THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARSENIO ALFONSO Y CAWADING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

An information was filed against the
accused Arsenio Alfonso y Cawading
on August 14, 1986,
charging him with violation of Sec. 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” as amended.  It reads:

“The undersigned Special Counsel accuses ARSENIO ALFONSO Y CAWADING
for Violation of Section 4, Article II, of Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise
known as “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, committed as follows:

That on or about the 30th day of July, 1986, at Km. 16,
Municipality of Tublay, Province of Benguet, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named
accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly transport and carry
in transit from Km. 63 to Baguio City, 2,900 grams more or less, of dried marijuana
leaves contained in a white sack marked ‘14-14-14 compound
fertilizer’, which are sources and from which dangerous and prohibited drugs
may be derived and manufactured, in violation of the said law.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.” (At p. 108, Orig.
Records)

The accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty during the
arraignment.  Trial on the merits
proceeded and a judgment of conviction was subsequently rendered by the court a
quo.

Arsenio Alfonso now seeks a reversal of
the said decision.  The decretal portion of the assailed decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, finding accused Arsenio
Alfonso y Cawading guilty beyond reasonable doubt of transporting 2.65 kilos of
dried marijuana leaves, a crime defined
and penalized under Sec. 4, Article II, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as ‘The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972’, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of Twenty Thousand Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.

“The sack of marijuana leaves
taken from the accused is hereby declared forfeited in favor of the government
and ordered destroyed without delay.  Let
it be turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal without
delay.” (At p. 155, Orig. Records)

The accused-appellant specifically assigns the following alleged
errors of the trial court in his appeal:

I

THE TRIAL
COURT ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.  (At p. 43, Appellant’s Brief)

The facts of the case upon which the finding of guilt was based
have been summarized in the People’s
Brief as follows:

“On July 29, 1986,
the Narcotics Command Office at Baguio
City received a report from a
civilian informer that on July 30,
1986, a certain Arsenio Alfonso y Cawading will be transporting a sack of marijuana to Baguio City
(TSN pp. 3, 14, Nov. 17, 1986).  Acting
on said information, three (3) narcotics
agents, namely:  2nd Lt. Jerry Valeroso, Sgt. Oscar Parajas, and
Lt. Carlos Figueroa and eight (8) other civilians
set-up a temporary checkpoint at Km. 16, Tublay, Benguet to intercept Arsenio
Alfonso on July 30, 1986
(Id. pp. 2-3).

“At 2:05 p.m. of that
day, the Narcom Agents
stopped a Dangwa Tranco
passenger bus bound for Baguio
City.  The agents boarded the bus, introduced themselves
as Narcom Agents and proceeded to inspect the luggages and belongings of the passengers (Id.).  Sgt. Parajas
approached the appellant who was seated on the second row, right side facing
the driver (TSN, p. 7, March 2, 1987). 
He requested appellant if he could inspect the latter’s belongings.  A sack with the markings 14-14-14 compound
fertilizer, placed on the seat beside appellant, was claimed by the latter as
his.  Upon inspection, the sack yielded various vegetables like string
beans and carrots and underneath, wrapped in a plastic bag was marijuana (TSN,
pp. 15, 17, Nov. 17, 1986)

“Appellant was arrested and taken down from the bus.  He was brought to the detachment in Baguio
City where the interrogation
continued.  The arresting agents executed a joint affidavit of arrest
of appellant, Exhibit “B” for the prosecution
(TSN, pp. 4, 6, 7, Nov. 17, 1986).

“The marijuana found in the jute sack was sent to the Laboratory at
PCCL Camp Dangwa for examination.  Carlos Figueroa, the chemist who examined the
marijuana testified that what he
examined is marijuana as indicated in
his chemistry report (Exhibit “F”). 
The jute sack contained 2.65 kilos of
marijuana flowering tops
(TSN, pp. 3-4, Nov. 25, 1986).

“Appellant testified that, on July 29, 1986 his older Brother Fianzo
Alfonso sent him to Cabuguiasan,
Natublay, (sic) Benguet to inform
their other brother Fernando that their mother is seriously ill (TSN, p. 3,
Feb. 4, 1987).  He testified that he arrived at Cabuguiasan that same day, talked with his brother and tried to return home immediately. 
As there was no more ride
available, he was forced to sleep at his brother’s house.  The folowing
morning, he and Fernando went to the latter’s employer in Pakyaw, Natublay, (sic) Benguet to borrow money for Fernando’s fare. 
While there, they were asked to help load vegetables on the jeep.  By lunchtime,
Fernando was still not able to borrow money for his fare
so appellant left (TSN, pp. 27, 35, Feb. 4, 1987)

“At 2:00 o’clock p.m.,
appellant was able to get a bus for Baguio.  While
seated inside the bus, Augusto Banghito
came, placed a sack beside
appellant and told the latter to drop the
sack at Km. 5 in La Trinidad, Benguet as someone will claim it (TSN, pp. 6-7, 36-38, Feb. 4, 1987)

“When the bus was approaching Ambassador at Km. 16, it was flagged down by soldiers who boarded the same.  The soldiers, who were Narcom
Agents, inspected the passenger’s baggages.  The sack of appellant yielded marijuana
and he was told to get down the
bus and was interrogated.  He was brought to the detachment in Gen. Luna Street in Baguio City, then to the Office in Tranconville
and was finally committed to the provincial jail (TSN, pp. 8, 10, 12,
Feb. 4, 1987).

