GR 92928; (January, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92928 . January 21, 1992.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EUGENIO CATAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Eugenio Catan was charged in a single Information with both sale and possession of marijuana. Following a buy-bust operation on April 8, 1989, NARCOM operatives arrested Catan after he sold 300 grams of marijuana to poseur-buyers for P450.00. Immediately after the sale and his arrest, a warrantless search of his premises was conducted in the presence of a barangay official, leading to the discovery and seizure of additional quantities of marijuana, including fruiting tops, flowering tops, seeds, and one stick of marijuana cigarette. The Trial Court convicted Catan of both offenses as charged.
Catan appealed, denying the sale and claiming the warrantless search was illegal, yielding no evidence. He asserted he was merely arrested without cause and that the marijuana evidence was only presented to him later in a vehicle. The prosecution maintained the validity of the buy-bust operation and the subsequent search as incidental to a lawful arrest.
ISSUE
Whether the Trial Court erred in convicting Catan of both sale and possession of marijuana based on the evidence obtained.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. On the issue of credibility, the Court upheld the Trial Court’s findings, noting no reason to deviate from its assessment of the witnesses’ testimonies, which established the sale beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the separate conviction for possession, the Court applied Rule 120, Section 3 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Since Catan failed to object to the single Information charging two offenses before trial, the Court could convict him for as many offenses as were charged and proved. The possession of the additional marijuana, seized from his premises distinct from the subject of the sale, was sufficiently proven. The Trial Court also complied with the rule by setting out separate findings for each offense. The penalty for sale was corrected to “life imprisonment” (without the parenthetical “reclusion perpetua”), while the penalty for possession was sustained. The warrantless search was deemed valid as an incident to a lawful arrest following a legitimate buy-bust operation.