G.R. Nos. 76369-70 September 14, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONARDO MANALANSAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Leonardo Manalansan was convicted for the separate crimes of sale and possession of marijuana. The prosecution evidence established that on March 29, 1983, a NARCOM team conducted an entrapment operation in La Trinidad, Benguet. Posing as buyers, agents Manalastas and Quevedo met Manalansan, who agreed to sell them 500 grams of marijuana for P750.00. The transaction was consummated at a pre-arranged location. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the arresting team moved in. Upon arrest, Manalansan was frisked and found in possession of an additional 50 grams of marijuana. All seized items were confirmed by a forensic chemist to be marijuana.
Manalansan raised the defense of a “frame-up,” alleging that the arresting officers harbored a grudge against him due to a prior incident where he reported them for misconduct. He denied selling or possessing any marijuana, claiming the evidence was planted and that he was tortured into signing an unknown document. He also challenged the identity of the evidence presented in court and argued that the separate prosecution for possession and sale violated the rule on absorption of crimes.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the filing of two separate informations for sale and possession of marijuana constitutes double jeopardy; (2) whether the denial of a motion for postponement deprived the accused of due process; and (3) whether the prosecution evidence was credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the filing of two separate informations was proper. While the possession of the 500 grams sold was absorbed in the crime of sale, the separate 50 grams found on Manalansan’s person constituted possession of a different quantity not involved in the sale transaction. Thus, he committed two distinct offenses: sale of 500 grams and possession of 50 grams.
On the due process claim, the Court found no error in the trial judge’s denial of the motion for postponement. The judge validly exercised discretion, considering the busy schedule of the prosecution’s forensic chemist witness. Although Manalansan’s regular counsel was absent, he was represented by a substitute lawyer who actively cross-examined the witness. The failure of this substitute counsel to object or seek postponement constituted a waiver.
Finally, the Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, finding no arbitrariness. The minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of the NARCOM agents did not destroy their credibility. In contrast, Manalansan’s defense of frame-up and torture was uncorroborated and belied by the testimony of his own witness, Colonel Lomibao. His guilt for both crimes was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty for the sale was modified from “life imprisonment to death” to life imprisonment, as the former is an erroneous indeterminate sentence. The decision was affirmed with modification.