PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JAIME MEDINA Y BANAG AND VIRGILIO CARLOS, ACCUSED. JAIME MEDINA Y BANAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Medina versus People

The Case

This is the automatic review by the Supreme Court of the conviction of Jaime Medina for the illegal sale of shabu, a regulated drug, under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The People charged Medina together with Virgilio Carlos with conspiring to sell 306.71 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a police poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation. Medina stood trial alone after Carlos remained at large, was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court, and brought the case to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it is a compact teaching vehicle on three things a bar candidate must command: the credibility of police witnesses in a buy-bust operation, the proof of conspiracy by conduct rather than by direct agreement, and the rule that the act of one conspirator is the act of all. It also corrects a trial court that imposed death on aggravating circumstances foreign to the crime charged.

Procedural History

The case began with inquest proceedings before Assistant City Prosecutor Lillian Ramiro, who recommended the filing of an information against Medina alone and the dismissal of the charge against Carlos. An information for violation of Section 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against Medina. After the trial court authorized a reinvestigation, Prosecutor Rogelio Velasco found Carlos probably guilty as well, and an amended information was filed against both accused before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78. Only Medina was present at the reading of the amended information, pleaded not guilty, and stood alone in his defense. The trial court rendered judgment finding that Medina conspired with Carlos in the illegal sale, appreciated the aggravating circumstances of craft, fraud or disguise, sentenced him to death, and issued an alias warrant for the arrest of Carlos. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review of the death penalty, and Medina assigned three errors: that the trial court erred in finding a conspiracy, that it erred in maintaining the regularity of the buy-bust operation, and that it erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

A confidential informant told the police that two men were engaged in the sale of shabu. Through the informant, a deal was arranged for the delivery of 300 grams at 300,000 pesos, to take place on the night of October 3, 1995 in front of a club and restaurant along Quezon Avenue in Quezon City. A team was formed, PO3 Rolando Azurin was designated poseur-buyer and given an envelope of marked money, and SPO1 Edwin Anaviso was assigned to the security and backup group.

When the black car arrived, its driver, later identified as Medina, approached the poseur-buyer and asked if they had brought the money. Told yes, Medina returned to the car and gave a thumbs-up signal. Medina then led the poseur-buyer to the car, sat on the driver's seat, and listened as Carlos, at the backseat, asked for the money. Shown the envelope, Carlos handed over a plastic bag containing three sachets of white crystalline substance. As Carlos began counting the money, the poseur-buyer pressed his beeper, and the team closed in and arrested both men. Chemical examination confirmed methamphetamine hydrochloride, with the contents of the three sachets weighing 306.71 grams.

Medina denied the charge. He admitted going with Carlos, a childhood friend, to the restaurant, but claimed he never left the car and that the police suddenly pounced on them. He tried to retract his two counter-affidavits, saying he signed the first without reading it and understood only parts of the second. His wife corroborated his account of the affidavits. The trial court found him guilty of conspiracy and imposed death.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding a conspiracy between Medina and Carlos.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in maintaining the regularity of the buy-bust operation and in believing the police officers over the accused.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Medina despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the aggravating circumstances of craft, fraud or disguise were properly appreciated against Medina.
• Whether or not the penalty of death was correctly imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, provides the penalty for the sale of regulated drugs:

Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed if the quantity of the regulated drug involved is two hundred grams or more.

This is the provision under which Medina was charged and convicted, and it fixes both the range of the penalty and the fine.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, on the application of penalties composed of two indivisible penalties, provides:

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied. 2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

This rule, applied suppletorily, is why the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua once it found no aggravating circumstance.

Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, on aggravating circumstances, provides:

Article 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

This is the basis for rejecting craft, fraud or disguise that pertained not to the sale of shabu but to the escape of Carlos.

Ruling

On the second issue, the Court found no reason to doubt the prosecution. The testimonies of the two police officers conformed with each other, were unwavering, and narrated the incident in a forthright and convincing manner. Medina, by contrast, failed the test of consistency: his extrajudicial statements varied drastically from his testimony in court, and he even admitted his liability for perjury on the witness stand. No ill motive was imputed to the officers, so their testimonies were worthy of full faith and credit.

On the first and third issues, the Court held that conspiracy was established. Conspiracy is predominantly mental, but it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, which point to a common purpose, concert of action and community of interest. Conduct may establish conspiracy. Here Medina was not a passive bystander: he drove the car, asked the buyer if the money was brought, gave the thumbs-up signal, and listened intently at the front seat. Without his participation the sale could not have gone through. The Court stated the rule of collective responsibility:

It is elementary that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators, and a conspirator may be held as a principal even if he did not participate in the actual commission of every act constituting the offense.

It was therefore of no moment that Medina did not possess or personally deliver the shabu. Guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

On the aggravating circumstances, the Court held that the trial court erred. Craft, fraud or disguise, as appreciated below, related to the escape of Carlos and not to the sale of shabu. An aggravating circumstance must accompany and be an integral part of the crime specified in the information; it must not be factually and legally discrete from it. The charge was for illegal sale of shabu, not for obstructing the apprehension of a criminal offender nor for perjury.

On the penalty, the Court applied Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code suppletorily to the Dangerous Drugs Act. Since the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and no aggravating circumstance attended the crime, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed. The Court also noted the trial court's omission of the fine, which the law mandates together with the corporal penalty.

Doctrine

First, conspiracy may be proved by the acts of the accused before, during and after the crime, which show a common purpose, concert of action and community of interest; direct proof of a prior agreement is not required. Second, when conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and a conspirator is liable as a principal even if he did not perform every act of the offense. Third, an aggravating circumstance must be an integral part of the crime charged in the information; one that is factually and legally discrete from it cannot increase the penalty. Fourth, under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, applied suppletorily to the Dangerous Drugs Act, where the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty is imposed. Fifth, the fine prescribed by Section 15 is conjunctive with the corporal penalty and must be imposed.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Medina but modified the penalty, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of 500,000 pesos, with costs in all instances.

Remember This

Memorize the line that conduct may establish conspiracy, and that the act of one is the act of all. Examiners use this case for the proof of conspiracy by conduct in drug buy-bust operations, and for the rule that an aggravating circumstance unrelated to the crime charged cannot raise the penalty.