G.R. No. 85176. October 21, 1991
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DENNIS MENDOZA Y TANOPO AND RHODORA TANOPO Y CRUZ, ACCUSED, DENNIS MENDOZA Y TANOPO, APPELLANT.
PADILLA, J.:
The spouses Dennis Mendoza and Rhodora Tanopo were charged for
violation of Section 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. In the
Information filed by the Assistant City Fiscal of Dagupan City, it was alleged:
“That on or about the 12th day of November, 1987, in the City
of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused DENNIS MENDOZA y TANOPO and RHODORA
TANOPO y CRUZ, confederating together, acting jointly and helping each other,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, sell and deliver dried
‘marijuana’ leaves or Indian hemp contained in a plastic bag weighing more or less 100 grams to a customer,
without authority to do so.
Contrary to Sec. 4, R.A. 6425, as amended.
Dagupan City, Philippines, November 13,
1987.”[1]
Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. In the ensuing trial, the prosecution
presented the following witnesses: Cpl.
Danilo Manalastas, Ms. Marita Bien and Pfc. Ismael Camacho. On the other hand, the defense relied on the
testimonies of the two (2) accused and one Luzviminda Ferreria.
Summarizing the People’s case, the court a quo
stated as follows:
“x x x through the testimony of Cpl. Danilo Manalastas, a
member of the Narcotics Command, that on November 12, 1987 at around 10:00
o’clock in the morning, while Cpl. Danilo Manalastas, Pat. Manaois and Peralta
were inside the investigation room at the Dagupan City Police Station, a
civilian informant went to their office and reported that one Dennis is engaged
in selling marijuana. Upon receiving
the information they immediately planned an entrapment operation against one
Dennis. He (Manalastas) was designated
as customer/buyer and his two companions as the back-up team. From the Dagupan City Police Station they
went to Galvan Street. When they
arrived at Galvan Street Pat. Manaois and Pat. Peralta strategically positioned
themselves. The informant pinpointed to
him a man walking along a dike together with a woman companion. They approached the two and the civilian
introduced him to Dennis as buyer of marijuana. He (Manalastas) told Dennis that he wanted to buy marijuana. Dennis told him that one line of marijuana
cost P100.00, and after that both agreed as to the price fixed by Dennis. At this juncture, Dennis asked that he
should be paid the amount of P100.00, as he handed the P100.00 bill to alias
Dennis. In turn, Dennis told him that
the mariÂjuana is in the possession of his woman companion. The latter gave him (Manalastas) the blue
lady’s skirt. Cpl. Manalastas opened it
and after confirming that (sic) was contained inside the plastic bag was
marijuana, he gave a prearranged signal to his companions by removing his
sunglasses to the effect that the object was marijuana and the sale was
consummated. At that moment, the
back-up team rushed and closed in and simultaneously identified themselves as
Narcom agents and effected the arrest of alias Dennis. (2-13 tsn January 14, 1988) Dennis Mendoza
resisted arrest and simultaneously boxed Pat. Manaois. However, he finally (Manalastas) arrested
Dennis Mendoza and Pat. Manaois retrieved the P100.00 bill and got one stick of
marijuana from the pocket of Dennis Mendoza. He (ManaÂlastas) did not recover anything from the woman accused. (6-7 tsn January 15, 1988)
x x x
“Pfc. Ismael Camacho testified that the incident on November
12, 1987 was entered in the Police Blotter. Entry Number 0417 states:
‘1410H Combined elements of First Narcotics
Region I Command and this Station composed of P/Cpl Danilo Manalastas, Pat
Maximiniano Peralta and Pat Artemio Manaois Jr have apprehended the husband and
wife Dennis Mendoza y Tanopo, 26 yrs old, gasoline boy, and Rhodora Tanopo y
Cruz, 22 yrs old, residents of #99-A Zamora St. this city following a buy/bust
operation at around 12:30 this afternoon at the eastern side of Galvan St near
dike. Confiscated from them were a
plastic filled with dried marijuana leaves weighing one hundred (100) grams
placed in a plastic bag wrapped with a blue ladies skirt and one (1) stick of
marijuana found in the back pocket of Dennis Mendoza who reportedly resister
(sic) after said peace officers identified themselves. The operation was conducted with Cpl.
