People of the Philippines vs. Jose Rayray y Areola

A warrantless arrest is valid when the person to be arrested commits an offense in the arresting officer's presence, even if the officer is outside his territorial assignment; the officer's duty to apprehend offenders is not limited by territorial constraints and Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 authorizes the arrest. A conviction may rest on the credible and positive testimony of a single witness, particularly a police officer presumed to have regularly performed official duties, and an uncounseled custodial admission does not invalidate the conviction where independent evidence establishes the offense.

Jose Rayray y Areola was charged with violating Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, for the illegal sale of marijuana. The arresting officer, P/Lt. Ramon Ancheta, was then the Chief Administrative Officer of the Regional Integrated National Police Command stationed in Baguio City. The offense was alleged to have occurred in San Fernando, La Union, outside Ancheta's official station, and the penalty provision had been amended by R.A. No. 7659.

At about nine forty-five in the morning of 12 September 1986, P/Lt. Ramon Ancheta was at the Friendly Shop located at Ortega St., San Fernando, La Union, when Jose Rayray y Areola approached him and offered to sell marijuana. Ancheta made Rayray believe he was interested in buying and asked where the merchandise was; Rayray responded by taking marijuana wrapped in komiks from his pocket. Catching sight of the marijuana fruiting tops and marijuana cigarette being offered him, Ancheta immediately identified himself as a police officer, arrested Rayray, and brought him to the San Fernando Police Station, where he was turned over to desk officer Sgt. Carmelito Leyga, who entered the details of the arrest in the police blotter.

Rayray denied making the offer to sell. He testified that he was at Dodies' Fishing Supply at Ortega Street with his friend Bonifacio Chan to buy fish hooks when he was suddenly tapped on the shoulder by somebody who whispered, "Don't try to involve somebody." After being ordered to undress, he was made to face the stranger who was holding something wrapped in paper and who tried to pass it off as that of Rayray by saying, "You are selling marijuana." Rayray was then forced into a tricycle, brought to the municipal jail, and incarcerated for no reason.

The prosecution's account rested on the lone testimony of P/Lt. Ancheta. The defense's version was corroborated by Gabriel Galvez and Bonifacio Chan, but the trial court found their corroboration unreliable. Accused-appellant testified that while packing fish in the house of Junior Galvez, also known as Gabriel Galvez, he suddenly remembered that somebody from Pangasinan had requested him to buy fish hooks, which was why he asked permission from Galvez to go to Dodies Fishing Supply. Galvez, however, testified that it was he himself who asked accused-appellant to buy the fish hooks and that he did so on the same morning. Galvez also testified that he learned about the arrest from accused-appellant's grandmother, an old woman called Isten, who was not presented as a witness; Chan claimed that it was from him that Galvez learned of the incident. Although Chan claimed to have witnessed the alleged frame-up, he did nothing to help accused-appellant, went home after the incident, and merely informed Galvez about the arrest. Chan initially refused to receive the subpoena served on him, denied knowledge about the incident, and even denied his close association with accused-appellant. The trial court rejected the defense of frame-up, found the prosecution's version credible, and relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

