G.R. No.
85401-02 June 4, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ROSALINDA RAMOS y DAVID, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
• On November 29, 1982, in Olongapo City, Philippines, a civilian informant
approached the Narcotics Command Office, reporting the activities of a cigarette
vendor known as 'Mama Rose,' alleging she was involved in selling marijuana at
a specific location. The authorities devised a sting operation based on this
information.
• In the first case, Criminal Case No. 5990, Rosalinda Ramos was accused of
possessing twenty sticks of marijuana cigarettes on the mentioned date. The
marijuana was discovered in a trash can situated under a small table where she
displayed her merchandise for sale. Upon executing the sting operation, the
police apprehended Ramos and confiscated the marijuana sticks from the trash
can.
• In the second case, Criminal Case No. 5991, Ramos was charged with engaging
in the sale of marijuana, allegedly involving the distribution of four marijuana
sticks on the same day. The operation utilized an informant as a poseur-buyer for
two test buys, during which the informant allegedly purchased marijuana sticks
from Ramos. However, notably, the informant, who was the supposed poseur-
buyer, was not presented as a witness during the trial.
• The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the police officers involved in the
operation, the marked bills used for the buys, and the marijuana sticks
confiscated during the sting operation as evidence. Ramos contested the
charges, asserting her innocence and claiming coercion during the investigation.
Issues:
• Whether the evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt for possession
and sale of marijuana.
• Whether the extrajudicial confession is admissible.
• Whether the arrest and subsequent search were lawful.
• Whether the lower court erred in imposing separate sentences for possession
and sale.
Holding:
• Appellant found guilty of possession of marijuana but acquitted of selling
marijuana.
• Extrajudicial confession inadmissible due to violation of appellant's constitutional
rights.
• Appellant's arrest and search were lawful in relation to the possession charge.
• Lower court erred in imposing separate sentences for possession and sale.
Reasoning:
• Evidence presented does not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
sale of marijuana, relying on circumstantial evidence.
• Extrajudicial confession found inadmissible due to not meeting constitutional
requirements.
• Arrest and subsequent search were legal concerning the possession charge,
given the personal knowledge of the police officers.
• Separate sentences for possession and sale were incorrect as possession is
inherent in the sale of drugs.
Resulting Legal Rules:
• Possession of illegal substances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt,
considering circumstantial evidence.
• Admissibility of confessions is subject to constitutional rights being respected,
particularly the right to remain silent and have legal counsel.
• Arrests and searches should be conducted in accordance with legal procedures,
with personal knowledge of the offense being a key factor.
• Sentencing should adhere to the Indeterminate Sentence Law and consider the
nature of the offense.
Disposition:
• The decision in Criminal Case No. 5990 is affirmed with a modified sentence.
• The decision in Criminal Case No. 5991 is reversed, and the appellant is
acquitted.
