PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CELERINO VIOLA Y ARLENTE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

On appeal from a conviction imposing life imprisonment for
violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425 as amended by P.D. No. 44
(The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), accused Celerino Viola y Arlente submits the
following:

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE
APPELLANT AND IN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION DESPITE THE
EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

III

THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS CONTRARY TO EXISTING LAW AND
APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE. (Rollo, p. 75)

The theory of the prosecution can be gathered from the documentary
exhibits and testimonies of its witnesses, 2nd Lt. Miguel Marcelo, Sgt. Abelardo Lasam both of the
Philippine Constabulary (PC), CANU, Camp
Crame, Quezon City and Lt. Nelly
Cariaga of the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory, to wit:

In the morning of
October 5, 1981, the office of
the PC, CANU received information about the presence of a drug pusher at Pedro
Gil in the City of Manila. Lt. Marcelo
and Sgt. Lasam who responded to the
report, proceeded to the place relayed to them and posted themselves at a gasoline station near
Arellano High School (p. 6-7, t.s.n.
Dec. 1, 1981). At about 12:30 P.M., accused
herein Celerino Viola y Arlente, approached their confidential
informant, whose name was not
disclosed for security reasons, wherein the letter gave the accused a marked
P50.00 bill. This transaction was witnessed by the two officers at a distance of about five (5) meters. Thereafter the accused left to secure the prohibited drug without being
followed by the two (2) officers. Accused returned after 30
minutes and in the process of giving nine (9) Mogadon tablets to the confidential informant, the two CANU
officers introduced themselves
to the accused (pp. 7-8, Ibid.)
and inquired from him where he secured them (p. 12. Ibid.). The accused led
them to a certain place to see a
certain Jojo as the
alleged supplier of the Mogadon
tablets. However, said Jojo was nowhere
to be found in said place (p. 13 Ibid.).

Accused, who was taken to
Camp Crame for further investigation, admitted his guilt in a written
unsubscribed statement after being informed of his constitutional rights. The nine (9) tablets of Mogadon were
submitted to the laboratory for analysis. In her testimony later in court, Lt. Nelly Cariaga of the Philippine
Constabulary Crime Laboratory testified that the nine (9) tablets of Mogadon
marked ‘Roche’ wrapped in aluminum foil (Exh. C), which were the same nine (9)
tablets of Mogadon submitted for examination showed a positive
result that they were Mogadon tablets (Exhibit B).

On the other hand,
defense gave the following version:

On October 5, 1981 at
about 11:30 o’clock in the morning, the accused was inside the premises of
Arellano University, F.G. Calderon High School, located at Pedro Gil Street,
Sta. Ana, Manila, where he is a
student. Then Eddie Chua, a student of Mapua Institute called him and invited him to a nearby
restaurant – the Egg Bitter Restaurant for a softdrink. While thereat they saw “Boy
Toothpick” and Joel Garcia. “Boy Toothpick” is a student but he does
not know of what school while Joel Garcia is also a student of Arellano
University. “Boy Toothpick”
and Joel Garcia joined them (accused and Eddie Chua) and when they had finished
their drinks, the CANU agents, Sgt. Lasam and Lt. Marcelo, arrived. The accused was then handed fifty pesos
(P50.00) consisting of two (2) P20.00 bills and one (1) P10.00 bill by
“Boy Toothpick” and was told to buy Mogadon. The accused refused as Eddie Chua and
“Boy Toothpick” did not want to accompany him. However the CANU agents assured and told the
accused they would follow him so that they could apprehend the seller. The accused then took a tricycle to buy the Mogadon tablets in
Makati. He did not see anybody
following him but nevertheless bought the Mogadon tablets for fear of being
mauled by the group. When he returned
with the Mogadon tablets which cost P49.50 and while on his way to the
restaurant, the CANU agents immediately arrested him. He gave the change of P0.50
to “Boy Toothpick”. He
was then brought to Camp Crame where he was detained. He was made to sign a blank paper at about midnight of the same
date. He signed the same because he was
promised to be freed if he signs it. The person who
investigated him is not one of the CANU agents. That at the time of his arrest, he was merely 19 years old. (Brief
for the Appellant, pp. 3 &
4).

The trial court after giving more weight to the evidence for the prosecution rendered a decision*, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of of the foregoing, the Court finds the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sec. 15 of Article
III of RA 6425 as amended by PD No. 44 and as further amended by PD No, 1683**, otherwise known as `The Dangerous Drug Act of
1972’, and consequently he is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of P20,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

“SO ORDERED.” (p. 46, Rollo)

Hence the accused
interposed the present appeal.

The appeal is not worthy
of consideration.

The determination of the issues
on appeal raised by appellant hinges on the
credibility of the witnesses. The
defense maintains that appellant was instigated and not entrapped by the
Philippine Constabulary, CANU and to substantiate such claim, accused himself was presented as the only witness for the defense. The trial court, obviously gave more weight
to the evidence for the prosecution in convicting the
accused.

Accused himself testified
that it was agreed that he will be followed by the CANU agents or officers in
buying the Mogadon in order to determine the person who is selling the Mogadon
tablets and to apprehend him (Appellant’s brief, p. 8) but at the same time
admitted that he did not see the CANU agents following him and yet he
claimed that despite this, he still bought the drugs out of sheer fear that
they might maul him. Such testimony
fails to convince Us of witness’ credibility.

It is clear from the established facts that
appellant was caught committing the crime charged. He was the one who delivered
the Mogadon tablets to the
confidential informant. He was the one who supplied the name of a non-existent “Jojo” as the
source of the prohibited drug. There is
no dispute that appellant received P50.00 and handed nine (9) Mogadon tablets. The testimony of Lt. Marcelo that appellant
left for thirty (30) minutes is not at all in conflict with the testimony of
Sgt. Lasam that appellant returned after more or less one (1) hour. And
even if it were, the inconsistency is immaterial.

Appellant has failed miserably to show any reason or improper
motive why the witnesses for the prosecution would implicate him. The fact that the confidential informant was
not presented as a witness does not affect the findings or the lower court
since his additional testimony would merely be corroborative to the testimonies of Lt. Marcelo and Sgt. Lasam,
whose testimonies were found by the trial court to be worthy of credit. All these taken into consideration, We are
satisfied that the trial court has not overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied
some fact or circumstance of weight and substance as would affect the result of
the case.

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Padilla, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Judge Hermenio C.
Mariano

** Took effect March 14, 1980.