G.R. No. 101124 May 17, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARMELINA TABAR y CARMILOTES and ROMMEL ARRIESGADO y TABAR, accused. CARMELINA TABAR y CARMILOTES, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Carmelina Tabar and her nephew, Rommel Arriesgado, were charged with violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) for selling and delivering three sticks of marijuana cigarettes to a poseur-buyer on February 8, 1989, in Cebu City. Rommel, a minor, pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of possession and was placed on probation. Trial proceeded against Carmelina. The prosecution evidence, primarily from Pfc. Josephus Trangia, established that during a buy-bust operation, their informant purchased three marijuana sticks from Rommel using a marked P5.00 bill. After the sale, Rommel went inside a shanty. The police approached, and upon Rommel’s exit, they met Carmelina coming out holding a white pants containing three packs of marijuana cigarettes (totaling 196 sticks). Carmelina was arrested without a warrant. A forensic analyst confirmed the substances were marijuana. The trial court convicted Carmelina of selling marijuana under Section 4 and sentenced her to Reclusion Perpetua and a P20,000 fine, giving credence to the prosecution’s version over her denial and noting her prior conviction for marijuana possession.

ISSUE

1. Whether the evidence warrants Carmelina Tabar’s conviction for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (sale of marijuana).
2. Whether the marijuana cigarettes seized from her are admissible as evidence despite being obtained without a search warrant.

RULING

1. No, the evidence does not warrant conviction for sale of marijuana. The Supreme Court found no conclusive proof that Carmelina sold the three sticks of marijuana. The sale was consummated solely between the informant and Rommel. There was no evidence that Carmelina conspired with Rommel in that specific sale. Her liability arises from the marijuana found in her possession, not from the sale. Thus, she should be convicted of illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 , not for sale under Section 4.
2. Yes, the seized marijuana cigarettes are admissible. The warrantless search and seizure were valid as incidental to a lawful arrest. Carmelina was caught in flagrante delicto possessing marijuana, as the police had just witnessed a sale by her nephew who entered her shanty, and she emerged holding the pants containing the drugs. This provided probable cause for a warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. The search of the pants she was holding was contemporaneous and valid.
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision. Carmelina Tabar is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 . Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she is sentenced to 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). The Court corrected the penalty terminology, noting that “life imprisonment” under the Dangerous Drugs Act is not synonymous with “reclusion perpetua.”