SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.

html

VOL. 235, AUGUST 5, 1994 171

People vs. Martinez
*
G.R. Nos. 105376-77. August 5, 1994.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

ALEXANDER MARTINEZ alias ABELARDO MARTINEZ
y MONTESOR, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Buy-bust Operations;

Evidence; Indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale of
prohibited drugs is the submission of proof that such a sale took
place between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof, and the
presentation of said prohibited drug as evidence.—Indispensable
in every prosecution

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

172

172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

for the illegal sale of prohibited drugs is the submission of proof

that such a sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the
seller thereof, and the presentation further of said prohibited drug
as evidence in court (People vs. Pacleb, 217 SCRA 92 [1993]).
What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the
shabu from appellant and that the contents thereof were duly
presented in court.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Absence of the marked money or its
non-presentation in court would not create a hiatus in the
prosecution’s evidence.—The allegation of the appellant that the
marked money was not properly identified by the poseur-buyer

1 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

does not deserve even a passing consideration. As long as the

prohibited or regulated drug given or delivered by the appellant
was presented before the court and the appellant was clearly
identified as the offender, conviction is proper. In fact, the absence
of the marked money or its non-presentation in court would not
create a hiatus in the prosecution’s evidence (People vs. Hoble,
211 SCRA 675 [1992]; People vs. Tandoy, 192 SCRA 28 [1990]).
Same; Same; Illegal Possession of Firearms; What the law
punishes is the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm
regardless of make, model, or kind.—Appellant reproves the
prosecution for the variance between the testimony of Captain
Maruji as to the firearm seized and that actually presented during
the trial. It should be remembered, however, that what the law
punishes is the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm
regardless of make, model, or kind. That an unlicensed firearm
was seized from the house of appellant is undisputed, and this is
more than adequate for appellant’s conviction.
Same; Same; Names; Search Warrants; Discrepancy
regarding the name of the accused and that stated in the search
warrant cannot militate against his positive identification by the
poseur-buyer.—The discrepancy regarding the name of accused-
appellant and that stated in the search warrant cannot militate
against his positive identification by the poseur-buyer. It has been
consistently held that “greater weight is given to the positive
identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses than
accused’s denial concerning the commission of the crime (People
vs. Serdan, 213 SCRA 329 [1992]).
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Names; Search and
Warrants; Where the accused was arrested as a result of a “buy-
bust” operation and the ensuing search of the premises was made
as an incident to a lawful arrest, the alleged defect of the search
warrant in erroneously designating his first name is immaterial.
—Granting arguendo that the search warrant issued against
accused-appellant

173

VOL. 235, AUGUST 5, 1994 173

People vs. Martinez

was invalid because his true name is Abelardo Martinez and not
Alexander Martinez as stated in the search warrant, the same
cannot render the articles seized inadmissible as evidence in
court. As a matter of fact the information filed identify him as

2 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

“Alexander Martinez alias Abelardo Martinez y Montesor,

accused.” The accused-appellant was arrested as a result of a
“buy-bust” operation and the ensuing search of the premises was
made as an incident to a lawful arrest (Section 12, Rule 116 Rules
of Court; People vs. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 [1993], People vs.
Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1 [1992], People vs. Liquen, 212 SCRA 288
[1992], People vs. Li Wai Cheung, 214 SCRA 504 [1992], People
vs. Eligino, 216 SCRA 370, [1992]). It is therefore clear that
regardless of the alleged defect of the search warrant in
erroneously designating his first name, the seized articles may
still be used as evidence against accused-appellant, having been
obtained from him and as such, fruits of a lawful search incidental
to a valid arrest.
Same; Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Estoppel; Where the
accused failed to raise the question of his identity either at the time
of arraignment or by filing a demurrer based on the court’s lack of
jurisdiction over his person, he is estopped from later raising the
same question.—Furthermore, appellant was arraigned under the
name of Alexander Martinez and when arraigned under said
name he entered his plea of “not guilty”. Appellant should have
raised the question of his identity either at the time of
arraignment or by filing a demurrer based on the court’s lack of
jurisdiction over his person, inasmuch as he was then considered
as Alexander Martinez alias Abelardo Martinez. Having failed to
do so, he is estopped from later raising the same question (People
vs. Narvaes, 59 Phil. 738 [1934]). His identity had been
sufficiently established.
Same; Same; Same; The identification of a person is not
established solely through knowledge of the name of that person.
—Finally, as We have held in People v. Reception, (198 SCRA 670
[1991]), “the identification of a person is not established solely
through knowledge of the name of that person”. It is clear from
the records that appellant was the same person who sold the
prohibited drug to Pelin on two instances. The claim therefore
that his true and correct name is Abelardo Martinez and not
Alexander Martinez cannot overturn the fact of his identity being
established as the peddler of shabu, a prohibited drug.
Same; Same; Penalties; R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659
given retroactive effect.—In the case of People v. Simon (G.R. No.
93028, July 29, 1994), this Court gave retroactive application to
the provisions of R.A. 6425 which was further amended by R.A.
7659.

