Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > November 1986 Decisions > G.R. No. 73399 November 28, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON S. ABEDES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 73399. November 28, 1986.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMON ABEDES Y SALGADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nicolas R. Ruiz, for Defendant-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Ramon Abedes y Salgado was accused of violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended by PD 1675, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-36002. After trial, he was found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Ramon Abedes y Salgado, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 4, Art. II, of Rep. Act No. 6425 as amended by P.D. 1675, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and pursuant to Sec. 4 of said law, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment (30) years and to pay a fine of P20,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

"The 2 tea bags of dried marijuana leaves and 1 tea bag of marijuana cake (Exhs. E to E-4) are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, to be disposed of (destroyed) according to the law.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the aforesaid decision, Accused interposed the present appeal to this Court contending that the trial court’s findings of fact are not supported by or are contrary to the evidence and that the penalty it imposed is greatly disproportionate to the act committed.

The facts established by the prosecution are summarized in the People’s brief as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On October 2, 1984 at about 12:30 p.m., an informer went to operatives of the Anti-Narcotics Command in Camp Crame, Quezon City and tipped them off about appellant’s illicit drug dealings (TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 4; TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 3). Acting on the tip, the Commanding Officer assigned Lt. Benito Estipona to the case who gathered eight men, half of whom were drug enforcement trainees (Ibid.). They hatched a ploy to entrap appellant and Lt. Estipona assigned Sgt. Angelito Manalo to pose as a marijuana buyer (Ibid.; TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 3). An hour later, Sgt. Manalo and the informer proceeded on a motorcycle to Main Avenue, Quezon City where appellant lived (Ibid., p. 4). The rest followed closely behind on a Ford Fiera (Ibid.). The informer introduced Sgt. Manalo as an interested buyer to appellant (TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 5). Unsuspecting, appellant left momentarily and came back with one tea bag of marijuana (Ibid., p. 12). He offered this to Sgt. Manalo who paid him with a ten-peso bill, previously treated with dusting powder (Ibid., p. 6; TSN, November 5, 1984, p. 5, pp. 19-20; see also TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 9). As planned, Sgt. Manalo thereupon scratched his head as cue to tick off appellant’s arrest (Ibid.; Ibid., p. 20). To that, CIC Molina and Pfc. Ligbos, who positioned themselves nearby (TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 4; TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 6), responded and arrested appellant (TSN, November 5, 1984, p. 5, p. 20; TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 6). Upon consenting to a body search, CIC Molina and Pfc. Ligbos frisked appellant (Ibid., pp. 15-17, 27; Ibid.). They recovered the marked ten-peso bill tucked in appellant’s waist (Ibid., p. 5, p. 9; Ibid.). With appellant handcuffed, Lt. Estipona then apprised him of his rights (TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 5, p. 11). On being asked if he had some more marijuana, appellant replied that he did (Ibid., p. 6). He accompanied Lt. Estipona upstairs and voluntarily turned in a piece of marijuana cake (Ibid.). The NARCOM agents then took appellant to the headquarters (TSN, November 5, 1984, p. 6). Lt. Ma. Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid, a forensic chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory, conducted tests on the seized specimen and found as positive marijuana content in both the leaves in the tea bag and the cake (TSN, February 6, 1986, p. 5; see also Exhibits "D" and "D-4," Evidence for the Prosecution)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Upon the other hand, the defense evidence (as stated in the brief of the accused) tends to prove that on October 2, 1986 at about 1:30 p.m. while he was inside his pig pen, four (4) armed persons arrived at his place and poked a gun at him. They then handcuffed him and dragged him. Showing him dried marijuana leaves, they told him "this is yours" and ordered him to go with them. Thereafter they loaded him on a jeep and brought him to Camp Crame. At Camp Crame the four (4) men allegedly forced him to sign the receipt (Exh. "C") showing that they arrested him in possession of marijuana. CIC Carlos Molina supposedly hit him on the chest with a caliber .45 pistol and told him to give him (Molina) the sum of P1,000.00 if he wanted to be free. He was not investigated and he did not give any statement. It is not true, he claims, that he was bodily searched, The four (4) men got nothing (no marijuana leaves or cake) from him when they arrested him. He says he did not consent to such body search.

When find the appeal devoid of merit. The trial court findings of fact are in line with and supported by the evidence.

Appellant argues that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vary. He first points to their declarations about the marked money used.

A perusal of the said testimonies reveals no inconsistency. Everybody concurred it was a ten-peso bill. Everyone agreed that it was given to appellant in exchange for one bag of marijuana.

Appellant next belabors the circumstances surrounding the mark utilized. He ask why the bill’s serial number was not jotted down on paper.

But, marked money is not solely identified by comparing its serial number with that recorded in a different sheet. There are other ways of identifying money used for entrapment, and one of them is by treating the bill with powdered chemicals as in this case.

