PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
ELIZABETH GANGUSO Decision:
G.R. No. 115430 November 23, 1995
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Facts:
Major Juvenile Sulapas, Officer-in-charge, Dangerous Drugs
Enforcement Section, Pasay City Police Station, received a confidential
report from an informant about the rampant trafficking of drugs by Elizabeth
Ganguso y Decena a.k.a. "Beth Tomboy".
A buy-bust operation was planned with Dennis Vermug acting as
poseur-buyer, backed-up by SPO1 Lumapat, SPO1 Gabutin, PO3s Mendoza
and Garcia with SPO3 Fucanan as team leader.
The operation was carried out and they were successful in arresting
Beth for the violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. At the same time,
they were able to recover a .38 caliber Paltik revolver from the suspect.
Several documentary exhibits were presented as evidence to the
crime. Beth made statements in her testimony different to that of the
polices: policemen barged into her house, searched the premises and her
person without a warrant and; denied the revolver recovered from her.
At the trial, defense presented two witnesses who also claimed that
no buy bust operation took place and no revolver was in the possession of
the suspect.
Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay convicted her of
both charges. She was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and to pay a fine plus costs for the crime involving drugs. She was also
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision
mayor, as minimum, to twelve years and one day, as maximum, with fine and
costs for the crime of illegal possession of firearms.
Hence, Beth appealed.
Issue:
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution has fully
met the test of moral certainty as to the guilt of the accused on both charges
of violation of section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and
of illegal possession of firearms.
The instant appeal is partly granted, and the challenged decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City is modified. As modified, accused-
appellant Beth is acquitted for the charge of illegal possession of firearms on
ground of reasonable doubt. The penalty imposed on her for the violation of
section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is reduced to an
indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to
three years of prision correccional, as maximum.
Ratio Decidendi:
Supreme Court held that the elements of a contract of sale were
present. Beth is presumed to have given her consent by not inquiring
as to the meaning of S when the officer posed to buy Php 500 worth
of S. Therefore, there was a meeting of minds upon a definite object
and upon the price.
Though she was not in possession of the object of sale, Article
1459 merely requires that the vendor must have the right to transfer
ownership of the object sold at the time of delivery. In the case at bar,
though Beth is not the owner, she had the right to dispose of the
prohibited drug. Ownership was thereafter acquired upon her delivery
to the men in the alley after her payment of the price.
Supreme Court also held that failure to conduct prior surveillance
and absence of marked money does not affect the evidence of the
prosecution. It is sufficient that the members of the operation were
accompanied by the informant to the scene; the sale was adequately proven
and; the drug subject was presented before the court.
As regards the penalty imposed, since the shabu only weighs 0.1954
grams, penalty should be prision correccional to reclusion temporal
depending upon the quantity. Applying R.A. No. 7659, ISLAW, and the
decision in the case of People v. Simon, proper penalty should be within the
range of arresto mayor to prision correccional.
R.A. No. 7659, amending R.A. No. 6425, took effect on 31
December 1993. Being patently favorable to the appellant, that
amendatory law should be applied retroactively.
ISLAW: If an offense under the RPC is also punishable by another
law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
 maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum term prescribed by the same.

Finally, there was no proof that Beth is guilty beyond reasonable

doubt for the possession of firearms. Hence, presumption of innocence
stands for failure of the prosecution to establish such guilt.