imposable upon her shall, under the ruling in the Simon case, range
prision correccional to reclusion temporal or more specifically the
of prision correccional, considering that the marijuana involved was
that 250 grams.cralaw
No mitigating circumstances
have been proven in this case. In regard to aggravating circumstances,
the prosecutor volunteered at the start of the trial that appellant was
then on probation. Appellant herself admitted that she was on probation
when she was arrested by Sgt. Cubillan and Cpl. de Guzman.
As such, the
of quasi-recidivism should ideally aggravate her offense considering
she committed the felony after having been convicted by final judgment
and before serving sentence.
That she was on probation
not erase the fact of her conviction even though service of her
was suspended. However, for its appreciation as an aggravating
quasi-recidivism must be proven by records of the previous sentence.
As this Court stated in People vs, Capillas,
the evidence (or the lack
must prevail over appellant's admission that she was a probationer when
she committed the crime.cralaw
Art. 64 (1) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that in the
of mitigating and aggravating circumstances the medium period of the
shall be imposed, the penalty should be the medium period of prision
There being no circumstance to disqualify appellant from availment of
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentience law, the same must be applied.cralaw
Prescinding from the
foregoing, this Court is convinced that the guilt of appellant has been
sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appealed
Decision convicting appellant Saturnina Salazar y Palanas of the crime
of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act. No 6425, as
is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that appellant shall
the indeterminate sentence of four (4) months of arresto mayor as
penalty to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as
Considering that appellant
has been detained for the maximum penalty herein imposed, her IMMEDIATE
RELEASE from custody, unless she is being held for other valid reasons,
is hereby ordered.cralaw
Davide, Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.cralaw
Penned by Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca.
Filed by Third Assistant City
Rollo, p. 7.
Record, p. 20.
TSN, March 20, 1989, p. 4.
Ibid., pp. 14-15; TSN, April 19, 1989, p. 10.
TSN, March 20, 1989, p. 5
TSN, February 20, 1989, pp. 6, 17.
Ibid, pp. 5-6.
TSN, February 20, 1989, p. 21.
TSN, April 19, 1989, p. 15-16.
TSN, March 20, 1989, p. 5.
TSN, April 19, 1989, p. 19-21.
Record, p. 5.
Exh. D; Record, p. 42.
TSN, February 20, 1989, p. 10; TSN, March 20, 1989, p. 6; TSN, June 28,
1990, pp. 7-10.
Record, p. 43.
TSN, November 6, 1990, pp. 3-4.
TSN, November 9, 1990, pp. 3-4.
Ibid., pp. 6-7.
Rollo, p. 14.
Record, p. 137.
234 SCRA 555, July 29, 1994.
Rollo, pp. 121-125.
Ibid., p. 126.
This Court has decided a number of illegal drugs cases wherein the
contraband is even less than a gram. Some of these cases are as
People vs Ganguso, 250 SCRA 268, November 23, 1995; People vs. Reyes,
SCRA 264, September 2, 1994; People vs. Constantino, 235 SCRA 384,
16, 1994; People vs. Cañeja, 235 SCRA 328, August 15, 1994;
vs. Vivar, 235 SCRA 257 August 11, 1994; People vs. Evangelista, 235
247, August 11, 1994; and People vs. Bagares, 235 SCRA 30, August 4,
People vs. Pacleb, 217 SCRA 92, 97-98, January 18, 1993; People vs.
188 SCRA 100, 108, July 30, 1990; and People vs. Mariano, 191 SCRA 136,
148, October 31, 1990.
TSN, March 20, 1989, pp. 3-5.
TSN, February 20, 1989, pp. 4-8.
TSN, February 20, 1989, p. 15.
People vs. Herrera, 247 SCRA 433, 439, August 21, 1989.
Ibid., citing People vs. Basilgo, 235 SCRA 191, August 5, 1994.
248 SCRA 679, 682, October 2, 1995, quoting People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA
610, January 27, 1993.
Appellant's Brief, Rollo, pp. 59-60.
People vs. Ballagan, 247 SCRA 535, 546, August 23, 1995.
People vs. Ganguso, supra at p. 279.
Rollo, p. 14.
TSN, November 9, 1990, p .8.
Supra at pp. 566-567.
TSN, November 9, 1990, pp. 4-5.
Supra at p. 567.
People vs. Sanchez, 173 SCRA 305, 312, May 12, 1989.
Appellant quoted, on page 17 of her brief, Sgt. Cubilla's testimony,
What prompted you tell a lie because now you said that you went
to the house of Nene Salazar to the PC. My question is what prompted
to tell a lie?
At first we intended to go directly to the PC headquesters but he (sic)
informed us there is another pusher so we pass by (sic) the house of
pusher. "(TSN, February 20, 1989, pp. 21-22.)"
TSN, November 9, 1990, pp. 4-5.
Art. 160, Revised Penal Code provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for
another previous offense Penalty Besides the provisions of
rule 5 of article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having
been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such
or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum, period of
the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
People vs. Ochavido, 142 SCRA 193, 206, May 30, 1986 and People vs.
130 SCRA 443, 445, November 4, 1985.
133 SCRA 171, 177, November 13, 1984.
CfReynaldo Garcia vs. Court of Appeals 254 SCRA 542, 552-553, March
8, 1996 and Jesusa Cruz vs. Correctional Institute for Women, G.R. No.
15672, September 27, 1996, pp. 3-4.