G.R. No. 66237. September 12, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONATHAN V. ADAP, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FELICIANO, J.:
Jonathan V. Adap appeals from the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region, Branch 44 of
Dagupan City in Criminal Case No. CCC-III-0633,
convicting him of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended
by Presidential Decree No. 1675, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, and
sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay, in addition to costs, a
fine of P25.000.00.
In
an information dated 8 March 1982, the First
Assistant City Fiscal of Dagupan City charged
appellant with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as follows:
“That on or about the 6th day of March, 1982, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused JONATHAN V. ADAP, without authority of
law, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
criminally, sell dried ‘Marijuana’ wrapped in six (6) pieces of aluminum foil
to a Police informer in the amount of THREE HUNDRED PESOS (P300.00), Philippine
currency, without authority to sell the same.”1
After arraignment and trial, the trial court in due time rendered
a decision on 27 September 1983
finding appellant guilty of the crime charged.
The dispositive portion states:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Jonathan V. Adap guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
VIOLATION OF SEC. 4, Republic Act Number 6425, as amended by Presidential
Decree Number 1675, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drug Act, and pursuant to
law hereby SENTENCES accused Jonathan V. Adap, to
suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT (Reclusion
Perpetua) and to pay a fine of
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00) and to pay the costs.
Being a detention prisoner, the accused shall be credited [with]
the entire period of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his
sentence.
Pursuant to Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, the flowering tops wrapped separately together with rolling papers in
eight (8) foils of different sizes, are hereby ordered confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government, the same to be turned over to the
Dangerous Drugs Board Custodian for proper disposal without delay.
SO ORDERED.”2
The accused-appellant argues that the trial court erred in the
following respects:
I The trial court erred in
finding the accused guilty despite the absence of proof beyond reasonable
doubt;
II the trial court erred in
convicting appellant on the basis of presumptions and conjectures;
III the trial court erred in
convicting appellant relying solely on self-serving and weak evidence of the
prosecution.
The Court will address the issues together.
From the record, the facts of the case may be collated as
follows:
Very early in March 1982, Pfc. Bernardo Gonzales, Chief of the
Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Dagupan City Police Force,
was informed by his sources that appellant was involved in selling marijuana
somewhere in A.B. Fernandez Avenue, East,
Dagupan City. Hence, on 5 March 1982, Pfc. Gonzales instructed Patrolmen Norman Aperocho and Reynaldo Orprecio to
place the appellant under surveillance. Aperocho and Orprecio proceeded
to A.B. Fernandez Avenue
and there they were informed that appellant had been allegedly selling
marijuana leaves to drug addicts in the house of one Cordel
Sison in Bani District, Dagupan City.3 They went back to their headquarters and conveyed
that information to Pfc. Gonzales.
On the same day, Pfc. Gonzales sent a civilian informer to try to
buy marijuana from appellant at the house of Cordel Sison. For this
purpose, Pfc. Gonzales gave to the informer the amount of P50.00. At the house of Cordel
Sison, the informer was able to purchase, allegedly from
appellant, a package of marijuana wrapped in an aluminum foil.4 The informer went back to Police Headquarters and
gave the marijuana to Pfc. Gonzales.
The next day, on 6 March
1982, at around 10:00 o’clock
in the morning, Pfc. Gonzales again instructed the informer to buy some
marijuana from the appellant. This time
Pfc. Gonzales gave to the informer the amount of P100.00 with which to buy the
same.5 The informer once more went to the Cordel Sison house and there he
bought two (2) packages of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in aluminum foil
allegedly from the appellant and he presented these to Pfc. Gonzales upon his
return to Police Headquarters. Pfc.
Gonzales in turn showed the same to Lt. P.B. Landingin,
Chief of the Intelligence Unit. The two
police officers decided then to conduct a “buy-bust” operation to
entrap the accused. Consequently, at
around 11:00 o’clock of the same day,
Pfc. Gonzales gave to the informer P300.00 in three (3) marked one hundred peso
bills to buy dried marijuana leaves from the appellant.6 The bills
bore serial numbers 365681, BQ31724, and BJ194215 which serial numbers were
listed upon the direction of Pfc.
Gonzales on a piece of paper and left with the Desk Officer of the police
precinct. The police team of four (4)
officers and the informer proceeded to the house of Cordel
Sison arriving there at around 11:25 a.m. The
members of the police team positioned themselves inconspicuously around the Cordel Sison house.7 Pfc. Gonzales was only about two (2) meters away from the informer,
while the others (Lt. Landingin and Pat. Orprecio and Aperocho) were
further away.8 The informer entered the premises of the
house, approached and talked to appellant.
