G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Jose Rayray y Areola, accused-appellant.

FACTS

At 9:45 a.m. on September 12, 1986, P/Lt. Ramon Ancheta, the Chief Administrative Officer of the Regional INP Command in Baguio City, was at the Friendly Shop on Ortega St., San Fernando, La Union. Accused-appellant Jose Rayray y Areola approached him and offered to sell marijuana. Pretending interest, Lt. Ancheta asked where the merchandise was. Accused-appellant then took marijuana wrapped in komiks from his pocket, showing marijuana fruiting tops and a marijuana cigarette. Upon seeing this, Lt. Ancheta immediately identified himself as a police officer, arrested accused-appellant, and brought him to the San Fernando Police Station. The arrest was recorded in the police blotter by Sgt. Carmelito Leyga. The marijuana weighed 2.9452 grams. Accused-appellant was charged with violating Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act). The Regional Trial Court convicted him, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine. Accused-appellant denied the charge, claiming he was framed. He testified he was at Dodies’ Fishing Supply to buy fish hooks when a stranger tapped his shoulder, whispered “Don’t try to involve somebody,” ordered him to undress, and then accused him of selling marijuana while holding something wrapped in paper. He claimed he was forced into a tricycle, brought to jail, and incarcerated without reason. His defense was corroborated by witnesses Gabriel Galvez and Bonifacio Chan.

ISSUE

1. Whether the warrantless arrest by P/Lt. Ancheta was legal despite him being assigned outside his territorial jurisdiction (Baguio City).
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant based on the uncorroborated testimony of P/Lt. Ancheta over the corroborated defense testimony.
3. Whether the decision is valid even if the judge who decided the case was not the one who conducted the trial.
4. Whether accused-appellant’s constitutional rights during custodial investigation were violated, affecting his conviction.
5. What is the proper penalty after the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7659 .

RULING

1. On the legality of the arrest: The arrest was legal. A police officer has a duty to apprehend criminals caught in the act, regardless of territorial assignment. Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure authorizes a warrantless “citizen’s arrest” when, in the presence of the arresting person, the offender has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Lt. Ancheta witnessed accused-appellant offering to sell marijuana, an offense committed in his presence, justifying the arrest.
2. On the credibility of testimony: The trial court correctly gave credence to the lone, positive testimony of P/Lt. Ancheta over the corroborated defense. No rule requires corroboration for credibility; witnesses are weighed, not numbered. The testimony of a single credible witness is sufficient for conviction. Lt. Ancheta’s testimony is bolstered by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The defense witnesses’ corroboration was unreliable due to inconsistencies: (a) Discrepancy between accused-appellant’s and Galvez’s testimony on who requested the fish hooks; (b) Contradiction between Galvez and Chan on who informed Galvez of the arrest; (c) Chan’s failure to help his friend during the alleged frame-up and his initial refusal to testify cast doubt on his credibility.
3. On the judge not being the one who conducted the trial: This does not invalidate the decision. A judge can render a valid decision based on the evidence on record. The failure to observe witnesses testify does not ipso facto render the judgment erroneous, especially when the decision is fully supported by the evidence, as in this case.
4. On the alleged violation of constitutional rights during custodial investigation: While accused-appellant was not informed of his rights nor assisted by counsel during interrogation, rendering any confession inadmissible, this did not paralyze the prosecution. The offense was established by the positive testimony of Lt. Ancheta and the presentation of the corpus delicti (the marijuana). Thus, the conviction stands independently of any inadmissible confession.
5. On the proper penalty: The penalty is modified due to R.A. No. 7659 . Under Sec. 20 of R.A. No. 6425 , as amended, the illegal sale of less than 750 grams of marijuana is penalized with prision correccional to reclusion temporal without fine. Since the quantity was 2.9452 grams, and no mitigating or aggravating circumstances were present, the proper penalty is the medium period of prision correccional (2 years, 4 months, 1 day to 4 years, 2 months). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is taken from the penalty next lower in degree (arresto mayor: 1 month, 1 day to 6 months). The Supreme Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate prison term of six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional medium as maximum. The fine is deleted.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED with the aforementioned penalty modification.