G.R. No. L-77206 October 28, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON SOLOMON y MIRABONA and FRANCISCO SANTOS y DOMINGO, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On January 18, 1984, a NARCOM team in Camp Crame acted on an informant’s tip regarding drug activities in Marikina. Pat. Reynaldo Maranan was designated as the poseur-buyer. Accompanied by the informant, Maranan contacted accused-appellants Ramon Solomon and Francisco Santos. Maranan negotiated to buy marijuana while the rest of the team positioned themselves nearby. After an agreement was reached, Solomon instructed Santos to retrieve the items. Santos left and returned after 5-10 minutes, delivering two aluminum foils to Solomon, who then handed them to Maranan. Maranan paid with a marked P20 bill and gave the pre-arranged signal, leading to the arrest of both appellants. The foils were later confirmed by the PC Crime Laboratory to contain marijuana.
An information was filed charging both with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The trial court found them guilty, imposing life imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the appellants assigned errors, including inconsistencies in prosecution testimonies, the non-presentation of the informant, the alleged inadmissibility of their sworn statements taken without counsel, and Santos’s claim that he should only be liable as an accomplice.

ISSUE

The core issues are whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and whether appellant Francisco Santos should be convicted only as an accomplice.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The alleged inconsistency between witnesses Mangila and Maranan—whether Maranan received the foils directly from Santos or through Solomon—was deemed immaterial. The crucial, established fact was that both appellants actively participated in delivering the marijuana to the poseur-buyer in exchange for marked money. The non-presentation of the informant was not fatal; the prosecution has discretion in choosing its witnesses, and the appellants could have summoned the informant themselves if they believed it would aid their defense.
Regarding the sworn statements (Exhibits “I” and “J”), the Court acknowledged they were inadmissible as evidence for being taken without the assistance of counsel. However, this did not undermine the conviction. The evidence from the buy-bust operation itself, where the appellants were caught in flagrante delicto, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the need for the extrajudicial confessions.
Finally, the Court rejected Santos’s claim of being a mere accomplice. His active participation—being present during negotiations, leaving to retrieve the marijuana upon Solomon’s instruction, and returning to deliver it—made him a principal by direct participation under the Revised Penal Code. Both appellants were therefore equally liable as principals. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in its entirety.