Appellant also makes capital of the non-presentation of his short pants (which he was wearing at the time), the garter seams of which should have been bleached by the powdered bill which he tucked in his waist. He loses sight, however, of the fact that it is the prosecution’s prerogative to produce or not those shorts in evidence. So, too, with the informer. The prosecution deemed it unnecessary to present the confidential informer to prove its case.

At all events, the gravamen of appellant’s thesis is that he did not commit the crime. But he offers nothing more than a mere denial. The bare denial of appellant is not sufficient to overcome his positive identification by the prosecution witnesses as the culprit.

Anent the penalty, We find the same well within the range provided by law. Section 4 of Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA No. 6425) as amended by P.D. No. 1675 provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 4. Sale, administrative, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. If the victim of the offense is a minor or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed."cralaw virtua1aw library

In People v. Toledo, 140 SCRA 259, 269, this Court had occasion to affirm the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment with a fine of P25,000.00, for the sale by the accused of three (3) plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves. We therefore see no reason to consider the penalty imposed herein as excessive. A drug pusher is a killer without mercy. He poisons the mind and deadens the body. He deserves no mercy.

WHEREFORE, this appeal is hereby DENIED. The trial court’s decision is affirmed but the portion thereof which reads 30 years should be eliminated. (People v. Gonzales, 58 SCRA 266, 271).

SO ORDERED.

Feria, Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





November-1986 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-32507 November 4, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO PANCHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40945 November 10, 1986 - IGMEDIO AZAJAR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41811 November 10, 1986 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42180 November 10, 1986 - CONCESO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46392 November 10, 1986 - EMMA DELGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47276 November 10, 1986 - ESPERANZA BUYCO v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. Nos. L-50622-23 November 10, 1986 - BERNARDO CARABOT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60548 November 10, 1986 - PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. BENJAMIN RELOVA

  • G.R. Nos. L-68523-24 November 10, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ESLABON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68789 November 10, 1986 - JOSE LEE, ET AL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF LEGAZPI CITY, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74521 November 11, 1986 - BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-68268 November 12, 1986 - FELIX VILLACORTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41315 November 13, 1986 - PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. OIL INDUSTRY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46573 November 13, 1986 - PABLO B. LOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-55033-34 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO M. ALDEMITA

  • G.R. Nos. L-62654-58 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON DAGANGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69876 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PUTTHI NATIPRAVAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70145 November 13, 1986 - MARCELO A. MESINA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70332-43 November 13, 1986 - GENEROSO TRIESTE, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. Nos. 71942-43 November 13, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. L-24856 November 14, 1986 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. EIN CHEMICAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43706 November 14, 1986 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45255 November 14, 1986 - HEIRS OF MARCIANA G. AVILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48787 November 14, 1986 - ABADESA MUÑOZ HECHANOVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-57184-85 November 14, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIA ABANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59604 November 14, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO B. PIA

  • G.R. No. 74243 November 14, 1986 - ASUNCION SANTOS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50103 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-53834 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL E. TAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54901 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ABUEG

  • G.R. No. L-65629 November 24, 1986 - TERESITA E. AGBAYANI, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71305 November 24, 1986 - MANUEL SOLIMAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71381 November 24, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONSTANTINO PECARDAL

  • G.R. No. L-43182 November 25, 1986 - MARCIAL F. SAMSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56315 November 25, 1986 - CLEMENTE FONTANAR, ET AL. v. RUBEN BONSUBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68230 November 25, 1986 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CONSTRUCTION RESOURCES OF ASIA, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68298 November 25, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BAÑARES

  • G.R. No. 71410 November 25, 1986 - JOSEFINO S. ROAN v. ROMULO T. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72182 November 25, 1986 - DEE HUA LIONG ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ROMEO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23039 November 26, 1986 - RAMCAR, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-42230 November 26, 1986 - LAURO IMMACULATA v. PEDRO C. NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. L-46145 November 26, 1986 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53692 November 26, 1986 - LOURDES RAMOS, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO N. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55912 November 26, 1986 - HEIRS OF DOMINGO P. BALOY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59919 November 26, 1986 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 73184-88 November 26, 1986 - ZAMBALES BASE METALS, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75089 November 26, 1986 - LILIA LOPEZ-JISON v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-565-P November 27, 1986 - CONSORCIA BALAIS v. FRANCISCO ABUDA

  • A.M. No. R-586-P November 27, 1986 - CONSTANCIA FABRIGARAS v. NORA B. NEMEÑO

  • G.R. No. L-43195 November 27, 1986 - FIDEL GUEVARRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48117 November 27, 1986 - BRICCIO B. TENORIO v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55703 November 27, 1986 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS DRILLING AND OIL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59213 November 27, 1986 - CONGRESSIONAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45101 November 28, 1986 - ROSARIO C. MAGUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46158 November 28, 1986 - TAYUG RURAL BANK v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 73399 November 28, 1986 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON S. ABEDES