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

People vs. Martinez

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Zamboanga City, Br. 17.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Jesus F. Balicanta for accused-appellant.

BIDIN, J.:

On November 22, 1989, accused-appellant Alexander

Martinez, alias Abelardo Martinez y Montesor, was
charged with (1) violation of Section 4, Article II of
Republic Act 6425 otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act (Criminal Case No. 9618) and (2) violation of
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal
possession of firearms (Criminal Case No. 9626), before the
Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City.
The information in Criminal case No. 9618 charges
accused-appellant and Dolores Cabatuan Martinez with
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Republic Act No.
6425), as follows:

“That on or about the 6th day of November, 1989 in the City of

Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized
by law, conspiring and confederating together, mutually aiding
and assisting with one another, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to one EDGAR PELIN
y FERNANDEZ who pose (sic) as buyer, one (1) deck of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride popularly known as “SHABU”,
knowing the same to be a prohibited drug.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Rollo, p. 9)

In Criminal Case No. 9626 appellant was charged as

follows:

“That on or about the 6th day of November, 1989, in the City of

Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any
justifiable cause or reason, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession and under his
custody and control, one (1) .38 caliber “paltik” revolver with
Serial No. 50284 and eight (8) rounds of live .38 ammunition,
without first having obtained the necessary license and/or permit
therefore, in flagrant violation of the aforementioned law.
“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (Rollo, p. 10)

4 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

175

VOL. 235, AUGUST 5, 1994 175

People vs. Martinez

Appellant with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty

upon arraignment on the above charges. Thereafter, the
two cases were jointly tried on the merits upon agreement
of the parties. The facts of the case as summarized in the
People’s brief are as follows:

“The factual findings of the court a quo are not disputed by

appellant x x x. This notwithstanding, they are hereunder briefly
summarized x x x.
“On October 27, 1989, after receiving information that
appellant was engaged in the sale of shabu at his residence at the
Bureau of Air Transportation (BAT) Compound, Baliwasan Moret,
Zamboanga City, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Agent
Bienvenido Salvo of the NBI Regional Office in Zamboanga City
directed his ‘asset’ or confidential informer Edgar Pelin to
purchase from appellant P200.00 worth of prohibited drug. Pelin
succeeded in purchasing from appellant a specimen which Agent
Salvo sent the next day to the NBI chemist in Cebu who, after a
laboratory examination, determined that it was indeed shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride. Immediately there-after, Agent
Salvo returned to Zamboanga City to map out a ‘buy-bust’
operation against appellant (TSN, April 19, 1990, pp. 5-6).
“On November 6, 1989, the ‘buy-bust’ operation was set up by
the NBI Regional Office with the assistance of the Zamboanga
City Police. A raid party composed of four separate teams was
formed for the ‘buy-bust’ operation. One of the teams (the search
team) was headed by Agent Salvo, with Captain Isniraji Maruji of
the Zamboanga City Police and a custodian, a photographer and
an administrative officer from the NBI as members. For his part,
Pelin would act as poseur-buyer in the ‘buy-bust’ operation. Agent
Salvo likewise obtained a search warrant (Exhibit “C”) for this
operation (TSN, April 18, 1990, pp. 6-10; TSN, April 19, 1990, p.
12).
“The group arrived at the BAT Compound at around 2:00
o’clock in the afternoon of said date. Agent Salvo gave Pelin
P200.00 in marked money for the purchase of the shabu. As Pelin
approached appellant’s house, the rest of the party positioned
themselves about twenty to thirty meters from where the
transaction took place (TSN, April 18, 1990, p. 5; TSN, April 19,
1990, pp. 9-10).
“Pelin knocked at the appellant’s door and was allowed entry
by the latter’s guard. Inside the house, Pelin gave the marked

5 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

P200.00 to appellant who in turn gave him a ‘deck’ of shabu

(Exhibit “J”) which was wrapped in aluminum foil (Exhibits “J-1”
to “J-2”). The transaction concluded, Pelin signalled to his
companions by going out of appellant’s house (TSN, April 18,
1990, pp. 6-7).

