G.R. No. 108722 December 9, 1997
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ERLINDA CARREON y PRECIA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On July 30, 1990, at around 2:00 p.m., a passenger jeepney in which accused-appellant Erlinda Carreon was riding was flagged down at a PC checkpoint in Lamut, Ifugao. A search of the passengers and their belongings was conducted by C2C Melchor Rivera and C2C Samuel Bulahao. Appellant and her companion, Armina de Monteverde, were seated side by side immediately behind the driver. A small wrap of marijuana was found in appellant’s handbag, and a larger bundle of four wraps was found in a jute sack located approximately one foot away from her feet. Appellant and her companion were arrested, and the seized items were turned over to the Provincial Command and later confirmed by a forensic chemist to be marijuana. Appellant and de Monteverde were charged with violating Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted appellant and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos, while acquitting de Monteverde due to lack of evidence of conspiracy.

ISSUE

The issues raised on appeal are the alleged: (1) insufficiency of evidence to prove guilt; (2) erroneous admission in evidence of the bundles of marijuana; and (3) failure of the trial court to give probative value to the purported affidavit of desistance of the apprehending officers and to appellant’s defense of denial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that: (1) the conviction was based on appellant being caught in flagrante delicto, and the non-presentation of her handbag or minor inconsistencies in the testimony of C2C Rivera did not debilitate the prosecution’s case; (2) there is no rule requiring the apprehending officer to personally deliver the drugs to the crime laboratory, and the transmittal was not vitiated by irregularity, with the marijuana leaves being duly identified by the apprehending officer and the forensic chemist; (3) the purported affidavit of desistance was an afterthought, with the trial court finding the signatures to be forgeries, and it was rendered academic as C2C Rivera testified for the prosecution and disowned it; and (4) the trial court’s findings on credibility and its rejection of appellant’s denial, which was deemed flimsy and preposterous, are entitled to respect. The Court further held that the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos was correctly imposed, as the more severe penalties under the amendatory R.A. No. 7659 should not be applied retroactively to appellant.