PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO MANALANSAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

The accused-appellant was charged in two separate informations with the possession and sale of prohibited
drugs in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 
He was convicted in both cases and sentenced accordingly.  He now comes before this Court alleging that:

(1)  He should not have been prosecuted separately
for possession of the marijuana because the offense was already absorbed in the
crime of selling the prohibited narcotic.

(2)  He was deprived of due process because his
first motion for postponement was denied by the trial judge and the prosecution
was allowed to present its evidence in the absence of his regular counsel.

(3)  He was convicted on the basis of flimsy and
inconsistent evidence as against his definite proof that he had been
“framed” in retaliation for his earlier acts against two of the
prosecution witnesses.

As found by the trial court, Manalansan
was arrested in the evening of March 29, 1983, at the foot of the stairs
leading to the provincial capitol in La Trinidad, Benguet.  The arrest was the result of an entrapment
arranged by a NARCOM team headed by Major Percy Aldaba
and consisting of Sgt. Glenn Logan, Sgt. Pacifico Mugar, CIC Leo Quevedo, CIC Celerino Beltran, and P/Cpl. Danilo
Manalastas. 
Earlier that evening, Major Aldaba had given
P750.00 to Manalastas and Quevedo,
who were to be the poseurs/buyers.  The
money consisted of several bills of various denominations and had previously
been photocopied.  A little before 8:30 p.m., the team proceeded to the residence
of Manalansan in Trancoville,
Baguio City.  Meeting him on the way, Manalastas
and Quevedo told him they were interested in buying
marijuana, or the “stuff,” as they called it.  Manalansan was wary
at first but finally agreed to sell them 500 grams of marijuana for the
stipulated price of P750.00.  They
decided to meet at 11 p.m. at the Chinese
Temple but Manalansan
changed his mind and suggested a “safer spot” at the foot of the
stairs to the provincial capitol.

As planned, the three met at the appointed time and place, and
the sale was consummated, with Manalansan delivering
the 500 grams of marijuana to Quevedo and Manalastas, who paid him the P750.00.  Quevedo then lit a
cigarette.  At this pre-arranged signal,
the other members of the team, who had concealed themselves in several
strategic places where they could view the transaction, revealed themselves and
arrested Manalansan.          
He was frisked and found with another 50 grams of marijuana, which was
confiscated along with the P750.00.  All
the marijuana was later sent to the PC Crime Laboratory and the money to the
office of the prosecutor.

The above narration was made on the stand by Manalastas,
Quevedo, and Glenn Logan.^[1]
P/Lt. Therese Ann Bugayong, a forensic chemist of the
PC Crime Laboratory at Camp Dangwa, testified that the
contents of the brown paper bag delivered to Manalastas
and Quevedo by Manalansan
and of the white plastic packet found on his person were marijuana flowering
tops weighing approximately 500 grams and 50 grams, respectively.^[2]

For his part, Manalansan alleged that
he was the victim of a “frame-up” motivated by a desire to avenge his
having previously reported Manalastas and Logan for
offering a .45 caliber pistol in exchange for marijuana.  That was sometime in 1980.  Nothing came out of the incident but the
agents were apparently still resentful of him, which was why he was arbitrarily
picked up in the evening of March 29,
1983.  He was detained
overnight, during which he was tortured and compelled to sign a piece of paper
the contents of which he was not allowed to read.  He was then made to subscribe to the document
on the promise of his captors that they would release his wife and daughter
whom they had also arrested.  Manalansan categorically denied that he was selling or in
possession of any marijuana at the time of his arrest and implied that this was
merely “planted” by the NARCOM agents.^[3]
Moreover, the defense sought to cast doubt on the identity of the marijuana
presented at the trial, suggesting that it pertained to another case as
indicated in its markings.^[4]

On the first issue, we hold that the Government did not err in
filing two separate informations for possession and
sale of marijuana, respectively, by the accused-appellant.  He is correct in arguing that the possession
of the marijuana was absorbed in the sale thereof, but that is true only of the
500 grams he delivered to the poseurs/buyers for P750.00.  It is not true of the other 50 grams found in
his possession which were not covered by the sale and were probably intended
for a different purpose like another sale or its direct use by the possessor.  It was quite proper for the trial judge to hold
that the accused-appellant was guilty of two separate offenses, to wit, sale of
the 500 grams of marijuana, and possession of the other 50 grams, at the time
of his arrest.

