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
Appellants 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 uncles house (Bienvenido Sunga)
Confined in the hospital for 3 days
Appellants 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.