Pfc. Gonzales, who was at the time intently observing the transaction,
saw the appellant deliver to the informer six (6) packages wrapped in aluminum
foil and the informer hand the marked money to appellant. Thereupon, Pfc. Gonzales emerged from his
hiding place, and arrested appellant.
The six (6) packages were recovered from the informer while the three
(3) marked P100.00 peso bills were found in
appellant’s pocket.9 Pfc. Gonzales gave the six (6) packages to
Pat. Aperocho who brought them and the appellant to Police Headquarters.10
At headquarters, Pat. Aperocho turned
over the confiscated packages to Lt. Laureano Reyes
of the Dagupan City Police who in turn delivered them
to Atty. Cesar de Leon, Head of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Regional Office of Dagupan
City. The latter brought the same to the
NBI office in Manila for laboratory examination.11
Florencia Fajardo,
Supervising Forensic Chemist of the NBI declared in her report that the eight
(8) packages of dried leaves wrapped in aluminum foil which were endorsed by
Lt. Reyes of the Dagupan City police to Atty. de Leon
of the NBI Regional Office of Dagupan City, were
packages of dried marijuana leaves, having subjected these to microscopic,
chemical and chromatographic examination.12
In his defense, appellant denied ownership of the packages of
marijuana leaves. He claimed that he was
not at the house of Cordel Sison
but was looking for a job as a
houseboy somewhere in Dawel, Dagupan City,
on the day of the alleged sale of marijuana leaves. He contended that while doing so, two
Anti-Narcotics agents who were then in plain clothes approached him and offered
him some marijuana. When he refused the
offer, they promptly arrested him and brought him to the City Jail.
At the trial, Pfc.
Bernardo Gonzales was firm and categorical in identifying the accused as the man
he saw handing over to the civilian informer six (6) packages of marijuana
leaves wrapped in aluminum foil–
FISCAL VICTORIO
“Q: Now,
you said that you deployed in the premises of the house of Cordel
Sison from where accused Jonathan Adap
was allegedly selling marijuana, specifically in what place did you deploy
yourselves?
A: I
was just deployed at around two meters away from the two, sir, from CI and
Jonathan Adap.
COURT
Q: How
many meters?
A: Only
two meters, sir.
Q: From?
A: From
Jonathan Adap and my informer.
Q: When
Adap sold the eight (8) aluminum foils?
A: Six,
sir.
Q: Six
then two, that is eight?
A: Yes,
your Honor.
FISCAL VICTORIO
Your Honor, at 10:30 the informer was able to buy
two and then at 11:00 A.M
six.
COURT
So 9 foils – one
on March 5, eight on March 6.
Q: So,
during that time you were only two meters away from Adap
and the informer?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
did you situate yourself?
A: Just
at the back of the fence of Cordel Sison.
x.x.x. x.x.x. x.x.x.
FISCAL VICTORIO
Q: What
about your other companions Pat. Reynaldo Orprecio
and Norman Aperocho and Lt. Landingin,
where did they stay?
A: Lt.
Landingin was near Reycal
Disco, sir, at around 50 meters away from Adap and
the informer, sir; Orprecio was around 5 meters, sir,
just behind them, sir, and Norman Aperocho was around
the same 5 meters 5 behind them on the other side.
Q: You
said that you were just about 2 meters away from where your informer and
accused Jonathan Adap were making the transaction,
sale of marijuana, what did you see that Jonathan Adap
do?
A: He
handed the six (6) aluminum foils of marijuana wrapped in a newspaper, sir.
Q: What about your informer, what did he do?
A: He
handed the money to Adap, sir, the three hundred pesos.
COURT
Q: How
about the transaction on March 5, did you see Adap
hand the marijuana?
A: No,
sir.
Q: How
about the transaction at 10:30 A.M
March 6, did you see Adap hand marijuana to your
informer?
A: No,
sir, we just waited for him.
Q: But
you saw the six which your informer paid three hundred pesos?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: When
you saw the accused handed six (6) aluminum wrapped marijuana, containing the
marijuana and your informer handed the money to Adap,
what did you do?
A: I
came out from the place I was deployed and arrested Jonathan Adap, sir, and got the money from his pocket, sir, the
three hundred pesos.
Q: You
are referring to the three one hundred peso bills already marked as C, C-1 and
C-2 and which the Fiscal has informed you borrowed — who was that?
A: Vicente
Lim, sir.
