GR 81002; (August, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 81002 August 11, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO DOROJA y PACANSA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution’s evidence established that on February 10, 1984, a NARCOM team conducted a buy-bust operation based on confidential information. Posing as a buyer, NARCOM agent Carlos Molina approached Alberto Doroja and his brother Pedro in front of their residence. After Molina expressed his intent to buy P20.00 worth of marijuana, Alberto entered the house and returned with two aluminum foils containing marijuana, which he handed to Molina. Upon Molina’s signal, the team arrested Alberto. A subsequent search inside the house, witnessed by a barangay councilman, yielded additional marijuana items from Pedro’s room. Forensic examination confirmed all seized items were marijuana.
The defense presented a different account. Barangay Councilman Francisco Dionisio testified he was summoned to witness a search without a warrant at the Doroja residence, where he saw the marijuana being retrieved from Pedro’s room. Alberto Doroja himself testified that police officers forcibly entered his home, conducted a warrantless search which found nothing on him, and arrested him after failing to extort money. After his conviction, his brother Pedro caused a commotion in court, claiming sole responsibility, but Pedro later died.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of marijuana.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution’s version credible and upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the warrantless arrest and search were deemed valid as incidental to a lawful arrest following a consummated buy-bust operation. The positive identification by the poseur-buyer prevailed over the denials of the accused.
However, applying the provisions of Republic Act No. 7659, which reclassified penalties based on the quantity of marijuana, the Court recalculated the penalty. The total marijuana involved weighed only 13.2 grams, far below the 750-gram threshold for life imprisonment. Consequently, the offense fell under the lower penalty range. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months of prision correccional as maximum. The fine of P30,000.00 was deleted, as the new law prescribed no fine for quantities less than 750 grams.