Manalastas with decoy/buyer for the one hundred grams of dried marijuana priced
at one hundred pesos (P100.00). The
marked one hundred peso bill with SH MT 105547 was received by Dennis Mendoza
as the item was given by Rhodora Tanopo to Cpl. Manalastas.
Re: Appropriate charges to
be filed.
(SGD) PFC CAMACHO’
“Marieta Bien, Forensic Chemist of the NBI Sub-office, Baguio
City, testified that xxx xxx she conducted a laboratory examination on the
specimen submitted to her for analysis, and in this connection, she prepared a
report marked as Exhibit C. (2-9 tsn
February 4, 1988)
“The Dangerous Drugs (Marihuana) Report No. DDM-87-50 (BAGSO)
is quoted as follows:
x x x
SPECIMEN: 1. Dried
flowering tops suspected to be marihuana contained in a transÂparent plastic
bag; and
2. One (1) stick of handrolled cigarette with
markings suspected to be marihuana, altogether wrapped in a light blue ladies
skirt, further contained in a white plastic bag with markings.
x x x
Purpose of the laboratory examination:
To determine whether or not
the specimens submitted are marihuana
FINDINGS:
Weight of specimen 1 = 41.7688 grams
2 = 0.5305 gram
Microscopic, chemical
and chromatographic examinations made on the above-mentioned specimens gave
POSITIVE RESULTS for MARIHUANA. xxx xxx
xxx
x x x”[2]
Disputing the prosecution’s allegations, the version of the
defense as to the circumstances leading to the arrest of the appellant is
synthesized by the trial court, thus:
“Rhodora Tanopo testified that xxx xxx (on) November 12, 1987
at about 12:00 o’clock noon, she was at home washing dishes because they had
just finished eating their lunch together with her husband and other persons
like Remedios Tanopo, her elder sister. After eating her lunch her husband Dennis Mendoza left for his work
carrying with him rags which he would use in
handling the hose of a gasoline pump. At about 12:00 o’clock noon somebody informed her that her husband had
been arrested and mauled. She
immediately went to the City Hall where she saw her husband Dennis
Mendoza. His clothes were torn and his
lips were injured. While at the City
Hall, a policeman asked her what was her relationship with Dennis Mendoza to
which she answered that Dennis Mendoza is her husband. After telling the policeman that she is the
wife of Dennis Mendoza, she was brought inside the jail and detained together
with her husband. She was detained
there since November 12, 1987 up to the present. On March 26, 1988, she gave birth to a child named Angelica
Mendoza inside the jail, the place where she takes care of her child up to the present. (2-7 tsn June 23, 1988)
“Dennis Mendoza testified that she (sic) is 28 years old,
married, a gasoline boy and
resident of Rivera Street, Dagupan City. He is married to Rhodora Tanopo. He works in a gasoline station located at Perez Boulevard which gasoline
station is owned by Eddie Biagtan. xxx
xxx On November 12, 1987 at 11:30 in the morning, he was already at home at
Rivera Street. Upon his arrival
thereat, he took his lunch together with his wife, sister-in-law Remy and
Mercy, the wife of his brother-in-law. After eating his lunch, he went back to his place of work. xxx xxx While going back to work, he was
bringing and carrying with him a bag containing some rags, a face towel which
he would use in holding the gasoline hose. Aside from this bag containing rags, he was not carrying other
things. While he was walking, coming
from the opposite direction, two (2) men who were also walking suddenly threw
an object to (sic) him which he
instinctively caught. Immediately
thereafter, somebody held him, saying that he is the owner of that object which
was thrown to (sic) him and which he
caught, and that they wanted to bring him along with them. He told them that he has no knowledge about
their claim or their allegations. At
this moment, somebody suddenly ripped his clothes and then someone boxed him,
hitting him on his lips. Thereafter, he
was brought to the Police Station, then to the investigation room where
he was tortured by their insistent claim that he is the owner of that object
which they claimed to be marijuana. He,
however, told them that he has no knowledge. Despite this denial, still they insisted that he is the owner of that
alleged object which they claimed to be marijuana. Besides, they wanted him to sign something which he refused. So, they opened the investigation room where
he took a seat near the door. Few minutes thereafter, his wife
arrived and asked him what had happened. But before he could answer his wife the Narcom agents arrived and told
her to sign also. His wife refused to
sign and there were some discussions. Before the discussions were over, his wife was no longer allowed to go out. xxx xxx
