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

People versus Alfonso

The Case

This is People versus Alfonso, a criminal appeal from a conviction for transporting prohibited drugs. The accused, Arsenio Alfonso y Cawading, was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act Number 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, for carrying a sack of marijuana aboard a passenger bus bound for Baguio City. The case matters for the bar because it is a compact illustration of the Supreme Court's deference to the trial court's findings on credibility, of the presumption that law enforcers regularly perform their duty, and of the rule that ownership of the drugs is not an element of the crime of transporting them.

Procedural History

An information was filed against the accused on August 14, 1986. He entered a plea of not guilty at arraignment, and trial on the merits proceeded before the trial court. That court rendered a judgment of conviction, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of transporting 2.65 kilos of dried marijuana leaves and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The sack of marijuana was declared forfeited in favor of the government and ordered destroyed without delay. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's reliance on the prosecution evidence, its disregard of the defense evidence, and its finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts

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 would be transporting a sack of marijuana to Baguio City. Acting on that information, three narcotics agents and eight other civilians set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 16, Tublay, Benguet, to intercept him.

At 2:05 in the afternoon of July 30, 1986, the agents stopped a passenger bus bound for Baguio City, boarded it, introduced themselves as Narcom agents, and inspected the passengers' belongings. An agent approached the accused, who was seated on the second row, and asked to inspect his belongings. A sack marked 14-14-14 compound fertilizer, placed on the seat beside him, was claimed by the accused as his. Upon inspection, the sack yielded vegetables such as string beans and carrots and, underneath, wrapped in a plastic bag, marijuana. The accused was arrested and taken down from the bus, and the marijuana was sent to the laboratory, where it was found to be 2.65 kilos of marijuana flowering tops.

The defense told a different story. The accused testified that his older brother had sent him to inform their other brother Fernando that their mother was seriously ill; that he slept at Fernando's house that night; and that the following day, while he was seated inside the bus, a man named Augusto Banghito placed a sack beside him and asked him to drop it at Kilometer 5 in La Trinidad, Benguet, where someone would claim it. Defense witnesses, mostly the accused's brothers, and one Silvester Litawen, corroborated portions of this account. The trial court rejected the defense and convicted the accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the evidence for the prosecution and in disregarding the evidence for the defense.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the information.
• Whether or not the prosecution was required to prove that the accused owned the sack containing the marijuana.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4, Article II of Republic Act Number 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, is the provision under which the accused was charged, and it defines the act of transporting prohibited drugs:

Section 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Twenty Thousand to Twenty Five Thousand Pesos 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.

The crime is committed by the act of transporting itself, without regard to who owns the drug, which is why the Court held that ownership was not the basic issue.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court's assessment of credibility. The alleged inconsistencies raised by the accused — that the witnesses described dried marijuana leaves while the chemical report showed flowering tops, and that the sack bore different markings — referred to minor details that could not destroy the witnesses' credibility, and the discrepancies were fully explained. The fact that the accused boarded the bus at a different point than the one stated in the information was of no moment, because what is material is that the accused was transporting marijuana. The Court gave credence to the prosecution evidence, consisting mainly of the testimonies of policemen who acted on confidential information, and applied the presumption that law enforcers regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary.

On the second issue, the Court found the defense testimonies incredible. The defense witnesses were mostly brothers of the accused, who may be expected to cover up for the crime, and their testimonies lacked logic. The Court found it puzzling that the brothers insisted on borrowing money from one person when Fernando could have sold his produce to his regular buyer a short walk away, and it noted that Litawen testified only in February 1987 although the arrest was made in July 1986. The Court held that for testimony to be believable, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself.

On the third issue, the Court held that ownership is not the basic issue, because the accused is charged with transporting marijuana, which he in fact did. He had admitted owning the sack when questioned by the Narcom agent in the bus, and his later denial, together with his story that he merely accepted an errand from a virtual stranger, was too trite and hackneyed to be accepted at face value, being contrary to human experience.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for transporting prohibited drugs under Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, ownership of the drugs is not an element of the crime; what must be proved is the act of transporting. Second, factual findings of the trial court on credibility are accorded great weight and will not be disturbed absent a showing that the trial court overlooked or misappreciated facts of substance. Third, law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. Fourth, for testimony to be believable, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself; and inconsistencies on minor details do not destroy credibility where they are fully explained.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in its entirety, sustaining the conviction of Arsenio Alfonso y Cawading for transporting marijuana and the penalties imposed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that ownership is not the basic issue in transporting drugs — the act of transporting is what the law punishes. Examiners use this case to test the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the rule that minor inconsistencies in prosecution testimony do not destroy credibility.