G.R. No. 94644 August 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MICHAEL ALEJANDRO MARIANO, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Yulo, Aliling & Macanay Law Office for accused-appellant.

3oncardas and :stillote, who were about ten "eters awa' fro" the two, rushed to assist Morados. 3oncardas retrieved the "ar#ed "one' fro" Alejandro and received the wrapped parcel fro" Morados. *he tea" then too# the accused to the +AR,-M head(uarters at ,alarian, 5a"boanga ,it'. 7 ,ustod' to the accused, together with the sei7ed parcel and the "ar#ed "one', was turn over to +AR,-M Investigator +orberto 3rancia. 3rancia prepared an Investigation Report, % 8oo#ing Sheet and Arrest Report, 9 and a written re(uest addressed to the %, ,ri"e <aborator' for the eBa"ination of the contents of the sei7al parcel. 1& Athena :lisa %. Anderson, the forensic che"ist of the %, ,ri"e <aborator', subjected the contents of the parcel to ph'sical, "icro-che"ical and confir"ator' or duo(uinois test and found the" positive for "arijuana. 4er findings were e"bodied in her -fficial $angerous $rugs Report, 11 which was offered as an eBhibit along with the "arijuana and affir"ed b' her at the trial. 1# *he accused denied the charged against hi" and gave a different version of the incident. 4e clai"ed that in the afternoon of /une 4, 0121, he had gone on orders of his father to bu' fish at the public "ar#et on 3alcatan St. -n his wa' ho"e, so"eone driving a "otorc'cle bloc#ed his wa' and i""ediatel' handcuffed hi". *he bic'cle he was riding fell to the ground, spilling the fish he had bought. 4e was then brought to the +AR,-M head(uarters. at ,alarian b' several "en who said the' were +AR,-M agents. 13 Abraha" +arag and +orberto 3eliciano testified that the' were at the Anaud Store and witnessed Alejandro.s arrest. *he' also saw his parents standing on the other side of the street across the store, onl' about two "eters awa' fro" their son. Alejandro.s father later pic#ed up the fish that were scattered on the street. 14 Alejandro swore that at the police head(uarters, the +AR,-M agent too# his wallet fro" his poc#et and laid his "one' on the table. *he' then placed a %!.&& bill on top, telling hi" it was the "ar#ed "one'. *he accused denied ownership of the bill but the agents insisted that it was his. *he police"en later returned his "one' but retained the "ar#ed bill. 1$ Coing over the appellant.s brief, the ,ourt notes that it does not point to an' error co""itted b' the trial court. It si"pl' hints, and rather vaguel' at that, that the evidence "a' have been )planted) on Alejandro and points to newspaper reports of abuses co""itted b' the police who )blac#"ail and profit fro" their alleged suspects.) +o evidence of this charge is offered. *he brief is practicall' an ad"ission of guilt. *he appellant is in effect throwing hi"self at the "erc' of this ,ourt and pra'ing that the original sentence )be reduced to "a#e itself "ore palatable to reason.) An appeal in cri"inal cases throws the whole case wide open for review and e"powers @indeed obligatesA the appellate court to correct such errors as "a' be found in the appellate court the appealed judg"ent even if the' have not been assigned. 16 4owever, a careful stud' of the record 'ields no co"pelling reason for a reversal of the respondent court. *he prosecution has ade(uatel' established that the accused was caught in the act of selling %!.&& worth of "arijuana in violation of the $angerous $rug Act.

CR!", J.: Michael Alejandro was convicted of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act no. 64 ! as a"ended, otherwise #nown as the $angerous $rugs Act, and sentenced to life i"prison"ent and a fine of % &,&&&.&& plus the costs. 1 In this appeal, he as#s for the reversal of his conviction or at least the reduction of his penalt' in the interest of the justice and e(uit'.) *he evidence for the prosecution consisted "ainl' of the testi"onies of the +AR,-M operatives who conducted the bu'-bust operation that led to the appellant.s arrest and prosecution. # *hat evidence showed that about half past five in the afternoon of /une 4, 0121, a confidential infor"er reported to Sgt. A"os 3oncardas at the +AR,-M 4ead(uarters in ,alarian, 5a"boanga ,it', that the appellant was selling "arijuana on +atividad St., *etuan, 5a"boanga ,it'. Acting on this infor"ation, the ,o""anding -fficer, %6Major ,laudio ,aba'acru7, organi7ed a surveillance and bu'-bust tea" with Sgt. 3oncardas as leader and ,I, 8onifacio Morados and , , 9icente :stillote as "e"bers. 3 ;pon arrival of the tea" at the target area, the infor"er pointed to Alejandro, who was standing near the Anaud Store at +atividad St., as the drug traffic#er. 3oncardas forthwith told the infor"er to leave and instructed Morados to pose as bu'er, furnishing hi" for this purpose with a "ar#ed %!.&& bill with serial nu"ber S+-<<=4 626. 4 Morados approached Alejandro and as#ed hi" in cha acano> )*iene ba (uita alli?) @$o 'ou have an'thing there?A *he latter answered> )*iene a(ui valor de %!.&& lang de "arijuana. @I have here worth onl' %!.&& of "arijuana.A Morados then said> )Saca 'o se, co"pra 'o conose.) @I will ta#e that, I will bu' it.A $ Alejandro thereupon too# fro" the right poc#et of his shirt an object wrapped in the piece of newspaper and handed it to Morados. After opening the parcel and finding what appeared to be dried "arijuana leaves with three rolling papers, Morados gave the "ar#ed "one' to Alejandro. 4e then gripped Alejandro.s right hand, identified hi"self as a +AR,-M agent, and placed his (uarr' under arrest. 6

