GR 70113; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 70113-14 December 11, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EMMANUEL ELIGINO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Two separate informations were filed against Emmanuel Eligino for Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs (Criminal Case No. 6374) and Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs (Criminal Case No. 6375) under Republic Act No. 6425. On October 10, 1983, NARCOM operatives arrested Ramon Rejano for selling marijuana. Rejano identified his supplier as “Maning” (accused-appellant) and led the team to appellant’s residence for an entrapment operation. Rejano, using a marked US $1 bill, knocked on appellant’s door, stated “Kukuha pa ako,” and received five sticks of marijuana through a slightly opened door in exchange for the marked money. The NARCOM team then barged in, arrested appellant, and recovered the marked bill. Appellant, upon being told it would lessen his offense, led the agents to an “aparador” where he surrendered additional marijuana items (21 sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes and plastic bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops). The seized items tested positive for marijuana. Appellant gave a sworn statement admitting the offenses after being informed of his constitutional rights. At trial, appellant denied the charges, claiming the NARCOM agents barged into his house without a warrant, handcuffed him, searched without finding anything, mauled him, and forced him to sign a statement without counsel. The trial court found the prosecution’s version credible and convicted appellant on both charges.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession and sale of prohibited drugs, considering the alleged illegality of the arrest and seizure, the violation of constitutional rights during investigation, and the credibility of witnesses.
RULING
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction for Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs (Criminal Case No. 6375) but REVERSED the conviction for Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs (Criminal Case No. 6374). The Court held that the buy-bust operation was a valid entrapment, as the criminal intent originated from the appellant. The arrest without a warrant was lawful because it was made during the commission of the offense (in flagrante delicto). The subsequent seizure of the additional marijuana was also valid as it was voluntarily surrendered by appellant. The Court found the prosecution witnesses credible and their testimonies straightforward, while appellant’s version was inconsistent and improbable. However, the Court ruled that possession of marijuana is inherent in the crime of selling it; thus, convicting appellant for both offenses would be superfluous. The penalty for illegal sale was affirmed, but the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment was deleted as the principal penalty (life imprisonment) is higher than prision correccional.