G.R. Nos. L-71942-43 November 13, 1986
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Carlito de Jesus, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 17, 1984, in Caloocan City, police conducted an anti-narcotics operation in the Bisig Ng Nayon area. Acting on a tip, police officer Jesus Nadonga posed as a buyer and purchased five sticks of marijuana cigarettes from Carlito de Jesus for ten pesos. Upon his apprehension, a body search yielded an additional thirty-two sticks of marijuana from de Jesus’s back pocket. The substances were confirmed to be marijuana by the NBI. The prosecution presented evidence of the sale and the subsequent discovery, along with an extrajudicial confession from the accused.
The defense presented a different account. De Jesus claimed he was resting at home after a tooth extraction at the time of the alleged arrest and could not have committed the crimes. He repudiated his extrajudicial confession, alleging it was extracted through coercion and physical force from the police. He was charged and convicted in two separate cases: one for the sale of marijuana under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act), and another for possession of marijuana under Section 8 of the same law.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the accused can be separately convicted for the sale of marijuana and for possession of marijuana arising from the same incident; and (2) Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the appeal. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the trial court erred in imposing separate penalties. The offense of illegal possession of marijuana is inherent in and absorbed by the crime of illegal sale when the possession is a necessary precursor to the sale, as in this case where the marijuana sold and the marijuana subsequently found were part of the same criminal transaction. The legislature, in prescribing the severe penalty for sale, already accounted for the incidental act of possession. Therefore, the conviction for possession in Criminal Case No. C-21862 was reversed and set aside.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed the conviction for the sale of marijuana. The defense of alibi was rejected as it was not physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene, which was on the same street where he claimed to be resting. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, giving weight to the positive testimony of the police officers who were presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof of ill motive. The inconsistencies in the appellant’s testimony and his evasive demeanor during trial undermined his defense. His extrajudicial confession, while disputed, was not the sole basis for conviction; the direct evidence of the sale from the poseur-buyer was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.