G.R. No. 126252. August 30, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JESUS GARCIA y MANABAT, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Jesus Garcia y Manabat was charged with illegal possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana. The prosecution’s case, based on the testimony of Senior Inspector Oliver Enmodias, established that on November 28, 1994, Enmodias and SPO3 Jose Panganiban, while in civilian attire and riding a jeepney in Baguio City, smelled marijuana emanating from a plastic bag carried by Garcia, who had boarded the jeepney. They followed Garcia when he alighted at the Baguio city hall. At Rizal Park, they observed Garcia transfer five packages wrapped in newspaper from the plastic bag to a green travelling bag. Through a tear in the newspaper, they saw what appeared to be marijuana. They approached, identified themselves as police officers, asked to inspect the bag, and upon inspection found five bricks of dried marijuana leaves. Garcia was arrested, apprised of his rights, and the seized items were later confirmed by chemical analysis to be marijuana fruiting tops weighing five kilos. The defense presented a different version: Garcia denied possessing any marijuana or bag, claiming he was visiting his brother, was accosted by two men at the park without being identified as police, forcibly taken to a safehouse, and maltreated to extract a confession about drug sources. A neighbor, Manuel de Guzman, corroborated seeing two men forcing Garcia into a car but did not see any bag. The Regional Trial Court convicted Garcia and initially sentenced him to death. Upon a motion for reconsideration, the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. Garcia appealed, raising procedural and substantive issues.

ISSUE

1. Whether the decision convicting the accused was validly promulgated given that it was promulgated four days after the approved retroactive retirement date of the judge who penned it.
2. Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witness is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

1. Yes, the decision was validly promulgated. Although the effectivity of Judge Pastor de Guzman, Jr.’s disability retirement was retroactive to February 16, 1996, and the decision was promulgated on February 20, 1996, the judge was still the incumbent and actually discharging his duties as a de facto judge at the time of promulgation. He had not yet filed his application for retirement by that date, and his retirement was only approved in June 1996. Therefore, the decision, promulgated while he was acting as a de facto judge, is legal and binding.
2. Yes, the testimony of Senior Inspector Enmodias, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony was clear, positive, and credible, detailing the events from the detection of the marijuana odor to the arrest and seizure. The defense of denial and frame-up, along with the corroborating testimony of de Guzman, was found unconvincing and insufficient to overturn the prosecution’s evidence. The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs were duly proven: the accused was in possession of the marijuana, such possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The conviction is affirmed, but the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua in accordance with the law.