“Luzviminda Ferreria
declared that she xxx xxx remembers the date November 12, 1987 because that was
the time when her brother-in-law Dennis Mendoza was arrested. She came to know of the arrest when somebody
went to their house and informed them of the arrest. The report was made to Ate Roda or Rhodora Tanopo. She, however, cannot tell definitely
what time was it when the report was made, but definitely it was just after
they finished eating their lunch together with Ate Remy, Ate Roda, Kuya Dennis
and herself. When her husband returned
home to take his lunch, she related to him the incident about the arrest of Dennis. After her husband was informed about the arrest of Dennis, he followed
Dennis Mendoza and Rhodora Tanopo as (sic) the City Hall.” (2-6 tsn July
14, 1988)[3]
On 4 August 1988, the trial court rendered its decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, finding accused Dennis Mendoza guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act Number 6425, as
amended, and pursuant to law hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua (Life ImprisonÂment) and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, and to pay the costs.
“Accused Rhodora Tanopo is acquitted of the crime charged with
costs de oficio. The City
Jail Warden is ordered to immediately release said accused unless she is
detained for some lawful cause.
“Pursuant to Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, the dried flowering tops contained in a transparent plastic bag and
one (1) stick of handrolled cigarette altogether wrapped in a blue ladies skirt
are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government. The Clerk of Court of this Court is ordered
to turn over the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposal without
delay.”[4]
Hence, this appeal by Dennis Mendoza which prays for a reversal
of the judgment of conviction for alleged failure of the prosecution to prove
the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Once more, this Court is faced
with issues relating to traffic in prohibited drugs which, as current events
clearly attest, continues to be a menace to society because of its pernicious
effects upon the “users” and in many instances, upon the victims of
such users. Courts should not relent in
their task to ferret out those who transgress the law and thus assist in stamping out this ruthless network
of “users” and “pushers” of prohibited drugs.
At the same time, courts have to be equally vigilant that in the
zeal and haste to accomplish the purposes adverted to above, the accused be not
deprived of all the rights granted him by the laws, most important of which is
the constitutional presumption of innocence which can only be overturned should
the evidence against him establish his culpability beyond reasonable
doubt. The question posed before the
Court in the present case is whether or not the evidence against the appellant
fulfills the test of moral certainty sufficient to warrant an affirmance of the
trial court’s judgment of conviction.
The settled rule is that the trial court’s findings of fact are
entitled to substantial weight on appeal, as they were arrived at with
opportunity of discerning whether or not the witnesses were telling the truth,
by observing their deportment and manner of testifying on the witness
stand. However, the rule does not apply
where the trial court overlooked certain facts of substance and value which,
when considered, affect the result of the case. Another recognized rule is that the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses who are law enforcers are given credence for it is presumed that they
regularly perform their duty, in the absence of convincing proof to the
contrary.[5]
From a careful perusal of the proceedings a quo,
this Court is constrained to set aside the lower court’s findings, and we
reverse its judgment of conviction of the appellant.
The prosecution, in the Information, alleged that the appellant
and his spouse Rhodora Tanopo engaged in the “pushing” of marijuana. Further, it would seem that Rhodora Tanopo
played an essential role in the entire incident in question. As attested by the testimony of the police
witness, Cpl. Danilo Manalastas, Rhodora Tanopo (appellant’s wife) was said to
have personally given the prohibited drug, contained in a plastic bag and
wrapped in a blue lady’s skirt, to Cpl. Manalastas, who had posed as a buyer. Thus –
“FISCAL CASTILLO:
Q After you have handed the P100.00 bill to
Dennis as payment of one line of marijuana, what happened next?
A He told me that the marijuana is in
the possession of his woman companion, sir.