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

“The search team led by Agent Salvo then rushed forward and
entered appellant’s house while the rest of the raid party secured
the area. Pelin turned over the ‘deck’ of shabu to the NBI
custodian who marked the aluminum foil wrapper with the
initials “AMM”. Simultaneously, Agent Salvo presented a copy of
the search warrant to appellant and thereafter the search team
conducted a search of the premises (TSN, April 18, 1990, p. 8;
TSN, April 19, 1990, p. 10; TSN, May 8, 1990, pp. 10-11).
“The search team recovered drug paraphernalia from various
places in appellant’s house. However, only P100.00 of the marked
money was recovered by the team. Captain Maruji and Agent
Salvo also recovered a .38 caliber “paltik” revolver (Exhibit “F”)
with serial number 50248 containing five live ammunition inside
a pillowcase in appellant’s bedroom (TSN, April 18, 1990, p. 30,
36-39; TSN, April 19, 1990, p. 10-12).
“The search team made a three-page inventory (Exhibits “D” to
“D-8”) of the things seized at the appellant’s house. Said inventory
was signed by appellant and a copy thereof was furnished him.
Further, several photographs (Exhibits “E” to “E-6”) were taken
relative to the search (TSN, April 19, 1990, pp. 13-17).
“Edgar Pelin executed an affidavit (Exhibits “A” to “A-3”)
wherein he recounted in detail his participation in the ‘buy-bust’
operation. Likewise, Agent Salvo and Captain Maruji executed a
joint affidavit (Exhibit “B”) wherein they set forth the procedure
they adopted and the details on how they were able to arrest
appellant and search his house. The aforementioned affidavits
were introduced and admitted in evidence and they fully
confirmed the testimony of the above-named witnesses (TSN,
April 18, 1990, p. 10-11; TSN, April 19, 1990, p. 23).
“Immediately upon receipt of the ‘deck’ of shabu, the NBI
custodian submitted it to NBI chemist Cesar Cagalawan right
inside appellant’s residence for examination. Chemist Cagalawan
made a preliminary investigation of the specimen known as the
Marquis Test at the NBI Regional Office in Zamboanga City and
the presence of methamphetamine was confirmed. Later, he
conducted a Thin Layer Chromatography examination at the NBI

6 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

Regional Office in Cebu City which conclusively determined that

the substance sold by appellant to poseur-buyer Pelin was indeed
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. He formalized the
results of his examination in Chemistry Report No. 89-DD-4411,
which was offered and admitted in evidence as Exhibits “K” to
“K-3” (TSN, May 8, 1990, pp. 4-15).”
(Rollo, p. 72; See People’s Brief at pp. 3-8)

The defense presented accused-appellant, his wife Dolores

Martinez, Angelina Martinez and Bonifacio Leyte. Said
witnesses
177

VOL. 235, AUGUST 5, 1994 177

People vs. Martinez

presented a totally different version of the circumstances

surrounding the arrest of appellant and the consequent
charges against him.
Appellant’s version purports to show that at about 1:00
P.M. of November 6, 1989 he was at home watching
television, and slept at about 1:20 pm. He claims to have
been awakened by two persons kicking him whom he
identified as prosecution witnesses Salvo and Pelin. All
told, appellant denies having sold shabu to Pelin nor
owning the .38 caliber revolver allegedly found in his room.
At the NBI Office, appellant was allegedly forced to sign
an inventory of the seized articles under the threat of
summary execution. The testimonies of the other defense
witnesses, on the other hand, generally corroborated
appellant’s testimony. After trial, the court a quo rendered
its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court finds the accused

Alexander Martinez “alias” Abelardo Martinez y Montesor guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 4, Article II of
Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972 and for Illegal Possession of Firearm defined and
penalized under P.D. No. 1866 and pursuant thereto hereby
sentences him as follows:

“1. In Criminal Case No. 9618, accused is sentenced to suffer

life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of
Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, and to pay the
costs.
xxx
“2. In Criminal Case No. 9626, accused is sentenced to suffer

7 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

imprisonment from Seventeen (17) to Twenty (20) Years

and to pay the costs. The accused who is a detention
prisoner is credited to the full extent of his preventive
imprisonment.
xxx
“3. In Criminal Case No. 9618, this Court, on ground of
insufficiency of evidence, hereby ACQUITS the accused
Dolores Cabatuan Martinez, with costs de oficio. The
accused who is a detention prisoner is ordered released
immediately unless there exists an order in other case/ s
directing her continued detention.

