GR 93028 People vs Simon

People of the Philippines vs. Martin Simon G.R. No. 93028 July 29, 1994 Ricardo, J.: FACTS  On November 10, 1988 Martin Simon y Sunga was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article 2 of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) o Alleging that on October 22, 1988 he sold 4 tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotic Command (NARCOM) in a sum of PHP40  On March 2, 1989 he was arraigned with counsel following his escape from Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga o Appellant pleaded NOT GUILTY  Voluntarily waived his right to a pre-trial conference  A NARCOM operative informed the police of illegal drug activities of ALYAS PUSA. Capt. Francisco Bustamante (Commanding Officer of the 3rd Narcotics Regional Unit) formed a team to bust appellant o Lopez was handed 2 marijuana bags which cost a total of PHP40 o Lopez signaled the team with a scratch on the head and they busted the appellant o Pfc. Villacruz corroborated Lopez’ testimony o Sgt. Domingo Pejoro conducted the custodial investigation  He apprised the rights of Simon: “You have the right to remain silent, etc.”  Simon orally waived his right to counsel

Prepared “Exhibit G”, The Receipt of Property Seized/Confiscated o Dr. Pedro Clara examined the appellant  Normal except for high blood pressure  No physical injuries  Appellant had gastrointestinal pains due to history of peptic ulcer Appellant’s side of the story o He was told that he was a pusher on a jeep ride with the officers and forced to sign papers. He was punched in the stomach when he refused to do so. o Admitted that he escaped from the NARCOM office BUT it was because of the maltreatment  Went to his uncle’s house (Bienvenido Sunga)  Confined in the hospital for 3 days Appellant’s brother (Norberto Simon) testified that his brother was in the hospital that was likely due to his peptic ulcer o Confirmed by Dr. Evelyn Gomez-Aguas On December 4, 1989, the trial court convicted the appellant for a violation of the Dangerous Drug Act o Penalty = Life imprisonment, fine of PHP20,000, and pay the costs o 4 tea bags of marijuana were confiscated by the Government Appellant was caught in flagrante delicto engaging in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs. Thus, it is unlikely that he was set-up and more likely that he committed the crime. 









ISSUE 1. Whether or not the appellant is guilty of selling prohibited drugs and having possession. YES.

2. Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case. YES. RATIO 1. YES. a. Dangerous Drugs Act - punishes any person who unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions i. To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmistakably established. ii. One cannot sell the drugs without first having possession over it.

b. No law or jurisprudence requires that an arrest or seizure, to be valid, be witnessed by a relative, a barangay official or any other civilian, or be accompanied by the taking or pictures. 2. YES. a. It is indeterminate in the sense that after serving the MINIMUM, the convict may be released on parole, or if he is not fitted for release, he shall continue serving his sentence until the end of the MAXIMUM. b. Drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act, which would put him within the exceptions to said law, and the penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua to death. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is a legal and social measure of compassion, and should be liberally interpreted in favor of the accused.