Q After
that, what come (sic) next?
A A woman companion gave me the blue lady’s skirt which
contained the plastic bag of marijuana, sir.
x x x”[6]
Q You
mentioned a while ago a certain woman companion of alias Dennis and that she
was the one who handed to you the blue lady’s skirt which contained marijuana,
can you identify her if she is also inside the courtroom?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please
look around and point at that woman.
A She is beside Dennis, sir. (Witness pointing to a woman who, when asked
her name, identified herself as Rhodora Tanopo).
x x x”[7]
“FISCAL RESULTAN:
Q The
last time that you have testified you stated that you were able to confiscate
dried marijuana contained in plastic bag and a hand-rolled cigarette from the
accused, can you identify those articles if shown to you again?
A Yes,
sir.
Q I
am showing to you Exhibit ‘E-3’ which is a transparent plastic bag which contained marijuana, kindly
examine the same and tell the Honorable Court if it has at all any relation to
the marijuana which according to your testimony the last time you have bought
from the accused for P100.00?
A This
is the one, sir.
Q Who
among the two accused gave you Exhibit ‘E-3’?
A The
woman companion of the suspect, sir.
Q Will
you kindly stand up and identify the accused who handed to you this Exhibit
‘E-3’?
A That
woman, sir. (Witness pointing to a
woman, who, when asked his (sic) name by the Court Interpreter, identified
herself as Rhodora Tanopo).
x x x”[8]
Despite the positive evidence against Rhodora Tanopo, the trial
court acquitted her, saying that:
“x x x, after an objective and careful scrutiny of the
prosecution’s evidence, believes the evidence against her would not suffice to
sustain a conviction. The prosecution
wanted this court to believe that Rhodora Tanopo managed to escape during the
commotion. xxx xxx The prosecution’s
line xxx xxx is unbelievable. Further, there
is no clear showing, for there is none, that the Narcom agents recovered the
marijuana in question from Rhodora Tanopo. In fact, they did not recover any money from the woman accused. Furthermore, the testimony of Cpl. Danilo
Manalastas that the woman accused was arrested inside the office of the Police
Department (15 tsn January 15, 1988) does not, and cannot, inspire belief. Any human being who has committed a crime
will not step in the Police Department except to surrender. Rhodora Tanopo was at their house washing
dishes about 12:00 o’clock noon when she was informed that her husband was
arrested. That was the reason why
she immediately went to City Hall. xxx
xxx She was arrested and detained right at that moment. The testimony of Rhodora Tanopo relative on
this point was not rebutted. The
prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”[9]
(Underscoring supplied)
Certainly favorable to the appellant’s case is the express
finding by the trial court that his spouse Rhodora, contrary to what is alleged
in the Information and the prosecution’s evidence, was never at the scene of
the alleged crime. And yet, the
implications of such finding seem to have escaped the trial court. In effect, such finding renders inconsistent
the prosecution evidence. Since Rhodora
was, all the while, at home, and could not possibly have handed over the
marijuana to the police officer (Manalastas), then the prosecution’s entire
version of the controverted circumstances is laid open to doubt. Appellant’s guilt has likewise not been
satisfactorily established.
The appellant, in the meanwhile, pleads that he was merely the
victim of a frame-up. In cases
involving persons accused of being drug-pushers or sellers, almost always, the
defense is that the accused was framed by the appreÂhending police officers.[10]
Such defense must always be viewed with extreme caution as it is one so easy to
concoct. Yet, while the theory of the
defense may not be totally convincing, the Court cannot tilt the scales of
justice against the appellant in the face of the cardinal and well-entrenched
rule that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not
on the weakness of that of the defense.[11]
This Court, however, does not rely only upon Rhodora’s acquittal
as sole basis for finding reasonable doubt in the guilt of the appellant. There is also the matter of the one hundred
peso (P100.00) bill that was allegedly used to obtain the marijuana from the
appellant. As declared by the
prosecution witness, Cpl. Manalastas,
“A. I handed the
P100.00 bill to alias Dennis, sir.”[12]
There being a categorical declaration of a transfer of money
(paper bill), then that bill is a material item of evidence to prove, not that
a sale or delivery had taken place, but that there was indeed a
“transactional relationship” between the police witness and the
appellant (who was immediately apprehended after the “transaction”). The absence of this vital piece of evidence
again must be construed in favor
of the appellant.