“SO ORDERED.” (Rollo, pp. 26-27)

In this appeal, accused-appellant raises the following

assignment of errors:
178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

“1.1 The Trial Court erred in not acquitting the Accused-

Appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt his guilt in Criminal Case
No. 9618 (for violation of Sec. 4, Art. 11 of Rep. Act
No. 6425, “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972),
considering that:

“a) The ‘shabu’ (Exhibit ‘J’ and submarkings) was not

identified by the prosecution’s sole eyewitness to
the alleged “buy-bust” operation, in the person of
Edgar Pelin who acted as ‘poseur-buyer’; in other
words, there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt
that the alleged ‘shabu’ (prosecution’s Exhibit ‘J’
and submarkings) was ever purchased by Edgar
Pelin (the alleged ‘poseur-buyer’) from the Accused-
Appellant, or that the alleged ‘shabu’ (Exhibit ‘J’
and submarkings) is the very same dangerous drug
allegedly purchased by the poseur-buyer, precisely
because Exhibit ‘J’ and submarkings were not
identified by the poseur-buyer (Edgar Pelin);
“(b) The marked money which was allegedly used in the
buy-bust operation, was EXCLUDED as evidence
by the Trial Court (‘Order’ dated May 15, 1990);
moreover, said marked money was not identified by
the poseur-buyer himself (Edgar Pelin); hence,

8 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

there could legally be NO buy-bust operation,

because the element of ‘marked money’ (sic) was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt; and
“(c) Any and all items particularly the ‘shabu’ (Exhibit
‘J’ and submarkings), the firearm (Exhibit ‘F’) and
five live ammos (Exhibit ‘F-1’ to ‘F-5’, which were
seized by virtue of the Search Warrant (Exhibit ‘C’)
issued against a certain ALEXANDER MARTINEZ
alias ALEX”, are inadmissible against Accused-
Appellant, who is ABELARDO MARTINEZ y
MONTESOR with the nickname ‘LARD’; in short,
they are two different persons, as there is no proof
beyond reasonable doubt that ‘ALEXANDER
MARTINEZ’ and appellant ABELARDO
MARTINEZ are one and the same person.

“1.2 The Trial Court erred in not acquitting the Accused-

Appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt his guilt in Criminal Case
No. 9626 (for illegal possession of firearm defined
and penalized under Sec. 1 of PD No. 1866),
considering that:

“(a) The six shooter .38 caliber revolver in question,

which was allegedly found in the room of Accused-
Appellant by prosecution witness Capt. Maruji was
not presented in evidence; also, the ‘eight (8) rounds
of live .38 caliber ammunition’ (five of which were
found inside the chamber and three of which were

179

VOL. 235, AUGUST 5, 1994 179

People vs. Martinez

outside the chamber of the five-shooter .38 revolver

(Prosecution’s Exhibit ‘F’) are DIFFERENT from
those allegedly found by prosecution witness Capt.
Maruji, because those found by Capt. Maruji were
allegedly found in reference to a six-shooter .38
revolver (sic) (six inside the chamber and two
outside); moreover, the gray lady purse
(Prosecution’s Exhibit ‘H-6’ in which three (3) live
ammos were allegedly found, was excluded by the
Trial Court (‘Order’ dated May 15, 1990);
“(b) The evidence presented by the prosecution is

9 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

DIFFERENT from the revolver and ammunition

allegedly found by prosecution-witness Capt.
Maruji; and
“(c) The alleged revolver and ammos in question were
not found in the actual possession of the Accused-
Appellant, as they were allegedly found inside the
Accused-Appellant’s room wherein they (revolver
and ammos) could have easily been planted.”
(Rollo, pp. 36-38)

Indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale of

prohibited drugs is the submission of proof that such a sale
took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof,
and the presentation further of said prohibited drug as
evidence in court (People vs. Pacleb, 217 SCRA 92 [1993]).
What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer
received the shabu from appellant and that the contents
thereof were duly presented in court.
Records show that the seized shabu was duly presented
in court as exhibit “J” and was competently identified by
prosecution witness Cesar Cagalawan, an NBI chemist.
Pelin’s testimony was likewise consistent and compatible
on its material points. He categorically pinpointed accused-
appellant as the one who handed him the tinfoil containing
the shabu. When asked to testify on what had transpired
on November 6, 1989, Pelin gave the following
straightforward statements:

“FISCAL
“Q Now, you said awhile ago that you went to the house of
the accused in order to buy a deck of Shabu. Tell the
Court how were you able to enter the house of the
accused?
“A I was able to get inside the house of the accused
because I know the accused already that they are
selling Shabu (sic).
“Q In other words, before that date November 6, 1989, you
have gone to the house of the accused already?
“A Yes sir.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

10 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

“Q For how many times?

“A I cannot remember, but I remembered October 27,
Pelin’s statements were furthermore corroborated by the
1989.
testimonies of the other witnesses for the prosecution who
  xxx
were law enforcers, and, the absence of proof to the
“Q Now,are
contrary willpresumed
you pleasetotell this regularly
have Honorableperformed
Court howtheir
the
transaction
duties (People vs.ofYap,
buy and sell (sic)
185 SCRA took
222 place.
[1990]).
  Asx xcorrectly
x stated by the Solicitor-General, Pelin
testified:
“A I went to the house of the accused and their guard
“x x xopened
that hethe doorover
turned andthe
I got inside
shabu and
to the once
NBI inside, as
custodian I gave
soon
the money to them and they gave me the Shabu.
as the ‘buy-bust’ operation ended (TSN, April 18, 1990, p. 8). For
“Q part,
his You NBIsaid Chemist
that youCesar
gave the money to
Cagalawan them, that
testified who are
the you
NBI
referring
custodian to? said drug to him inside appellant’s residence
submitted
for
“A examination (TSN, May(TSN,
Abelardo Martinez.” 8, 1990,
Aprilpp.
18,4-7).
1990,These assertions
pp. 5-7)
were in turn fully corroborated by Agent Bienvenido Salvo in his
direct examination testimony (TSN, April 19, 1990, pp. 12-13).”
(Rollo, p. 76; See People’s Brief, pp. 12-13)

Needless to say, even if the poseur-buyer was not made to

identify the seized shabu, the same would not have worked
against the People’s case. Proof of the transaction suffices.
The allegation of the appellant that the marked money
was not properly identified by the poseur-buyer does not
deserve even a passing consideration. As long as the
prohibited or regulated drug given or delivered by the
appellant was presented before the court and the appellant
was clearly identified as the offender, conviction is proper.
In fact, the absence of the marked money or its non-
presentation in court would not create a hiatus in the
prosecution’s evidence (People vs. Hoble, 211 SCRA 675
[1992]; People vs. Tandoy, 192 SCRA 28 [1990]).
181

VOL. 235, AUGUST 5, 1994 181

People vs. Martinez

Appellant reproves the prosecution for the variance

between the testimony of Captain Maruji as to the firearm
seized and that actually presented during the trial. It
should be remembered, however, that what the law
punishes is the mere possession of an unlicensed firearm
regardless of make, model, or kind. That an unlicensed
firearm was seized from the house of appellant is
undisputed, and this is more than adequate for appellant’s
conviction.

11 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

Finally, accused-appellant argues that he is not the

person named in the search warrant issued in connection
with the buy-bust operation, his name being Abelardo
Martinez and not Alexander Martinez. That being the case,
all things seized by virtue of the said warrant are
inadmissible in evidence.
The argument is devoid of merit.
The discrepancy regarding the name of accused-
appellant and that stated in the search warrant cannot
militate against his positive identification by the poseur-
buyer. It has been consistently held that “greater weight is
given to the positive identification of the accused by the
prosecution witnesses than accused’s denial concerning the
commission of the crime (People vs. Serdan, 213 SCRA 329
[1992]).
And as correctly pointed out by the trial court:

“The claim of the accused that his true and correct name is not
Alexander Martinez but Abelardo Martinez does not deviate from
the fact of his identity being established as a peddler of shabu.
Even granting arguendo that his (accused) claim is correct that he
is not Alexander but Abelardo, that alone does not warrant
dismissal or absolving the accused of criminal liability. Sec. 7,
Rule 110 of the 1985 (should read 1988) Rules on Criminal
procedure, as amended, provides:

