PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERT SOLOMON Y BALMORES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Solomon

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Bert Solomon, a criminal appeal from a conviction for illegal possession of marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The accused was found with more than a kilo of marijuana in his own home after a lawful search. The case matters to a reviewee for three reasons: it shows how the Court treats minor inconsistencies in police testimony, it explains the chain of custody rule as it stood before the present drug law, and it states the rule that a forensic chemist need not examine the entire mass of the seized drug.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 65. When arraigned, assisted by counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty. After pre-trial, the case went to trial. The trial court rendered its decision on June 17, 2002, finding him guilty of violation of Section 8 of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended, and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos. He moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a notice of appeal, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court, which decided the appeal on the records and briefs.

Facts

On the morning of March 3, 2001, at about six thirty in the morning, police officers of Gerona, Tarlac went to the house of Bert Solomon in Abagon, Gerona, Tarlac to serve a search warrant issued by the municipal trial court of Tarlac City. They coordinated with the barangay captain and barangay officials, who witnessed the search. Inside the shanty, the officers found marijuana in several places: at the lavatory, buried under the bed, in bottles in the utility room, and in a wooden cabinet. They prepared an inventory receipt witnessed by the barangay officials and brought the accused to the police station.

The seized items were brought to the crime laboratory the same day at about one in the afternoon. The forensic chemist examined them and confirmed that all the specimens contained marijuana. The total weight of the marijuana, without the containers, was one thousand four hundred fifty-three grams.

At trial, the accused denied knowledge of the marijuana. But on direct examination he admitted that he used to boil marijuana to cure his children of loose bowel movement, saying he obtained about one fourth of a kilo from a friend. He then retracted and said what he boiled was not marijuana but an herbal mixture. On cross-examination he denied everything, but when questioned by the court he again admitted that he used to boil marijuana and give it to his sick relatives.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
• Whether or not the identity of the seized marijuana specimens was sufficiently established despite the alleged uncertainty of the markings made by the arresting officer.
• Whether or not the qualitative examination of only a sample of about twenty percent of each specimen was sufficient to prove that the entire mass was marijuana.
• Whether or not the defense of planting of evidence and frame-up can prevail.
• Whether or not the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos was correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 8, Article II of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended, defines the offense of possession of prohibited drugs. The trial court convicted the accused under this provision, and the Court sustained the conviction on the basis of the large quantity of marijuana found in his possession.

Section 8. Possession of Prohibited Drugs. Any person who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug shall be punished with the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.

Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code governs the application of indivisible penalties. The Court cited it to justify the imposition of reclusion perpetua regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Section 2 of Republic Act Number 9346, which abolished the death penalty, provides for the reduction of the penalty. The Court applied it retroactively in favor of the accused.

Section 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed: (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers were minor and did not destroy their credibility. The Court noted that the fact that the accused was listed as a drug courier long before 1998 did not preclude a recent surveillance before his arrest in 2001. The differences in the officers' recollections as to the exact positions of the persons inside the house were on minor details. The Court said that such inconsistencies even lend credence to their testimonies because they show the witnesses were not coached. What matters is consistency on the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the wrongdoer.

On the second issue, the Court found that the identity of the seized marijuana was safeguarded. The arresting officer positively identified the items in open court and testified that he placed them in containers and personally brought them to the crime laboratory. The Court held that any failure to strictly comply with the rules on custody of seized drugs may result in administrative liability but does not affect the established fact that the specimens presented in court were the same ones recovered from the accused.

On the third issue, the Court held that the forensic chemist is not required to examine the entire mass of the drug. It is enough that a sample is subjected to qualitative examination, and a sample taken from the substance seized is presumed to be representative of the whole unless the defense proves otherwise.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the defense of planting of evidence and frame-up as a standard defense that is easy to concoct. The large amount of marijuana involved made planting improbable, especially since the accused himself admitted possession and use of marijuana. The Court also applied the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, absent any evidence of improper motive on the part of the police officers.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that under Section 8, Article II, in relation to Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act Number 6425, as amended by Republic Act Number 9346, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed for possession of 750 grams or more of marijuana. Since the total weight was 1,453 grams, the penalty was correctly imposed. The Court also cited Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code to affirm the trial court's imposition of reclusion perpetua and the fine.

Doctrine

First, minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not destroy their credibility. Witnesses are not expected to remember every detail with perfect recall, and differences in recollection are inevitable. What is important is consistency on the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the accused.

Second, the forensic chemist need not examine the entire mass of the seized drug. A sample taken from the substance is presumed to be representative of the whole unless the defense proves otherwise.

Third, the defense of frame-up or planting of evidence is a standard defense that is easily concocted and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties applies absent proof of improper motive.

Fourth, any failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with the rules on custody of seized drugs may result in administrative liability but does not necessarily invalidate the seizure or the evidence.

Fifth, under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, when the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 65, finding Bert Solomon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of marijuana and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a forensic chemist need not examine the entire mass of the seized drug; a sample is presumed representative of the whole. Examiners like to use this case to test the rules on chain of custody, the presumption of regularity in police work, and the application of indivisible penalties under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.