“Appellant’s brother Fianzo testified that indeed, he sent appellant to Cabuguiasan
to inform Fernando of their
mother’s illness (TSN, pp. 3-4, April 28, 1987).  Fernando also testified that his brother Arsenio arrived in Cabuguiasan, Benguet on July 29, 1986 and informed him that their
mother is seriously ill and that appellant slept in his house that night and on the following morning, appellant
accompanied him to his employer to help
load the vegetables so that they
can ride in the jeep if there is space available. 
But after loading, there
was no space left and Fernando still has to wait for his employer to be able to sell the vegetables before
he can borrow money.  Fernando told his
brother to go ahead (TSN, pp. 2-5, May 26, 1987).

“Silvester Litawen
also testified that when he rode the bus in the afternoon of July 30, 1987, he saw petitioner inside the bus.  While they were talking, a man carrying a bag
of vegetables came over and told appellant to take the bag and leave it
at Km. 15.  While the bus was approaching
Ambassador at Km. 21, it was stopped by soldiers who conducted an inspection of
the passenger belongings.  They found
marijuana in the baggage of appellant who was told to get down from the
bus.  (TSN, pp. 3-6, March 2,
1987).” (At p. 56-59, Rollo)

The evidence for the defense is built around the defendant’s
allegation that the sack containing marijuana belongs to Augusto
Banghito.  He
was only requested to carry it and drop it at Km. 5 La Trinidad.  Somebody would pick it up.  Moreover, Banghito
would be following the bus in a private vehicle.

As in all criminal cases, the issue before us is whether or not
the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

The accused-appellant specifically questions the trial court’s
disregard for the evidence of the defense and its subsequent conclusion that the accused is indeed guilty as
charged.

First, he contends
that the prosecution failed to
prove that the sack was owned by
him.

We
agree with the Solicitor-General that ownership is not the basic issue
here.  The accused-appellant is charged with transporting marijuana which he
in fact did.  In his testimony, he stated
that he admitted being the owner of the sack containing the marijuana when questioned by the Narcom agent in the bus (TSN, p. 7, March 2, 1987).  He later denied ownership in an effort to
exculpate himself.  How could it be
believed that he had no knowledge of the contents of the sack being in
possession of it and admitting its ownership? 
And if it it were true that he was not really
the owner but that he simply accepted the errand from one who was not even a
friend, the explanation, standing by itself, is too
trite and hackneyed to be accepted at its face value, it being contrary to
human experience.  For one, it was not
clear whether the person from whom he received the sack was a stranger or
someone closely known to him.  Or worst,
he could be non-existent as he
was never apprehended nor presented in evidence.  In his testimony on February 4, 1983 (TSN, pp. 36-37), the appellant
stated that it was the first time he saw Banghito in
his brother’s house and that their relationship to each other was not
close.  Under the circumstances, it would
appear that Augusto Banghito
was virtually a stranger to the appellant. 
The particulars under which the errand was being requested should have
raised doubts about the mysterious nature of the transaction.  There are several questions which come to
mind and which even a man of little learning would have contemplated, to wit:

(1)            Why would Banghito ask the appellant to carry the sack when he hardly
knows the accused?

(2)            Why was the
instruction simply to leave the sack of vegetables at Km. 5 with no specific
person or address to deliver it to?  A
market is a public place and anything of economic value might be picked up by
other persons.

(3)            If Banghito was following in a private vehicle, why should the
former still request the accused to deliver a sack of vegetables when he could
very well do it himself?

The absence of any suspicious reaction on his part is not in accordance
with human nature.  And if he did not
mind carrying a sack from someone he hardly knew and who was following behind
in a car, it is obvious that the accused accepted the nature of the assignment
from Banghito as something he was willing to do and that
there was something strange about the transaction and he was aware of it.

The accused-appellant further contends that there are
inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.  He specifically
questions the prosecution witnesses’ statement that the sack contained dried
marijuana leaves whereas the chemical report revealed the same to be flowering
tops.  There is nothing questionable
about the description given by the arresting officers because as stated by the Solicitor?General, “It is
dried marijuana, presumably brown in color already.  It is hard to distinguish by ordinary eye which part of the marijuana plant
it is.  By its look and smell, the agents
identified it as marijuana and mistakenly labelled it
marijuana leaves when it turned out to be flowering tops upon laboratory
analysis.”

The appellant further questions the mark on the sack.  According to the prosecution, the sack had a
label which read ‘14-14-14 Compound Fertilizer’ whereas the sack forwarded to
the laboratory for analysis was labeled ‘Yongnara
Chemical Co., Ltd.’ Whatever portions of the writings on the sack were cited in
testimonies, the fact remains that it was the same sack which contained the marijuana
and that it was marked by the initials of the apprehending agent.