Q: How about the six foils of marijuana,
where did you – – –?
A: I
also handed the 6 aluminum foils wrapped in the newspaper to Norman Aperocho, sir, and when I got the marijuana from my
informer, I handed it to Norman Aperocho, I got the
money from the pocket of Jonathan Adap, the three
hundred pesos, sir.
Q: Did
Adap resist?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
did he do?
A: He
said nobody will watch the house because nobody will bring it to the station.
Q: What
did Adap tell you, if any, when you got the three hundred
pesos money from him?
A: It
old him he is arrested for selling marijuana to our informer, sir.
Q: What
was his answer, if any?
A: He
did not say anything, sir.”13
Pfc. Gonzales’ testimony was corroborated by the equally definite
statements of Pat. Reynaldo Orprecio who declared
that:
“Q: Do
you know the accused in this case Jonathan Adap?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: If
he is in the court room will you be
able to identify him?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Will
you please identify him?
A: He
is there.
INTERPRETER:
Witness points to a
person who when asked his name; [says] Jonathan Adap.
FISCAL VICTORIO:
x.x.x. x.x.x.
x.x.x.
Q: You
said that one week before March 6, 1982
you conducted surveillance on the activities of Jonathan Adap,
will you please tell this Honorable Court, what did you see or find as the
activities of Jonathan Adap?
A: We
found out that Jonathan Adap was selling dried
marijuana leaves.
COURT:
Q: To
whom?
A: Top
suspected drug addicts, sir.
FISCAL VICTORIO:
Q: Where
was Jonathan Adap residing then?
A: He
was living in the house of Mr. Cordel Sison in Bani
Street, Dagupan City,
sir.
Q: Who
is this Cordel Sison?
A: I
have learned that he is from Manaoag, Pangansinan.
Q: Where
did you see accused Jonathan Adap sell suspected
marijuana stuffs?
A: At
the house of Cordel Sison,
sir.
Q: On
March 6, 1982
at about 10:30 AM, do
you remember having given a mission to a certain informer?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was that mission about?
A: We
sent him to buy marijuana from Jonathan Adap if
Jonathan Adap is really selling marijuana leaves.
Q: You
said we, who were your companions then?
A: Pfc.
Bernardo Gonzales our in-charge in the Anti-Narcotics Unit and Norman Aperocho.
Q: Specifically,
what did you tell that informer of yours on March 6, 1982 at about 10:30 AM?
A: We
have given him money to buy marijuana leaves in order to confirm that Jonathan Adap is really selling.
Q: From
whom was he supposed to buy marijuana leaves?
A: From
the accused Jonathan Adap, sir.
Q: How
much did you give your informer?
A: We
gave him P100.00 sir.
Q: Was
your informer able to buy marijuana leaves from Jonathan Adap?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: He
was able to buy two aluminum foil of dried marijuana leaves, did you examine
the stuffs your informer bought from the accused Jonathan Adap?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
was your findings.
A: It
was positive for dried marijuana leaves.
Q: What
did you do next?
A: We
again gave P300.00 to our informer.
Q: When
did you give your informer that P300.00?
A: March 6, 1982 at 11:30 AM.
Q: Before
you give that P300.00, what did you do with the money?
A: We
got the serial number of the money.
Q: Who
actually get the serial number of the money?
A: It
was Norman Aperocho.
Q: What
did you tell your informer when you gave him the P300.00?
A: We
adviced him to get the evidence because we have
already bought two aluminum foil, so we expect our informer to buy 6 aluminum
foil.
Q: Before
you said your informer of yours was sent again to buy marijuana leaves, what
did you do and your companions?
A: We
deployed ourselves near the house of Cordel Sison.
Q: Who
were your companions in deploying in the house of Cordel
Sison?
A: We
have our Intelligence Branch Officer Fedro Landingin, our officer-in-charge in the Anti-Narcotics Unit
Bernardo Gonzales, Norman Aperocho and I.
Q: About
what time did you arrive within the vicinity of Cordes
Sison?
A: Actually
we have already deployed at 11:25 A.M.
Q: About
what time did your informer went to that house to buy marijuana leaves?
A: 11:30 AM, sir.
Q: While
your informer is buying marijuana leaves from the accused Jonathan Adap, what did you do?
A: We
immediately apprehended them in the act of selling while Jonathan Adap is on the act of selling to our informer, sir.
Q: About
how many dried marijuana leaves?
A: P300.00
worth of marijuana leaves, sir, it was wrapped in an aluminum foil.
Q: How
many foil?
A: Six
(6) aluminum foil, sir.
Q: What
did you do to accused Jonathan Adap when he delivered
the marijuana leaves in an aluminum foil to your informer?
A: We
arrested them and brought them to our
office, sir.
Q: Whom
did you arrest?
A: Jonathan
Adap and our informer.
Q: What
did you recover from Jonathan Adap?
A: We
found the P300.00 marked in his pocket.
Q: Where
did you bring Jonathan Adap?
A: We
brought him to the police station for investigation.
Q: What
about the marijuana leaves which you recovered from your informer which bought
from the accused Jonathan Adap?
A: We
brought it to the police station, sir.”15 (Underscoring supplied)
The trial court found the testimonies of witnesses Gonzales and Orprecio as positive, credible and reliable. We find no reason to disagree with the
findings of the trial court. It is
firmly settled that “the findings of the trial court as to the credibility
of the witnesses are to be given great weight and a high degree of respect by
the Appellate Court”.16 There is nothing in the record to show that the prosecution witnesses
were moved by any improper motive falsely to accuse the appellant of a crime
which carries a very heavy penalty –life imprisonment.
The fact that the packages of dried leaves confiscated and taken
from appellant were dried marijuana leaves was properly established by the
testimony of Florencia Fajardo
a Forensic Chemist of the NBI in
Manila. She declared in court that her
microscopic, chemical, and chromatographic
examinations of the packages forwarded to the NBI Manila by the NBI Regional
Office of Dagupan City showed that the contents of
the eight (8) packages wrapped in aluminum foil consisted of marijuana.
The statement of the prosecution witness Pfc. Gonzales that he
did not personally see appellant sell the marijuana leaves to the informer on 5 March 1982 does not impair
his credibility as a witness. It must be
pointed out that the appellant was not charged with selling marijuana leaves on
5 March 1982, but with
having sold such on 6 March 1982. Pfc. Gonzales’ testimony that on 6 March 1982, he witnessed the
appellant sell to the informer six (6) packages of marijuana leaves wrapped in
aluminum foil is set out above. In fact,
it was he who arrested the appellant immediately after the illegal transaction
was consummated.17
The contention of the appellant that the Anti-Narcotics Agents
who had apprehended him merely assumed that the confiscated items were
marijuana, is without merit.
Appellant was unable to refute the testimony that the items taken
or confiscated from him by the Anti-Narcotics Agents on 6 March 1982 were included in the eight (8)
packages wrapped in aluminum foil which were transmitted by the NBI Regional
Office to the Manila NBI Office for laboratory
examination. Appellant, in his defense,
denied that he had sold the six (6)
aluminum foils of marijuana leaves just before his arrest. He insisted that the marijuana leaves had
been “planted” on him by the Anti-Narcotics team.
The trial court considered appellant’s defense as unworthy of
belief. His bare denials cannot prevail
over the affirmative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.18 The trial court said:
“Accused has not presented evidence which would show the case
filed against him is fabricated. On this
score, the declaration of Jonathan V. Adap is clear
that Pfc. Gonzales and Pat. Orprecio have no grudge
against him. Neither did he have any
grudge against them. (TSN, 10 June 1983, p. 46)
The mass of evidence
bolsters a pronouncement of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused has not adduced a single piece of
evidence which can extricate himself from the stigma of criminal
convictions.”19
Again, we have no basis for disagreeing with the trial court’s
evaluation of the evidence.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court finding
Jonathan V. Adap guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by the Presidential
Decree No. 1675, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Fernan, CJ., (Chairman), on leave.
1
Rollo, p. 3.
2
Id., pp. 10-11.
3
TSN, 4 May 1982, pp. 3-5;
14-17.
4
TSN, 4 May 1982, p. 18.
5
TSN, 3 May 1982, pp. 5-6.
6
TSN, 4 May 1982, pp. 19-24.
7
Id., pp. 6-7, 21-22.
8
Id., 26-27.
9
Id., p. 28.
10
Id., p. 30.
11
TSN, 8 November 1982 pp.
27-28.
12
Original Record, p. 40.
13
TSN, 4 May 1982, pp. 25-30.
15 TSN, 3 May 1982, pp. 3-16.
16
People of the Philippines v. Sarol,
139 SCRA 125 (1985); People of the Philippines v. Valdez, 159 SCRA 152 (1988).
17
TSN, 4 May 1985, pp. 27-30.
18
People of the Philippines
v. Cruz, 3 SCRA 217 (1961).
19
Rollo, p. 10; Decision. p. 7.