G.R. No. 85401 -02 June 4, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROSALINDA RAMOS y DAVID, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution’s evidence established that on November 29, 1982, a civilian informant reported to NARCOM agents that a cigarette vendor named “Mama Rose” was selling marijuana in Olongapo City. Agents conducted two test buys using marked money, each resulting in the purchase of two marijuana sticks from the appellant, Rosalinda Ramos. Following the second buy, the team arrested Ramos at her stall. A search of her wallet yielded the marked bills. A further search of a trash can placed under the small table (papag) where she displayed her wares yielded twenty sticks of marijuana cigarettes. Ramos was convicted for illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana.
The appellant denied the charges, claiming she was merely a legitimate vendor. She asserted the NARCOM agents planted the marked money and the marijuana. She argued it was improbable for her to keep valuable contraband in a trash can. The trial court found her guilty on both counts, sentencing her to life imprisonment for sale and an indeterminate penalty for possession.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the prosecution proved the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the penalty for possession was correctly imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted Ramos for illegal sale but sustained her conviction for illegal possession. Regarding the sale, the Court found the evidence insufficient. The prosecution failed to present the civilian informant as a witness, and the testimonies of the apprehending officers did not themselves witness the actual transaction. The marked money alone, absent direct testimony on the sale, created reasonable doubt on whether a sale indeed took place.
However, the conviction for possession was upheld. The Court found the warrantless search and seizure of the twenty sticks from the trash can under her stall to be valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. The marijuana was within her immediate control and dominion. The Court rejected her defense of frame-up and her argument that a trash can was an unlikely hiding place, reasoning that concealment from authorities is the primary consideration for drug pushers, not the commodity’s perceived value. The trash can, though seemingly an unusual place, was within her exclusive reach and served to hide the drugs from plain view.
Finally, the Court modified the penalty for possession. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it corrected the trial court’s fixed penalty to an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day to nine years, within the range prescribed by the Dangerous Drugs Act, while affirming the P6,000 fine.