PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO PERIODICA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT. PARUT VILLARIN ALIAS “BOY,” ACCUSED (AT LARGE).

That year certainly did not start well for Leonardo Periodica, Jr., the herein accused-appellant.  On January 1, 1983, he was arrested in Paete, Laguna, for alleged violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act.  This arrest would lead in due time
to his prosecution and conviction and to a sentence of life imprisonment plus a
fine of P20,000.00.^[1] It is this judgment he now asks us to
reverse on the ground that he is innocent.

The alleged offense was the barter by Periodica
and his companion of 50 pieces of marijuana leaves with a .45 caliber pistol on
that New Year’s Day.  The transaction was
consummated on a hill in Paete, Laguna, and was
observed by two prosecution witnesses, C2C Filemon Togado and Pat. Juanito Damayo, who claimed they were about 50 meters away.^[2] The
exchange was made between the accused-appellant and Parut
Villarin, at one end, and the PC informant.  The PC informant handed Periodica
the gun and received a box in
return.  Togado
and Damayo were unable to arrest Periodica
on the hill because he took a different route going down, but they radioed Pat.
Edgardo Certifico and Sgt. Generoso Valera who apprehended
him in the lowland.  They found the gun
in his possession.^[3] Villarin escaped
and remains at large.  The box itself was
later turned over by the informant to the PC Crime Laboratory, where its
contents were analyzed by Lt. Rosalinda
Rosales, a chemist. 
She found and reported them to
be marijuana leaves.^[4]

Against the evidence of the prosecution, the defense presented
two witnesses, namely, Periodica’s mother, Victoria Vitug, and the defendant himself.  The mother merely related the arrest of her
son and testified to his good character.^[5] Periodica, for his part, denied the alleged barter.  He
insisted that the pistol had merely been entrusted to him by Villarin while he was in a drinking spree with some friends
in the afternoon of the day in question.^[6] However, neither Villarin
or any of his drinking companions testified for him at the trial to corroborate
this claim.

In a motion to dismiss, the defense insisted that the crime of
drug trafficking had not been proved and that if at all the defendant could be charged only with illegal possession of
firearms.^[7]
The trial court denied the motion and ultimately, after the defense had rested
and the case was submitted for decision, held Periodica
guilty as charged.

The defense in its brief now maintains that the alleged barter
had not been sufficiently established and points to a number of inconsistencies
in the testimonies of the government
witnesses.  As we have repeatedly held,
however, minor contradictions are to be expected but must be disregarded if
they do not affect the basic credibility of the evidence as a whole.^[8]

The test of such evidence is the credibility of the witnesses as
assessed at the trial.  Such evaluation
is properly made by the trial judge, who has the opportunity to observe the
deportment of the persons on the stand and to ascertain the line between the
forthright declaration and the suspect
prevarication.  His findings on this
matter are accorded great weight and even conclusiveness unless proved to be
without substantial basis.

The Court finds that the government agents had no evil motive in
testifying against the accused-appellant. 
There is no doubt that when they entrapped Periodica
and Villarin, they were merely discharging their
duties in the campaign against drug abuse. 
As for Periodica, it is noteworthy that no one
supported his testimony except his own mother, whose motives, like his own,
were obvious.  Their declarations are for
this reason less than persuasive.

Coming back to the entrapment, the Court cannot accept the
defense submission that it was actually an instigation that should absolve Periodica of criminal responsibility.  The evidence showed that the
accused-appellant and Villarin had been
under surveillance weeks before the incident in question.^[9] The authorities decided on the operation when they learned that the two were interested in bartering marijuana
leaves for a pistol.  The idea for the exchange came from the two, not the agents.^[10] The operatives merely saw this as a chance
to entrap Periodica and Villarin,
which was eventually done.

As the Court has held in Araneta v.
Court of Appeals:^[11]

x        x          x

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to
ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the
crime.  There is instigation when the accused was induced to commit the crime (People v.
Galicia, [CA], 40 OG G.R. No. 4476).  The difference in the nature of the two lies
in the origin of the criminal intent.  In
entrapment, the mens rea
originates from the mind of the criminal. 
The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him.  In instigation, the law officer conceives the
commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and
carries it into execution.

The legal effect of entrapment and instigation are also
different.  As already stated, entrapment
does not exempt the criminal from liability. 
Instigation does.

Finally, there is the accused-appellant’s averment that he was manhandled during his police
investigation and forced to sign an extrajudicial confession in the absence of
counsel.  While he has not offered any
evidence of the claimed violence, there is no showing either that he had validly
waived his right to counsel.  This
omission alone is sufficient to invalidate the confession.

But not the challenged decision itself.  For nowhere does it suggest that the trial
judge relied on that confession, even partly, in arriving at his conclusion.  Indeed, even if the confession were
completely disregarded, as in fact it was, there would still be enough evidence
to sustain Periodica’s conviction.

We are convinced
from the declarations of the government witnesses that on the day in question,
the accused-appellant delivered to the PC informer a box containing marijuana leaves for which he received in
return the .45 caliber pistol later
found in his possession.  Periodica has failed to refute this evidence and so must
stand convicted.

The laudable campaign of the government against the menace of
drug addiction deserves the full support and encouragement of all the
people.  This is not to say, of course,
that every person accused of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act should be summarily convicted.  But as long as the evidence clearly shows that the person on the dock is guilty, the law must be enforced and its
penalties imposed.

WHEREFORE, the challenged decision is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the
accused-appellant.  It is so ordered.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1] Decision, penned by Judge Narciso
D. Salcedo of the Regional Trial Court, Laguna; rollo, p. 21.

^[2] TSN, February 8, 1984, p. 5.

^[3] Ibid., p. 6.

^[4] TSN, March 6, 1984, p. 6.

^[5] TSN, June 27, 1984, p. 14.

^[6] Ibid., pp. 21-22.

^[7] Original Records, p. 87.

^[8] People v. Ancheta,
148 SCRA 178; People v. Natipravat, 145 SCRA
483; People v. Naz, 138 SCRA 420.

^[9] TSN, November 9, 1983, p. 3.

^[10] Ibid.,
p. 10.

^[11] 142 SCRA 534.