The Court is not unaware of the ruling in People vs. Tejada[13]
where it was stated that “so long as the marijuana actually given by the
appellant was presented before the lower court, the absence of the marked money
does not create a hiatus in the
prosecution evidence and does not destroy the prosecution’s identification of
the appellant as the offender.”
However, there is one material factual difference between Tejada and the case at bar. In
Tejada, the absence of evidence of the
marked money arose from the fact that the other law officers arrived before the appellant could get the money.[14] Therefore, such money never came into
play and presenting the marked bills would have served no evidentiary
value. In the present case, the
appellant was alleged to have received the money and was immediately
apprehended thereafter. In fact, Pat.
Manaois is supposed to have retrieved the P100 bill from appellant.
And where is that money (the P100 bill) now? According to a prosecution witness, he lost
it while on an intelliÂgence mission to Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan.[15]
This Court cannot help but wonder why such an essential piece of evidence was
not in the possession of the proper custodial officer but instead was so
cursorily placed in one’s wallet to be later conveniently lost!
The foregoing circumstances bring to the fore the possible abuses
wrought by entrapment or “buy-bust” operations of law enforcement
officers. As we observed in People vs. Ale,[16] “we cannot close our eyes to the
many reports of evidence being planted on unwary persons, either for extorting
money or exacting personal vengeance. By the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment
procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which
sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of
unsuspecting provincial hicks and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug
deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Courts must also be extra vigilant in trying drug charges lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the usually severe penalties for drug
offenses.”
In this connection, this
Court finds an item of evidence, “Exhibit 1” presented by the
appellant in the proceedings a quo to be of disturbing concern, to say
the least. Exhibit 1 is a copy of a
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City (Branch 5) in People of
the Philippines vs. Nelson Humilde, where the accused therein was charged
also for violation of the anti-drug statute. In acquitting Humilde, the trial court took note of the questionable
actuations of one Pat. Maximiano Peralta, who as a witness
for the prosecution, “demonstrated his temerity for concealing and
twisting facts for his purposes.” It is relevant to note that said Pat.
Maximiano Peralta is the very same Pat. Peralta in the present case
who was involved in the “buy-bust” operation together with the witness
for the prosecution, Cpl. Manalastas. Considering the apparent implications, it would appear not unlikely that
the circumstances of the arrest of appellant may have been embellished in favor
of the prosecution, as earlier determined by the trial court when it acquitted
Rhodora Tanopo (appellant’s spouse).
This case may be taken by law enforcement officers as a setback
in the government’s drive against traffic in prohibited drugs, for after all,
law enforcers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. Yet, this presumption cannot, by itself,
prevail over the constiÂtutional presumption of innocence of the accused.[17]
WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is REVERSED, and on
reasonable doubt, the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
SO ORDERED.
Paras and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), on
leave.
[1]
Rollo, p. 5
[2]
Rollo, pp. 18-21
[3]
Rollo, p. 21-23
[4]
Rollo, pp. 25-26
[5]
People v. Romarosa, G.R. No. 81768, 7 August 1991
[6]
TSN, 14 January 1988, pp. 11-12
[7]
TSN, 14 January 1988, pp. 13-14
[8]
TSN, 4 February 1988, pp. 63-64
[9]
Rollo, p. 25
[10]
People vs. Macuto, G.R. No. 80112, 25 August 1989, 176 SCRA 762
[11]
People vs. Olaes, G.R. No. 76547, 30 July 1990, 188 SCRA 91
[12]
TSN, 14 January 1988, p. 11
[13]
G.R. No. 81520, 21 February 1989, 170 SCRA 497
[14]
Ibid, p. 504
[15]
TSN, 15 January 1988, p. 25
[16]
G.R. No. 70998, 14 October 1986, 145 SCRA 50
[17]
People vs. Canido, G.R. No. L-32242, 18 November 1988, 167 SCRA 462