G.R. No. 181546 , September 3, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO ALUNDAY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

In May 2000, the Intelligence Section of the Mountain Province Police Provincial Office received a confidential report about a large marijuana plantation at Mount Churyon, Sadanga, Mountain Province. After validation, a 70-man police contingent, led by Police Senior Inspector Andrew Cayad, launched “Operation Banana.” On August 2, 2000, the team proceeded to Betwagan, Sadanga, and by early morning of August 3, 2000, they reached Mount Churyon. A scouting group, which included SPO1 George Saipen, was dispatched ahead. At a distance of about 30 meters, they saw accused-appellant Ricardo Alunday cutting and gathering marijuana plants within an expansive plantation. The policemen approached, introduced themselves, and apprehended Alunday. They brought him to a nearby hut where they found an old woman, an M16 rifle, and some dried marijuana leaves. The raiding team uprooted and burned the marijuana plants, estimated to cover ten hectares. Samples of the plants were taken, forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory, and examined by Forensic Analyst Emilia Gracia Montes, who confirmed they were marijuana fruiting tops.
Accused-appellant presented a different version. He claimed that on August 2, 2000, he went to Mount Churyon to haul previously cut lumber and spent the night at the hut of an old woman, Ligka Baydon. The next morning, while searching for squash for breakfast, policemen suddenly arrived, accused him of owning the marijuana plantation, and arrested him despite his denial and claim of ignorance about marijuana plants. The defense presented his aunt and cousin to support his presence there for a lawful purpose.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Ricardo Alunday for violation of Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), despite alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and the failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established all elements of the crime of planting and cultivating marijuana beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ratio Decidendi is anchored on the following points: First, the elements of illegal cultivation under Section 9 of R.A. No. 6425 are: (1) the accused planted, cultivated, or cultured marijuana; (2) he did so without being authorized by law; and (3) he knowingly did so. The positive and categorical testimonies of the police officers, particularly SPO1 Saipen who witnessed Alunday in the act of cutting marijuana plants within the plantation, directly proved these elements. The Court found the testimonies credible, consistent, and worthy of belief. The alleged minor inconsistencies (e.g., the exact number of plants initially seen) pertained to trivial details and did not undermine the core narrative of Alunday’s active participation in the cultivation site.
Second, the defense of denial and frame-up was inherently weak and could not prevail over the positive identification and straightforward account of the prosecution witnesses. Alunday’s claim that he was merely gathering lumber was unsubstantiated and illogical given his presence at the remote plantation site at dawn. His failure to present the old woman, Ligka Baydon, to corroborate his story created an adverse presumption that her testimony would be unfavorable.
Third, the Court emphasized the doctrine that findings of fact of the trial court, especially on witness credibility, are accorded high respect and are binding on appeal unless there is a clear showing of oversight or misapprehension. Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found the prosecution witnesses credible. The Supreme Court found no compelling reason to deviate from these concurrent findings.
Fourth, the quantity and area of the marijuana plantation (ten hectares) constituted an aggravating circumstance under the law, warranting the imposition of the maximum penalty. The law prescribes a higher penalty when the cultivation occurs on public land, as in this case. The Court thus imposed reclusion perpetua and a fine of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00).
The conviction for illegal possession of a firearm under P.D. No. 1866 was, however, set aside as it constituted a separate offense that should have been alleged in a distinct information, not lumped with the drugs charge. This did not affect the validity of the drug conviction.