The questions raised by the appellant refer to mere inconsistencies on minor details.  The alleged inconsistencies and
improbabilities in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses stressed by the
appellant, refer to insignificant details which cannot
destroy the credibility of said witnesses. 
Besides, the alleged discrepancies were fully explained.  The
issue involves the credibility of witnesses.  Their testimony on the appellant’s being
caught with a sack of marijuana appears convincing.  We find no reason to set aside the findings
of fact of the trial court (People v. Cabale, et al., G.R.
Nos. 73249-50, May 8, 1990)

The fact that the
appellant boarded the bus only at Natubley, Buguias, Benguet, and not from Sagada to Baguio
as indicated in the information given to the agents of the law is of no
moment.  What is material is that the
accused was transporting marijuana.

Credence should be accorded to the prosecution’s evidence.  It consisted mainly of testimonies of policemen who received
confidential information and acted on the basis of that information.  Under the facts of this case, the law
enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of
proof to the contrary (People v. Dela Cruz and
Beltran, G.R. No. 83260, April 18, 1990; People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May
8, 1990; People v. Laredo, et al., G.R.
Nos. 81249-51, May 14, 1990).  There is
nothing in the records which would suggest any reason that would motivate them
to testify falsely against the accused (People
v. Guiagui, G.R.
No. 78527, April 25, 1990; People v. Sariol, G.R.
No. 83809, June 22, 1989; People v. Javier, G.R. No. 77756, March 26, 1990).

In contrast, the testimonies of defense witnesses are
incredible.  The thrust of the defense
testimony is that the accused went to Cabaguiasan to
fetch his brother, Fernando because their mother is seriously ill but that the
brother was unable
to accompany him due to lack of fare; that while inside the bus, the accused
was requested by Augusto Banghito to carry a sack
of vegetables for him to La Trinidad, Benguet with
instructions to leave it at Km. 5, with no particular addressee or place to
whom or where it would be delivered.

We
note that the defense witnesses are mostly brothers of the accused.  As such, they may be expected to cover-up for
the crime.  While relationship between
the accused and the witnesses is not necessarily detrimental, this
relationship, taken together with the want of logic of the defense testimonies,
yields the conclusion that it lacks credibility.

 The testimony of the
accused that his brother, Fernando was unable to go with him because he had no
fare is contrary to the brother’s testimony that he produces vegetables from
his less than a hectare of land and has a regular buyer for his produce.

Considering the
urgency of the need for them to go to their mother’s place and the fact that it was the only reason for the appellant’s going to his
brother’s place, they should have been able to raise the necessary fare by
selling Fernando’s produce to Lilia Dalmose, his
regular buyer.  Instead, they chose to go
to Dionisio Copas who
insisted that they first load the vegetables inside the vehicle.  When there was no
space available for them in the vehicle, they were instructed to meet him at the provincial restaurant at Natubleng, Cabaguiasan, Benguet where he would hand them
the money they are borrowing.

It is quite
puzzling that the two (2) brothers should insist on borrowing from Copas when Fernando could just sell his produce to Dalmose whose place
was only a short ten minutes walk
from the place of Copas.  For the need to see a seriously ill mother, a
son would normally do everything within his means to be able to go to her.  As it is, the reason of Fernando for not
going to Dalmose to sell his goods was quite flimsy – that it was far which it was
not, if he was already at the address of Copas.  Moreover, Fernando testified that he
eventually left Buguias on July 30, 1986 and sold the vegetables for P5,000 to Dalmose on July
31, 1986 (TSN, pp. 122-123). 
He could have gone directly to Dalmose and
gotten more than enough money for bus fares. 
Besides, he told his brother he would follow the next day but he later
testified that he followed the same day because he was able to sell his
produce to Dalmose in Betag,
La Trinidad, Banguet.  He likewise admitted in his testimony that he
arrived at Alilem, Ilocos Sur their mother’s place one week afterwards.

Silver Litawen, the other defense
witness was also not credible.  The
arrest was made in July 1986 and he testified only in February 1987.  If he really believed his friend was innocent, he could have told the soldiers sooner that the sack
did not belong to Alfonso.  Consequently,
Litawen would have
been able to extricate the appellant from the mess he had gotten himself into.  When asked why he did not go to the rescue of
Alfonso, he simply said they were not close neighbors, that they seldom saw
each other.  He likewise thought the
accused had been released although he knew that Alfonso had been arrested.

For testimony to be believable,
it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be
credible in itself.

It is significant that the Trial Judge noted that the defense
witnesses were hesitant, inconsistent, and illogical in their testimonies.  We quote the trial court’s observation on the
behavior of the defense witnesses:

“Not only did the the Court find the defense of the accused unworthy of
belief, but the Court also observed from the demeanor of the witnesses that
they are untruthful.  To the mind of the
Court, the accused was inside the bus
for no other purpose than to deliberately transport that sack containing dried
marijuana leaves.” (At pp. 7-8, Rollo)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the
TRIAL COURT is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, and Bidin, JJ., concur.

Cortes, J., on leave.