• Territorial Authority to Arrest: Accused-appellant argued that his arrest was illegal because P/Lt. Ancheta had no authority to arrest persons in San Fernando, La Union, being then assigned at the Regional INP Command in Baguio City.
• Uncorroborated Prosecution Testimony: Accused-appellant argued that the trial judge erred in accepting the uncorroborated testimony of P/Lt. Ancheta over his testimony, which was corroborated by two other witnesses.
• Misappreciation of Evidence by Substitute Judge: Accused-appellant argued that there was misappreciation of evidence because the judge who decided the case was not the one who conducted the trial.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: Accused-appellant argued that his constitutional rights were violated during the custodial investigation conducted by the San Fernando Police because he was not informed of his constitutional rights and was not assisted by counsel during interrogation, and a confession was allegedly elicited from him.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest by P/Lt. Ancheta was valid despite his assignment in Baguio City and the arrest occurring in San Fernando, La Union.
• Credibility of Lone Witness: Whether conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of P/Lt. Ancheta despite the defense's corroboration by two witnesses.
• Appreciation of Evidence by Substitute Judge: Whether the fact that the judge who decided the case was not the one who conducted the trial warrants reversal for misappreciation of evidence.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: Whether the violation of accused-appellant's constitutional rights during custodial investigation rendered his conviction invalid.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed should be modified under R.A. No. 7659 given that the marijuana confiscated was only 2.9452 grams.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Yes. The arrest was valid; Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 authorizes a warrantless arrest when the offense is committed in the officer's presence, and a policeman's duty to apprehend offenders is not limited by territorial assignment.
• Credibility of Lone Witness: Yes. Conviction may rest on the credible and positive testimony of a single witness, especially a police officer presumed to have regularly performed official duties; corroboration is not required.
• Appreciation of Evidence by Substitute Judge: No. The fact that the deciding judge did not hear the witnesses does not per se render the decision erroneous, especially where the judgment is supported by the evidence on record.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: No. Although the admission without counsel is inadmissible, it did not invalidate the conviction because the offer to sell was independently established by Ancheta's testimony and the corpus delicti.
• Penalty: Modified. Under Sec. 20, R.A. No. 6425 as amended by Sec. 17, R.A. No. 7659, illegal sale of less than 750 grams of marijuana is penalized by prision correccional to reclusion temporal without fine; applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the indeterminate term is six months of arresto mayor maximum as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional medium as maximum.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: The argument that Ancheta could not arrest in San Fernando because he was assigned in Baguio City was rejected. A policeman cannot callously set aside his essential duty of apprehending criminal offenders and keeping peace and order on the shallow excuse that he is not in his place of assignment. His responsibility to protect the public by apprehending violators of the law, especially one caught in flagrante delicto, is not limited by territorial constraints and follows him wherever he goes. Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 authorizes a warrantless arrest, or citizen's arrest, when in the officer's presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Since Rayray offered to sell marijuana to Ancheta in San Fernando, the arrest was justified by his duty as a law enforcer and by Rule 113.
• Credibility of Lone Witness: No rule requires corroboration for testimony to be adjudged credible. Witnesses are weighed, not numbered; conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness if positive and credible. The number of witnesses may be considered in appreciating evidence, but preponderance is not necessarily with the greatest number. A police officer's positive narration is credible, with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and obedience to law. The defense's corroboration by Galvez and Chan did not make its version more credible: Galvez was a companion in the fishing business and Chan was a close friend or barkada of accused-appellant. Their testimonies also had inconsistencies. Accused-appellant said somebody from Pangasinan requested him to buy fish hooks and that he asked Galvez for permission, but Galvez said he himself asked accused-appellant to buy fish hooks that morning. Galvez said he learned of the arrest from accused-appellant's grandmother Isten, but Chan claimed Galvez learned from Chan. Chan claimed to have witnessed the frame-up but did nothing to help, went home, informed Galvez, initially refused to receive a subpoena, and denied knowledge of the incident and close association with accused-appellant. Thus the trial court correctly found the corroboration unreliable.
• Appreciation of Evidence by Substitute Judge: The fact that the judge who heard the evidence was not the one who prepared, signed, and promulgated the decision is not a compelling reason to jettison his findings and conclusions and does not per se render the decision erroneous. A trial judge's assessment of the credibility of a testimony is not anchored solely on how the witness conducted himself on the witness stand. A judge is supposed to render a decision on the basis of the evidence before him, including the records. The failure of the trial judge to observe the witnesses testify does not affect the validity of the judgment rendered or ipso facto condemn it as erroneous, especially where the judgment appears fully supported by the evidence on record.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: Although accused-appellant was not informed of his constitutional rights and was not assisted by counsel during interrogation, the alleged admission was inadmissible in evidence. However, this did not paralyze the cause for the prosecution because the confession did not constitute the whole fabric of the evidence. The attempt to sell marijuana was detailed by the positive testimony of P/Lt. Ancheta. The act constituting the offense—the offer to sell marijuana—was credibly established by the prosecution, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti of the offense, making accused-appellant's conviction inevitable.
• Penalty: The trial court sentenced accused-appellant to life imprisonment and a P20,000 fine. However, under Sec. 20 of R.A. No. 6425 as amended by Sec. 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the illegal sale of marijuana is penalized with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine if the marijuana unlawfully sold is 750 grams or more; if the quantity is less than 750 grams, the penalty ranges from prision correccional to reclusion temporal without fine. Since only 2.9452 grams of marijuana were confiscated, the proper imposable component penalty is prision correccional, applied in its medium period because no mitigating or aggravating circumstance attended. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty is taken from the medium period of prision correccional—two years, four months and one day to four years and two months—while the minimum is taken from the penalty next lower in degree, arresto mayor—one month and one day to six months. The Court imposed six months of arresto mayor maximum as minimum to four years and two months of prision correccional medium as maximum. Because accused-appellant had been detained at the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa for more than seven years, immediate release was ordered unless he was held for some other lawful cause.