*he appellant.s clai" that he was a victi" of the fra"e-up is not convincing. It has not been shown that the +AR,-M agents planted evidence on hi" in order to eBtort "one' fro" hi" or to eBact personal vengeance or to harass hi" or to just strengthen an otherwise wea# case. 17 *his defense, li#e alibi, is inherentl' wea#, as eas' to fabricate as it difficult to prove. Alejandro.s denial cannot prevail against his positive identification as the "arijuana peddler. As a "ere negative self-serving aver"ent, his defense cannot have heavier evidentiar' weight than the sworn declarations of the police officers who testified affir"ativel' on his sale of the prohibited drugs. *he trial court considered it significant that when the appellant was bloc#ed and handcuffed, he did not even "a#e an' protest or outcr'. De have noted this too. +o less strangel', his parents who, according to the appellant and his witnesses, were onl' two "eters awa' fro" hi", did not even bother to as# the police"en wh' their son was being arrested. *here was no eBplanation for this odd indifference. *he parents were not even presented as witnesses to corroborate their son. De co"e now to the appellant.s contention that the penalt' of life i"prison"ent i"posed upon hi" for the sale of five pesos worth of "arijuana is eBcessive and grossl' disproportionate to the offense, to the eBtent of being cruel and unjust. 4e as#s that the penalt' be reduced if he cannot be ac(uitted. *he law i"poses the penalt' of life i"prison"ent to death and a fine ranging fro" % &,&&&.&& to %E&,&&&.&& regardless of the a"ount involved in the sale of prohibited drugs. 1% *his is not cruel punish"ent. It is settle that )it ta#es "ore than "erel' being harsh, eBcessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalt' to be obnoBious to the ,onstitution) as it "a' that it was prescribed to prevent or discourage the proliferation of cri"es that are especiall' hurtful to the public interest. As /ustice *uason said in !eople . "stoista> 19 . . . *he ra"pant lawlessness against propert', person, and even the ver' securit' of the Covern"ent, directl' traceable in large "easure to pro"iscuous carr'ing the use of powerful weapons, justif' i"prison"ent which in nor"al circu"stances "ight appear eBcessive. If prison"ent fro" ! to 0& 'ears is out of proportion to the present case in view of certain circu"stances, the law is not to be declared unconstitutional for this reason. BBB BBB BBB It ta#es "ore than "erel' being harsh, eBcessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalt' to be obnoBious to the ,onstitution. )*he fact that the punish"ent authori7ed b' the statute is severe does not "a#e it cruel and unusual.) @ 4 ,./.S., 002=-0022.A :Bpressed in other ter"s, it has been held that to co"e under the ban, the punish"ent "ust be )flagrantl' and plainl' oppressive,) )wholl' disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shoc# the "oral sense of the co""unit'.) @ #de$.A 4aving in "ind the necessit' for the radical "easure and the public interest at sta#e, we do

not believed that five 'ears. confine"ent for possessing firear"s, even as applied to appellant.s and si"ilar cases, can be said to be cruel and unusual, barbarous, or eBcessive to the eBtent of being shoc#ing to public conscience. A si"ilar justification was "ade in !eople . %e la &ru', #& where the penalt' of siB "onths i"prison"ent and a fine % ,&&&.&& was i"posed for profiteering because the offense was speciall' ini"ical to the national econo"' and the consu"ing public, and in !eople . %ionisio, #1 where a )boo#ie) was sentenced to one "onth i"prison"ent and the penalt', although disproportionate to the offense, was sustained b' this ,ourt on the ground that )the social scourge of ga"bling "ust be sta"ped out.) *here is no (uestion that the illicit distribution of drugs is one of the "ost serious proble"s of our societ' and that nothing less than the "ost deter"ined efforts are needed to co"bat it. *he stern penalties prescribed b' the $angerous $rugs Act are intended to deter the aggravation of this proble", which has alread' prejudiced the lives and the future of thousands of our people, especiall' the 'outh. *he persons who peddle prohibited drugs are, as described in one decision, ## )evil "erchants of "iser' and death.) *he penalties i"posed on the" are neither cruel nor inhu"an but totall' condign, if not in fact even inade(uate. D4:R:3-R:, the appealed judg"ent is A33IRM:$ and the appeal $ISMISS:$, with costs against the appellant. S- -R$:R:$. Gri(o-A)uino, %a ide, *r., +ellosillo and ,uiason, **., concur.