THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCIS DE GUZMAN Y GALANG, ACCUSED, MANUEL DURIAS Y ASTRERO, ROBERT LIZARDO Y KANGA, ALIAS ROBERT RIZALDO, ISABELO TALLED…

People versus Durias

The Case

This is People versus Durias, a criminal appeal from a conviction for selling marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Five men from Santiago, Isabela were arrested in a buy-bust operation on West Avenue in Quezon City, and all five were convicted. Four were sentenced to life imprisonment, and three of them appealed, insisting that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt and that there was no conspiracy. The case matters for two reasons. First, it teaches how the Supreme Court treats the constitutional presumption of innocence when the prosecution's evidence is strong. Second, it gives a working lesson on how conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and on the rule that the act of one conspirator is the act of all.

Procedural History

The five accused were tried in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and convicted. Four of them were sentenced to life imprisonment, while the fifth, who was a minor at the time of the crime, received a lighter penalty which was suspended. Of the four sentenced to life imprisonment, one, Francis de Guzman, later withdrew his appeal and in effect confessed his guilt. The remaining three, Manuel Durias, Isabelo Talledo, and Robert Lizardo, appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court, asking for a reversal on the ground that their guilt had not been sufficiently established.

Facts

On January 4, 1984, five men left Santiago, Isabela together in a jeep. Manuel Durias owned the jeep, Isabelo Talledo was his driver, Francis de Guzman supposedly acted as conductor, and Robert Lizardo and his companion Arsenio Sabawil, a minor, were passengers. On the evening of January 5, 1984, the group met with CIC Cesar Dalonos on West Avenue, Quezon City. Dalonos was posing as an interested buyer of three kilos of marijuana, and he was accompanied by Jessie Gambito, the informer who had introduced him to De Guzman. De Guzman and Durias acted as spokesmen for the group, while the other three waited in the jeep nearby. After the price was agreed upon, Durias signaled the three to get the marijuana. Talledo drove off with his two companions and returned after half an hour with the marijuana, which Lizardo and Sabawil handed to Dalonos. Narcotics agents who had been watching the transaction then arrested all five men.

At trial, Durias and Talledo claimed they were innocent. Durias said Lizardo and Sabawil had hired his jeep for 500 pesos to go to Quezon City, on condition that he could pick up other passengers. He said that on the evening of January 5 he and his driver were merely waiting in front of a disco pub for Lizardo to get the balance of the fare he owed. They denied any knowledge of the marijuana. Lizardo, for his part, invoked the constitutional presumption of innocence and argued that the prosecution had failed to link the marijuana examined by the crime laboratory to him.

The Court found the defenses incredible. If Lizardo and Sabawil were ordinary passengers, they would have been charged a proportionate fare, perhaps double the 40 pesos charged to passengers who alighted in Cabanatuan City, and certainly not 500 pesos for the two of them. If they were strangers, they would have objected to such an exorbitant fare. And if they were mere passengers, why did they not alight at the Pantranco Terminal in Cubao where the trip was supposed to end, but instead were taken on a special trip to West Avenue, after first resting and being served free meals at the house of Talledo's sister in Guadalupe, Makati? Durias also contradicted himself. In his prayer for acquittal he himself referred to the hiring of his jeep to transport vegetables and to the bulk of the vegetables loaded in it, which undercut his claim that no vegetables were loaded. The Court concluded that as early as the start of their trip in Isabela, the five had already agreed to take the marijuana to Metro Manila and sell it, sharing in the proceeds.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, overcoming the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Whether or not conspiracy among the five accused was proved, notwithstanding that they raised different and conflicting defenses.
• Whether or not the accused were properly convicted and sentenced under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Article Two of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as quoted in the decision, provides:

Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20.000.00 to P30.000.00 shall be imposed upon 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.

This is the provision under which all five accused were charged and convicted, and it fixes the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine for the sale and transportation of prohibited drugs.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the constitutional presumption of innocence does not avail the accused, not because the defense is weak but because the prosecution is strong. The Court put the rule this way:

The constitutional presumption of innocence is not available in the case at bar not because the defense is weak but because the prosecution is strong.

The Court acknowledged that there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but it treated these as minor lapses that did not detract from the veracity of their narration. The evidence proved to the point of moral certainty the complicity and active participation of all five in the sale of the three kilos of marijuana.

On the second issue, the Court held that conspiracy was duly proved. The fact that the defenses of the accused did not jibe with one another did not negate conspiracy, because the conspiracy was to commit the crime, not to defend themselves. It was not unlikely that, although they were one in the plan to sell the marijuana, they took different tracks in defending themselves after their arrest, when it was every one for himself. The Court found that from the start of their trip in Isabela the five had already entered into an agreement for the sale of the marijuana in Metro Manila, which explained why they stuck together after arriving in Cubao while the other passengers went their separate ways, why they ate and rested at the house of Talledo's sister, and why they waited until ten o'clock in the evening for their appointment with the poseur-buyer and the informer.

On the third issue, the Court held that as conspirators all the accused were equally guilty, on the principle that the act of one is the act of all. And even if they were not regarded as conspirators, they would still be guilty as principals by direct participation, because they were involved directly in the transporting, possession, and sale of the three kilos of marijuana. They were therefore properly sentenced to reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties and to pay a fine of 20,000 pesos each.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the constitutional presumption of innocence is overcome when the prosecution's evidence is strong enough to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it is not a shield that survives strong proof. Second, conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and the fact that the accused adopt conflicting defenses does not defeat a finding of conspiracy, because the conspiracy is to commit the crime, not to defend against it. Third, once conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and each conspirator is equally liable. Fourth, even absent conspiracy, one who directly participates in the transporting, possession, and sale of a prohibited drug is liable as a principal by direct participation under Section 4 of Article Two of the Dangerous Drugs Act, which imposes life imprisonment to death and a fine of 20,000 to 30,000 pesos.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in full, without pronouncement as to costs, so the three appealing accused remained convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and a fine of 20,000 pesos each.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the constitutional presumption of innocence is not available not because the defense is weak but because the prosecution is strong. Examiners use this case to test conspiracy proved by circumstantial evidence, the rule that the act of one is the act of all, and liability as a principal by direct participation under the Dangerous Drugs Act.