• Warrantless Arrest / Citizen's Arrest under Rule 113 — Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 authorizes a warrantless arrest when, in the arresting officer's presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The Court applied this provision to uphold the arrest of Rayray after he offered to sell marijuana to Ancheta in Ancheta's presence.
• Territorial Limitation on Police Authority — A policeman's duty to apprehend criminal offenders and keep peace and order is not limited by territorial constraints; it follows him wherever he goes, especially where the violator is caught in flagrante delicto. The Court used this principle to reject the argument that Ancheta, assigned to Baguio City, could not arrest Rayray in San Fernando, La Union.
• Lone Witness Rule / Credibility of Witnesses — No rule requires that a testimony be corroborated to be adjudged credible; witnesses are weighed, not numbered. Conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness where such testimony is found positive and credible by the trial court. The Court applied this to Ancheta's lone testimony.
• Presumption of Regularity in Performance of Official Duties — Police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties and obeyed the law; their narration of an incident is credible. The Court relied on this presumption in assessing Ancheta's testimony.
• Substitute Judge Rule — The fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who prepared, signed, and promulgated the decision does not constitute a compelling reason to jettison the findings and conclusions and does not per se render the decision erroneous. The Court applied this rule to reject the misappreciation-of-evidence argument.
• Inadmissibility of Uncounseled Custodial Admission; Independent Evidence — An admission obtained from an accused without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible in evidence. However, it does not invalidate the conviction if the offense is independently established by other evidence and the corpus delicti is presented. The Court applied this to hold that the offer to sell marijuana was established by Ancheta's testimony and the corpus delicti.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law and R.A. No. 7659 Penalty for Marijuana Sale — For illegal sale of less than 750 grams of marijuana, the penalty is prision correccional to reclusion temporal without fine. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum is taken from the medium period of the applicable penalty, and the minimum from the penalty next lower in degree. The Court applied this to reduce Rayray's penalty.

• "A policeman cannot callously set aside his essential duty of apprehending criminal offenders and of keeping peace and order on the shallow excuse that he is not in his place of assignment. His responsibility to protect the public by apprehending violators of the law, especially one caught in flagrante delicto is not limited by territorial constraints. It follows him wherever he goes." — This passage articulates the Court's rejection of the territorial-assignment objection to the warrantless arrest.
• "No rule exists which requires that a testimony has to be corroborated to be adjudged credible. Witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, hence, it is not at all uncommon to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the testimony of a single witness and despite the lack of corroboration where such testimony is found positive and credible by the trial court." — This states the lone-witness rule applied to sustain the conviction on P/Lt. Ancheta's testimony.
• "The trial judge's assessment of the credibility of a testimony is not to be anchored solely on how the witness conducted himself on the witness stand. Aside from the danger of being misled by appearance inherent in such a case, a judge is supposed to render a decision on the basis of the evidence before him, i.e., records and all." — This defines the substitute-judge rule, explaining why the decision was not erroneous merely because the deciding judge did not hear the witnesses.
• "Thus, although the alleged admission is inadmissible in evidence having been obtained from accused-appellant without the assistance of counsel, the act constituting the offense (offer to sell marijuana) was nevertheless credibly established by the prosecution coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti of the offense making accused-appellant's conviction inevitable." — This passage states the ratio for rejecting the custodial-investigation argument while recognizing the inadmissibility of the uncounseled admission.

• People vs. Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, 27 May 1992, 209 SCRA 304 — Cited to support the rule that no corroboration is required for a testimony to be adjudged credible.
• People vs. Jumao-as, G.R. No. 101334, 14 February 1994, 230 SCRA 70 — Cited for the principle that witnesses are weighed, not numbered.
• People vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 106025, 9 February 1994, 229 SCRA 795 — Cited for the credibility of a police officer's testimony and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
• People vs. Patog, G.R. No. 69620, 24 September 1986, 144 SCRA 429 — Cited for the rule that the narration of police officers presumed to have regularly performed their duties is credible.
• People vs. Fuertes, G.R. No. 104067, 17 January 1994, 229 SCRA 289 — Cited for the substitute-judge rule, that the deciding judge need not be the one who heard the evidence.
• People vs. Jaymalin, G.R. No. 90452, 19 October 1992, 214 SCRA 685 — Cited for the same substitute-judge rule.
• People vs. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994 — Cited in connection with the penalty under R.A. No. 7659.

• Sec. 4, Art. II, R.A. No. 6425 — The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 provision under which accused-appellant was charged and convicted for the illegal sale of marijuana.
• Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Authorizes a warrantless arrest, otherwise called a citizen's arrest, when in the arresting officer's presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Applied to uphold Ancheta's arrest of Rayray.
• Sec. 20, R.A. No. 6425 as amended by Sec. 17, R.A. No. 7659 — Governs the penalty for illegal sale of marijuana. Applied to modify the penalty because the marijuana confiscated was only 2.9452 grams, less than 750 grams, making the penalty prision correccional to reclusion temporal without fine.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of the modified penalty.

Padilla, Davide, Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.