G.R. No. 73399




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 73399 November 28, 1986 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAMON ABEDES Y SALGADO, defendant-appellant. Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Nicolas R. Ruiz for defendant-appellant. PARAS, J.:p Ramon Abedes y Salgado was accused of violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act as amended by PD 1675, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q-36002. After trial, he was found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced as follows: WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Ramon Abedes y Salgado, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Sec. 4, Art. II, of Rep. Act No. 6425 as amended by P.D. 1675, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and pursuant to Sec. 4 of said law, hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment (30) years and to pay a fine of P20,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment, in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The 2 tea bags of dried marijuana leaves and 1 tea bag of marijuana cake (Exhs. E to E-4) are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, to be disposed of (destroyed) according to the law. SO ORDERED. From the aforesaid decision, accused interposed the present appeal to this Court contending that the trial court's findings of fact are not supported by or are contrary to the evidence and that the penalty it imposed is greatly disproportionate to the act committed. The facts established by the prosecution are summarized in the People's brief as follows: On October 2, 1984 at about 12:30 p.m., an informer went to operatives of the Anti-Narcotics Command in Camp Crame, Quezon City and tipped them off about appellant's illicit drug dealings (TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 4; TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 3). Acting on the tip, the Commanding Officer assigned Lt. Benito Estipona to the case who gathered eight men, half of whom were drug enforcement trainees (Ibid.). They hatched a ploy to entrap appellant and Lt. Estipona assigned Sgt. Angelito Manalo to pose as a marijuana buyer (Ibid.; TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 3). An hour later, Sgt. Manalo and the informer proceeded on a motorcycle to Main Avenue, Quezon City where appellant lived (Ibid., p. 4). The rest followed closely behind on a Ford Fiera (Ibid.). The informer introduced Sgt. Manalo as an interested buyer to appellant (TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 5). Unsuspecting, appellant left momentarily and came back with one tea bag of marijuana (Ibid., p. 12). He offered this to Sgt. Manalo who paid him with a ten-peso bill, previously treated with dusting powder (Ibid., p. 6; TSN, November 5, 1984, p. 5, pp. 19-20; see also TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 9). As planned, Sgt. Manalo thereupon scratched his head as cue to tick off appellant's arrest (Ibid.; Ibid., p. 20). To that, CIC Molina and Pfc. Ligbos, who positioned themselves nearby (TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 4; TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 6), responded and arrested appellant (TSN, November 5, 1984, p. 5, p. 20; TSN, November 7, 1984, p. 6). Upon consenting to a body search, CIC Molina and Pfc. Ligbos frisked appellant (Ibid., pp. 15-17, 27; Ibid.). They recovered the marked ten-peso bill tucked in appellant's waist (Ibid., p. 5, p. 9; Ibid.). With appellant handcuffed, Lt. Estipona then apprised him of his rights (TSN, November 26, 1984, p. 5, p. 11). On being asked if he had some more marijuana, appellant replied that he did (Ibid., p. 6). He accompanied Lt. Estipona upstairs and voluntarily turned in a piece of marijuana cake (Ibid.). The NARCOM agents then took appellant to the headquarters (TSN, November 5, 1984, p. 6). Lt. Ma. Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid a forensic chemist of the PC Crime Laboratory, conducted tests on the seized specimen and found as positive marijuana content in both the leaves in the tea bag and the cake (TSN, February 6, 1986, p. 5; see also Exhibits "D" and "D-4 " Evidence for the Prosecution). Upon the other hand, the defense evidence (as stated in the brief of the accused) tends to prove that on October 2, 1986 at about 1:30 p.m. while he was inside his pig pen, four (4) armed persons arrived at his place and poked a gun at hint They then handcuffed him and dragged him. Showing him dried marijuana leaves, they told him "this is yours" and ordered him to go with them. Thereafter they loaded him on a jeep and brought him to Camp Crame. At Camp Crame the four (4) men allegedly forced him to sign the receipt (Exh. "C") showing that they arrested him in possession of marijuana. CIC Carlos Molina supposedly hit him on the chest with a caliber .45 pistol and told him to give him (Molina) the sum of P1,000.00 if he wanted to be free. He was not investigated and he did not give any statement. It is not true, he claims that he was bodily searched. The four (4) men got nothing (no marijuana leaves or cake) from him when they arrested him. He says he did not consent to such body search. When find the appeal devoid of merit. The trial court findings of fact are in line with and supported by the evidence. Appellant argues that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vary. He first points to their declarations about the marked money used. A perusal of the said testimonies reveals no inconsistency. Everybody concurred it was a ten-peso bill. Everyone agreed that it was given to appellant in exchange for one bag of marijuana. Appellant next belabors the circumstances surrounding the mark utilized. He ask why the bill's serial number was not jotted down on paper. But, marked money is not solely Identified by comparing its serial number with that recorded in a different sheet. There are other ways of Identifying money used for entrapment, and one of them is by treating the bill with powdered chemicals as in this case. Appellant also makes capital of the non-presentation of his short pants (which he was wearing at the time), the garter seams of which should have been bleached by the powdered bill which he tucked in his waist. He loses sight, however, of the fact that it is the prosecution's prerogative to produce or not those shorts in evidence. So, too, with the informer. The prosecution deemed it unnecessary to present the confidential informer to prove its case. At all events, the gravamen of appellant's thesis is that he did not commit the crime. But he offers nothing more than a mere denial. The bare denial of appellant is not sufficient to overcome his positive Identification by the prosecution witnesses as the culprit. Anent the penalty, We find the same well within the range provided by law. Section 4 of Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act (RA No. 6425) as amended by P.D. No. 1675 provides: Sec. 4. Sale, administrative, delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. If the victim of the offense is a minor or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed. In People vs. Toledo, 140 SCRA 259, 269, this Court had occasion to affirm the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment with a fine of P25,000.00, for the sale by the accused of three (3) plastic bags of dried marijuana leaves. We therefore see no reason to consider the penalty imposed herein as excessive. A drug pusher is a killer without mercy. He poisons the mind and deadens the body. He deserves no mercy. WHEREFORE, this appeal is hereby DENIED. The trial court's decision is affirmed but the portion thereof which reads 30 years should be eliminated. (People vs. Gonzales, 58 SCRA 266, 271). SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation