PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARSENIO CAPONPON Y MARZO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal of Arsenio Caponpon y Marzo from the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27 of Manila, in Criminal Case No. 61820,
finding him guilty of peddling prohibited drugs in violation of Section 4,
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act,
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a
fine of P20,000.00 and costs.^[1]

Caponpon’s conviction was based on the testimonies of three
prosecution witnesses, namely, Patrolman Ramon Joves and Corporal Salvador
Guitan of Police Station No. 5, Western Police District, and National Bureau of
Investigation forensic chemist Rolando Vitug, as well as the several exhibits
presented in evidence including the appellant’s extrajudicial confession, the
marked P10.00 bill, the seized marijuana and the chemistry report.^[2]

The testimonies of Cpl. Guitan and Pat. Joves provided the
details of the buy-bust operation. A
week before May 22, 1981, Cpl. Guitan received information from a police
informant that accused-appellant Caponpon and a certain Alfredo Legazpi, alias Boy
Loleng, were selling marijuana at an alley along Leveriza Street in Malate,
Manila. Accordingly, Cpl. Guitan placed
the two under surveillance for about three to four days and the reported drug
pushing was confirmed.^[3]

On May 22, 1981, at about 9:15 in the evening, a police team
composed of Cpl. Guitan, Cpl. Jacinto Luna, Pat. Jose Federes and Pat. Romeo
Joves went to Leveriza Street to entrap and apprehend the suspected drug
pushers. Guitan fetched the informant,
a boy of about twelve to thirteen years old, whom he had earlier recruited to
act as their poseur-buyer. The boy
lived a few blocks away.^[4]

At about 9:30 p.m., the police informant turned pseudo-buyer
approached appellant Caponpon to buy marijuana with a marked P10.00 bill. At that time, Caponpon was standing alone in
front of his house at 620
Interior 26, Leveriza St., Malate, Manila. Meanwhile, the members of the police team positioned themselves at a
vantage point in front of a
store, about five to ten meters away from where Caponpon stood. They saw the informant give the marked money
to Caponpon, after which the latter handed over to the buyer one (1) small
plastic packet. The young informant
touched his hair at the back of his head to signal that the sale had been
completed. Immediately, the arresting
team swooped down on Caponpon. The plastic packet was turned over by the
poseur-buyer to Pat. Joves while the P10.00 bill marked by four (4) dots at the
four (4) corners was retrieved by
Cpl. Guitan from the right front pocket of Caponpon’s pants. Caponpon then accompanied the police
officers to the house which he shared with Legazpi and surrendered nine (9)
other packets containing suspected marijuana leaves hidden behind the
staircase.^[5]

Caponpon was taken to the Western Police District Station No. 5 at United Nations Avenue for interrogation. Appellant subsequently executed a sworn statement admitting that he sold
marijuana to the poseur-buyer.^[6]

The ten (10) plastic packets recovered from Caponpon were brought
to the NBI forensic laboratory that same evening at 10:15 for chemical
analysis. They were found positive for
marijuana.

Caponpon, a 25-year old painter, denied complicity. Instead, he implicated Legazpi as the
marijuana pusher. Caponpon testified
that on the night in question, he and Legazpi were conversing with Efren
Gomondoy and Boy Atang in front of his house (Caponpon). Suddenly, four policemen appeared at the
scene and placed him and Legazpi under arrest. They were both frisked. The
marijuana and the marked money were found in the possession of Legazpi while
nothing was found in appellant’s person. Legazpi attempted to escape but he was overtaken. Together they were brought to the police precinct.^[7]

Caponpon recounted that at the police station, he was mauled to
force him to admit the charges against him. Alone and frightened, he signed a prepared statement.^[8]
Caponpon further declared that Cpl. Guitan tried to extort P2,000.00 from him
for his release but he refused. Caponpon disclosed that no charges were filed against Legazpi because
according to Legazpi himself, he paid P2,000.00 for his freedom.^[9]

Efren Gomondoy, a tourist bus driver and barangay officer,
corroborated Caponpon’s testimony. Gomondoy stressed that at the time of arrest, appellant was clean. Gomondoy was certain about this because
Caponpon was about to borrow money from him. Later, when he saw
Caponpon at the precinct, the latter showed him the contusion (pasa) he
sustained from the beatings he received from the police. As a barangay officer, Gomondoy tried to
intercede for the appellant but the authorities simply ignored him.^[10]

In the instant appeal, Caponpon contends that the trial court
erred in admitting his extrajudicial confession since this was extracted from
him through duress, and in believing the self-serving declarations of police
officers Guitan and Joves. Caponpon
also avers that he was denied his constitutional right to confront the unnamed
police informer who was the only one who could credibly testify on the imputed
sale of marijuana.

The incontrovertible fact alone that the confession was made
during custodial investigation in the absence of counsel renders that
particular piece of evidence totally inadmissible and the lower court gravely
erred in not disregarding the same.^[11]

With the extrajudicial confession excluded, the conviction of
Caponpon is dependent on the credibility of Pat. Joves and Cpl. Guitan.

The track record of Pat. Joves has not been exactly
exemplary. As noted by the defense
counsel, Joves figured prominently in two cases decided by the Court in which
he displayed a rather cavalier attitude
towards the custodial rights of the accused, who were eventually
exonerated by the High Court on reasonable doubt.^[12]

Joves’ actuations particularly in the Duhan case, as
detailed by the Solicitor General, cast a serious doubt on his truthfulness.

“The credible evidence shows that the four policemen
indiscriminately rounded up appellants at two separate place at the corner of Jorge Bocobo and Remedios Street in
Malate, Manila on the evening of June 29, 1982 pursu­ant to a police saturation
drive, and forced them to ride in their private vehicle to the police
headquarters, informing them that they were being rounded-up for verification
pur­poses. In fact, no searches on
their persons were made by the policemen upon their appre­hension at the
suspected area.

“True to form and practice, however, on their way to the
police precinct that evening, the police manhandled and beat appellants Recla
and Reyes inside the vehicle. One
policeman inserted a stick of marijuana cigarette inside the back pocket of
appellant Duhan. When appellant Duhan
took out his handkerchief, the
marijuana cigarette fell, and another policeman picked it up and this time
inserted it in the wallet of appellant Reyes. When appellant Reyes
protested, he was boxed by the
policeman.

“Upon their arrival at the police station that same evening,
the policemen made body searches on the appellants. All the three appellants were brought inside the comfort room of
the police station, one after the other, where they were subjected to
maltreatment and forced to admit the possession of two foils of marijuana
leaves and two marijuana cigarettes. The policemen found no drugs on the persons of the appellants, except
P25.00 from appellant Duhan for buying stork candies for sale on the streets,
Duhan being a street vendor. Pat.
Joves poked a gun at appellant Duhan’s back and then forcibly took the latter’s
personal money. x x x .

“xxx                 xxx                     xxx .

“Worse still, when the policemen were processing her son’s
papers, one policeman approached her, demanding P100.00 so that her son could
be released. She could not raise the
money at that time because her employer was out of town. She returned the following day with the
money, but she could not find Pat. Joves or Pfc. Bautista to whom she would give the money because of her
belief that they were the only ones who could release her son. x x x .”^[13]

As for Cpl. Guitan, his statements in court were often at
variance with those of Pat. Joves. This
is rather strange considering that the two drug enforcers were supposed to be
speaking of the same buy-bust operation. Cpl. Guitan stated that the packet of marijuana was immediately turned
over to him by the informant “without saying a word.”^[14]
But according to Pat. Joves, the illegal drug was surrendered by the informant
to him.^[15]
The same is true with regard to the P10.00 marked bill, with both officers
claiming to have personally seized or confiscated the same from the accused.^[16]

Moreover, the Court is unconvinced that the two police officers
really witnessed the claimed sale of marijuana. For while they readily admitted not having heard what was being
said between Caponpon and the buyer, it is also probable that they did not see
the actual exchange. Cpl. Guitan, for
one, had to physically distance himself from the accused because the latter
knew him personally. So if the sale was
made in plain view as the apprehending officers averred, then it was completely
unnecessary for the poseur-buyer to touch his hair in order to signal that the
illegal transaction had been consummated and the authorities could then proceed
with the arrest of the drug peddler.

Indeed, the case for the prosecution is markedly weak, made even
more so with the non-presentation of the police informant as a witness. As correctly asseverated by the defense
counsel, the informant was the only one in
a position to speak convincingly about the purported sale.

In view of the foregoing, the Court must disregard the conviction
of Caponpon because the prosecution has failed to establish his culpability
beyond reasonable doubt. It is
axiomatic that the prosecution must rely on its own strength and not on the
weakness of the defense to justify a verdict of guilt.

WHEREFORE, the appealled decision in Criminal
Case No. 61820 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Arsenio Caponpon is hereby ACQUITTED on
reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Record, p. 166.

^[2]
Exhs. A, D, E, E-1 to E-11, G and G-2.

^[3]
TSN, December 16, 1981, pp. 109-110.

^[4]
Ibid.

^[5]
TSN, July 17, 1981, pp. 4, 8-9, 12-15.

^[6]
Exh. A.

^[7]
TSN, July 26, 1982, pp. 193-194; August 2, 1982, pp. 206-207; October 1, 1982,
p. 248.

^[8]
Exh. A.

^[9]
TSN, August 8, 1982, pp. 210-211; October 1, 1982, p. 251.

^[10]
TSN, October 18, 1982, pp. 279 and 281; December 1, 1982, pp. 297-298.

^[11]
People vs. Diamsay, G. R. No. 67289, October 5,
1989, 178 SCRA 321; People vs. Decierdo, No. L-46956, May 27, 1987, 149
SCRA 496.

^[12]
People vs. Nicandro, G. R. No. 59378, February 11, 1986, 141 SCRA 289;
People vs. Duhan, G. R. No. 65189, May 28, 1986, 142 SCRA 100.

^[13]
At pp. 104-106; Emphasis ours.

^[14]
TSN, June 11, 1982, p. 131.

^[15]
TSN, July 17, 1981, p. 9.

^[16]
TSN, December 16, 1981, p. 110.