PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MONICA PADILLA Y SAN PEDRO, AURORA SAN PEDRO Y CESAR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

People versus Padilla

The Case

This is a criminal appeal by Monica Padilla and Aurora San Pedro, two of three sisters who lived in adjoining houses inside one compound in Sampaloc, Manila. They were charged, tried, and convicted of illegal sale of marijuana, called drug-pushing, and of illegal possession of marijuana, under Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold on to: it fixes the rule that the possession of unsold stocks of a prohibited drug is a distinct offense from the sale of a different batch of the same drug, and it draws the sharp line between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua, which the trial court had confused.

Procedural History

Three informations were filed in November 1988 by the Assistant City Prosecutor before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Two charged Monica and Aurora separately with illegal possession of prohibited drugs, and the third charged them jointly with illegal sale of prohibited drugs. The sisters were arraigned separately, each assisted by counsel, and each entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 28, rendered its decision in July 1990, finding both of them guilty as charged. From that judgment the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising errors on the existence of the buy-bust operation, on the weight of the prosecution evidence, on the sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and on the absorption of possession in the sale.

Facts

From September to November 1988, members of Police Station Number 4 of Manila kept watch over reported drug-pushing by three sisters in Sampaloc. Two arrested drug personalities pointed to Victoria Reyes, Monica Padilla, and Aurora San Pedro as their source. The police applied for a search warrant from the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 33, and organized three groups for a buy-bust operation on the morning of November 3, 1988, with Corporal Martin Orolfo as poseur-buyer.

At the house of Victoria Reyes, the informer introduced Orolfo as a buyer and user of marijuana. Monica asked him how many tea bags he wanted; he said five and handed her one twenty-peso bill and one five-peso bill. Monica went inside, and after a while Aurora came out and handed Orolfo five tea bags of marijuana. Orolfo then gave the pre-arranged signal, and the team swooped down on the houses within the compound, presenting the search warrant and searching in the presence of Barangay Captain Francisco Eugenio.

The search yielded seventy-five tea bags of marijuana, one-half kilo of dried marijuana leaves, and one hundred twenty pesos in cash inside a cabinet of Monica, and one kilo of marijuana from the houses of Victoria and Aurora. The seized items were receipted for and signed by the officers and by the three sisters. The National Bureau of Investigation forensic chemists reported the specimens positive for marijuana. Victoria, by plea bargaining, pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a volatile substance under Presidential Decree 619 and was sentenced to three years. Monica and Aurora stood trial, denied the charges, and claimed that the policemen demanded thirty thousand pesos from each of them for their release.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in believing that a buy-bust operation was conducted by the police on November 3, 1988.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in disregarding the evidence for the defense.
• Whether or not the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted of illegal possession under Section 8 when that possession is inherent in, and therefore absorbed in, the illegal sale under Section 4 of the same law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, as amended, penalizes the sale of prohibited drugs:

The undersigned accuses MONICA PADILLA Y SAN PEDRO Alias MONIC and AURORA SAN PEDRO Y CESAR Alias AURING of a violation of Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 21(b) of Article IV, Republic Act 6425, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675, committed as follows: That on or about November 3, 1988, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver or give away to another Five (5) plastic tea bags containing dried flowering tops of marijuana, which is a prohibited drug.

This is the charge of drug-pushing on which both appellants were convicted for the five tea bags delivered to the poseur-buyer.

Section 8, Article II of the same law penalizes the possession of prohibited drugs, as charged against Monica:

That on or about November 3, 1988, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess or use any prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control the following, to wit: Seventy-five (75) pcs. of plastic tea bags containing dried flowering tops of marijuana; and One (1) plastic bag containing one (1) block of dried flowering tops of marijuana which is a prohibited drug.

This is the separate charge of illegal possession covering the unsold stocks found in her cabinet, which the Court refused to absorb in the sale.

Section 8, Article II was likewise charged against Aurora:

That on or about November 3, 1988, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess or use any prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control the following, to wit: Forty-five (45) small transparent plastic bags containing dried flowering tops of marijuana which is a prohibited drug.

This charge rests on the forty-five bags recovered from her own house during the search.

Ruling

On the first three issues, the Court held that the contentions of the appellants are belied by the record. Corporal Orolfo positively identified Monica as the person to whom he gave the marked money and Aurora as the one who handed him the five tea bags of marijuana. The Court stressed that credence should be accorded to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers, for it is presumed that they have regularly performed their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. Minor inconsistencies between the affidavits and the testimonies of the witnesses do not detract from their credibility, because affidavits are usually taken ex parte and are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate. It was not improbable that the three sisters were together in the house of Victoria at eleven o'clock in the morning, since they lived in adjoining houses within the same compound.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the contention is not well taken. It explained that its earlier ruling that the possession of marijuana is inherent in the crime of selling them referred to the possession of the same batch of marijuana that the accused was vending and which she surrendered upon her arrest. In this case, the bags of marijuana for whose possession Monica and Aurora were prosecuted were not the same marijuana they sold to Orolfo during the buy-bust operation, but unsold stocks kept in their houses and discovered during the search with a proper warrant. The Court ruled:

The sale of prohibited drugs in the streets and the possession of more drugs in the houses of the accused constitute distinct crimes of illegal vending and illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

There was no reason to treat the illegal possession of unsold stocks with leniency by considering it absorbed in the sale, for such stocks have an enormous potential for wreaking havoc on the minds and character of those who fall prey to the destructive lure of prohibited drugs.

Doctrine

First, the sale of a prohibited drug and the possession of a different, unsold stock of the same drug are two distinct crimes. The absorption rule applies only where the possession is of the very same batch sold and surrendered at the time of arrest. A Bar answer should state the rule this way: illegal sale under Section 4 and illegal possession under Section 8 of Republic Act 6425 may be separately charged and separately punished when the drugs possessed are not the drugs sold.

Second, police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duty, so their testimonies as law enforcers are accorded credence absent convincing proof to the contrary. Minor inconsistencies between an affidavit taken ex parte and the witness's testimony in court do not destroy credibility.

Third, life imprisonment is not the same as reclusion perpetua. Reclusion perpetua is a distinct penalty under the Revised Penal Code that carries accessory penalties not inherent in life imprisonment, and the two must never be interchanged.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision in its entirety, with the clarification that the penalty for drug-pushing is life imprisonment, not reclusion perpetua, and modified the judgment only in that respect.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the sale of prohibited drugs in the streets and the possession of more drugs in the houses of the accused are distinct crimes of illegal vending and illegal possession. Examiners use this case to test the absorption doctrine in dangerous drugs cases and the distinction between life imprisonment and reclusion perpetua.