We are also not prepared to sustain the second assigned error,
for the record shows that the trial judge had valid reasons to deny the motion
for postponement.  The prosecution
witness scheduled to testify at that hearing was the forensic chemist, who had
come in response to a subpoena and had a busy official schedule,
including appearances at other court hearings. 
The trial judge was only exercising his sound discretion in ordering the
trial to proceed.  Although his regular
counsel could not attend for medical reasons, Manalansan
was nevertheless represented by a temporary substitute lawyer, who did not
really have to study the case in depth because the only evidence to be
introduced at that particular hearing dealt with the technical identification
of the marijuana.  He in fact even
conducted a cross-examination.

If he really felt that the accused-appellant’s interest would be
prejudiced, he should have expressed his objection and backed it up by refusing
to participate in the examination of the witness.  Not having done so, he is deemed to have
conformed to the order of the court. 
Lawyers are not pliant robots at the complete mercy of the judge but can
and must protest its acts if they feel their client’s rights are being
violated.

Finally, we come to the credibility of the witnesses.  We have held in numerous cases that the
evaluation of the witnesses by the trial court is received on appeal with the
highest respect because it is the trial court that has the direct opportunity
to observe them on the stand and detect if they are telling the truth or lying in
their teeth.  That assessment is accepted
as correct by the appellate court – is indeed binding upon it – in the absence
of a clear showing that it was reached arbitrarily.

There is no such showing in the case at bar.  While it may be conceded that there are a
number of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, they
are not in our view substantial enough to impair the veracity of the
prosecution evidence of how the two crimes were committed by the accused-appellant.  The maxim falsus
in unus falsus in omnibus
does not lay down a categorical test of credibility.  While witnesses may differ in their
recollections of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from their
disagreements that all of them should be disbelieved as liars and their
testimonies completely discarded as worthless.

The testimony of the accused-appellant is another matter.  There is no proof whatever of his alleged
manhandling:  he did not present any
medical certificate of his supposed injuries, and neither did he complain to
the prosecutor before whom he says he subscribed a document which,
incidentally, was never presented in court by either prosecution or the
defense.  And the motive he imputes to
the prosecution witnesses is not credible either as even his own witness who
was expected to corroborate his assertions actually belied them.

Manalansan claimed that when he learned
that Manalastas and Logan (who later became Major Aldaba’s men) were looking for marijuana, he had reported
the matter to Colonel Lomibao, who ordered him to
prepare two kilos of marijuana for their entrapment.  On the stand, Col. Lomibao
denied he had given any such instruction and stressed he had nothing to do
whatever with the planned entrapment.  In
fact, he said, Manalansan was not a civilian informer
and was the one who was arrested, not the prospective buyers, who turned out to
be CANU agents.

We find that the trial court committed no error in convicting the
accused-appellant of the separate offenses of selling and possessing marijuana
in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. 
We are satisfied that his guilt of the two crimes has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the evidence of the prosecution.

For selling marijuana, Manalansan was
sentenced to “the penalty of life imprisonment to death and to pay a fine
of P25,000.00”; and for possession of marijuana, he was sentenced to
“a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
years, and to pay a fine of P9,000.00” by Judge Nicodemo
T. Ferrer of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio and Benguet.  The first penalty of “life imprisonment
to death” is obviously erroneous and is hereby changed to life
imprisonment only plus the fine.  The
penalty for the second offense is sustained.

We need only add that the active support of everyone is needed to
bolster the campaign of the government against the evil of drug addiction.  The merchants of all prohibited drugs, from
the rich and powerful syndicates to the individual street “pushers,”
must be hounded relentlessly and punished to the full extent of the law,
subject only to the inhibitions of the Bill of Rights.

WHEREFORE, the appeal
is DISMISSED and the challenged decision AFFIRMED as modified, with costs
against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman) Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, pp. 11-29, December 20, 1983; Ibid., pp. 4-8, February 13,
1984; Id., pp. 83-94, May 8, 1984.

^[2] id.,
pp. 54-72, February 20, 1984.

^[3] id.,
pp. 3-32, September 4, 1984.

^[4] Brief
for the Accused-Appellant, p. 14.