PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ELIZABETH GANGUSO

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 police’s: 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.

Decision:

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.