‘A complaint or information must state the name and surname of the

accused or any appellation or nickname by which he has been or is
known, or if his name cannot be discovered he must be described under a
fictitious name with a statement that his true name is unknown.
‘If in the course of the proceeding the true name of the accused is
disclosed by him, or appears in some other manner to the court, the true
name of the accused shall be inserted in the complaint or information and
record.” (Rollo, p. 23)

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martinez

Granting arguendo that the search warrant issued against

accused-appellant was invalid because his true name is
Abelardo Martinez and not Alexander Martinez as stated
in the search warrant, the same cannot render the articles
seized inadmissible as evidence in court. As a matter of fact
the information filed identify him as “Alexander Martinez
alias Abelardo Martinez y Montesor, accused.”
The accused-appellant was arrested as a result of a

12 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

“buy-bust” operation and the ensuing search of the

premises was made as an incident to a lawful arrest
(Section 12, Rule 116 Rules of Court; People vs. Musa, 217
SCRA 597 [1993], People vs. Fernandez, 209 SCRA 1
[1992], People vs. Liquen, 212 SCRA 288 [1992], People vs.
Li Wai Cheung, 214 SCRA 504 [1992], People vs. Eligino,
216 SCRA 370, [1992]). It is therefore clear that regardless
of the alleged defect of the search warrant in erroneously
designating his first name, the seized articles may still be
used as evidence against accused-appellant, having been
obtained from him and as such, fruits of a lawful search
incidental to a valid arrest.
Furthermore, appellant was arraigned under the name
of Alexander Martinez and when arraigned under said
name he entered his plea of “not guilty”. Appellant should
have raised the question of his identity either at the time of
arraignment or by filing a demurrer based on the court’s
lack of jurisdiction over his person, inasmuch as he was
then considered as Alexander Martinez alias Abelardo
Martinez. Having failed to do so, he is estopped from later
raising the same question (People vs. Narvaes, 59 Phil. 738
[1934]). His identity had been sufficiently established.
Finally, as We have held in People v. Reception, (198
SCRA 670 [1991]), “the identification of a person is not
established solely through knowledge of the name of that
person”. It is clear from the records that appellant was the
same person who sold the prohibited drug to Pelin on two
instances. The claim therefore that his true and correct
name is Abelardo Martinez and not Alexander Martinez
cannot overturn the fact of his identity being established as
the peddler of shabu, a prohibited drug.
Premises considered, the Court believes and so holds
that the prosecution has fully discharged its duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
183

VOL. 235, AUGUST 5, 1994 183

People vs. Martinez

In Criminal Case No. 9618, appellant was convicted for

selling one (1) deck of “shabu” and was accordingly
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay
P20,000.00 fine.
In the case of People v. Simon (G.R. No. 93028, July 29,
1994), this Court gave retroactive application to the
provisions of R.A. 6425 which was further amended by R.A.

13 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

7659 as follows:

“Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of

the Proceeds of Instruments of the Crime.—The penalties for
offensed/ s under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and
Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be
applied if the dangerous drugs involves is in any of the following
quantities:
xxx
“3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride;
xxx
“Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to
reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.”

Given the fact that what is involved is less than 200 grams
of shabu and there being no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances, the proper imposable penalty to be imposed
upon appellant is prision correccional in its medium period
without fine. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in
consonance with People v. Simon (supra), appellant is
hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment from six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years and
four (4) months of prision correccional as maximum. The
fine of P20,000.00 is deleted.
Further, the proper penalty to be imposed upon accused-
appellant in Criminal Case No. 9626 for violation of P.D.
1866 should be 17 years 4 months and 1 day of reclusion
temporal as minimum to reclusion perpetua as maximum
and not 17 years to reclusion perpetua as erroneously
applied by the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decisions, except as herein
modified, are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.

     Feliciano (Chairman), Romero, Melo and Vitug, JJ.,

concur.

Judgments affirmed with modification.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Muyano

Note.—The warrantless search and seizure, as an

incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond

14 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 235 file:///C:/Users/SUE/Desktop/235 SCRA 171_files/saved_resource.html

the person of the one arrested to include the premises or

surroundings under his immediate control. (People vs.
Musa, 217 SCRA 597 [1993])

———o0o———

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

15 of 15 09/08/2019, 9:56 am