THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GAVINO PLACIDO, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Placido

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Gavino Placido, Jr., a criminal appeal from a conviction for selling marijuana in a buy-bust operation in Pateros, Metro Manila, in May 1988. The trial court found Placido guilty of violating Section 4 of Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos. Placido asks the Supreme Court to reverse, attacking the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and claiming the marijuana was planted. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact illustration of how the Court treats minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony, how it weighs the presumption of innocence against the evidence in a legitimate entrapment, and how it reviews the factual findings of the trial court.

Procedural History

Placido was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. After trial, that court, through Judge Manuel A. Patron, rendered its decision on November 22, 1988, convicting Placido of violating Section 4 of Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos. Placido appealed to the Supreme Court, which decided the case on July 18, 1991. The appeal was dismissed and the challenged judgment affirmed, with costs against the accused-appellant.

Facts

About a week before May 29, 1988, Patrolman Eduardo Reyes received a tip from a concerned citizen that certain persons, including a man with a limp, were selling marijuana at Sulit Street, Barangay Aguho, Pateros. He reported the matter to Lieutenant Romeo de Castro, who planned a buy-bust operation with a team composed of Reyes, Patrolman V. Rivera, Patrolman Antonio de la Rosa, and Patrolman Armando de Villa. On May 27, 1988, Reyes contacted Gavino Placido, Jr., a polio victim with one leg shorter than the other, who agreed to sell marijuana to him on May 29, 1988, for 100 pesos. De Castro gave Reyes two 50-peso bills for the entrapment, and Reyes photocopied the bills and recorded their serial numbers.

At ten o'clock in the morning of May 29, 1988, Reyes met Placido again at M. Almeda Street, and Placido arranged another meeting at two o'clock that afternoon at the corner of E. Quiogue and Sulit Streets. The team proceeded to the designated place shortly after noon. Reyes stood on the street waiting, while the other policemen deployed themselves about ten to fifteen meters away and watched covertly. Placido arrived at about two o'clock and seated himself at a bench in front of a store. When Reyes approached, Placido stood up and walked to the side of the street. Reyes followed and gave the marked bills to Placido, who pocketed them. Placido then got a plastic bag attached to his right leg with rubber bands and concealed by his long denim pants.

When Placido handed the bag to him, Reyes identified himself as a police officer and detained Placido by his belt. Placido resisted and tried to escape but was subdued by the other team members who had closed in. Reyes retrieved the marked money, and the team took Placido to the police station. The plastic bag was delivered that same day to the PC Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Tita Advincula examined it. Her chemistry report showed that the bag contained 21.52 grams of marijuana, as revealed by microscopic, chemical, and thin-layer chromatographic examinations. Placido's defense was a flat denial. He claimed he was a helper in an ice cream factory who had gone to Sulit Street on his employer's orders to collect empty ice cream containers from a customer, and that he was arrested for no reason at all.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses despite the inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonies.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved that the marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was the same marijuana delivered by Placido, and not merely planted evidence.
• Whether or not the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of Placido was overcome by the evidence of his guilt.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, is the provision under which Placido was charged and convicted. The decision refers to it as the basis of the conviction for selling marijuana, and the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos was imposed under it. The decision does not quote its text.

The constitutional presumption of innocence is the provision the Court expressly weighs against the evidence. The decision states that the presumption was overcome by the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The decision does not quote its text.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the imperfections in the testimony of Reyes referred only to minor matters and did not detract from the essential veracity of his narration of the entrapment. The Court said that a witness is not expected to remember an incident with perfect recollection, down to the insignificant and littlest details. The inconsistencies related to the time Reyes first met Placido, the planning of the operation, and the place in the street where the sale was made, and the Court treated these as immaterial.

On the second issue, the Court held that it had been established that the plastic bag Reyes turned over to the PC Crime Laboratory on May 29, 1988, was the same plastic bag earlier delivered to him by Placido, and that it was found after examination the following day by Advincula to contain marijuana. The claim that the marijuana was planted therefore failed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of Placido had been overcome by the overwhelming evidence of his guilt as originally pronounced by the trial court. The Court sustained the factual findings of the trial court, being based on the evidence of record and not having been shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or bias. The Court also noted that Placido's long residence in Pateros did not necessarily mean he knew all the members of its police force, that Reyes himself had been working in the town for only the past two years, and that by Placido's own admission the arresting policemen had no personal quarrel with him and so had no improper motive in filing the charge. The testimony of Pablo Chavez that he had sent Placido on an errand added nothing to the defense, as it did not disprove what Placido was actually doing on Sulit Street at the time of his arrest.

Doctrine

A witness is not expected to remember an incident with perfect recollection, down to the insignificant and littlest details. Minor inconsistencies in the testimony of a prosecution witness do not destroy credibility where they do not touch the essential elements of the offense.

In a buy-bust operation, the identity of the seized prohibited drug must be established by an unbroken chain of custody from the accused to the forensic chemist. Where the evidence shows that the very bag delivered by the accused was the same bag examined and found to contain marijuana, the claim of planting fails.

The constitutional presumption of innocence is overcome by overwhelming evidence of guilt. The factual findings of the trial court, based on the evidence of record and not shown to be tainted with arbitrariness or bias, are sustained on appeal.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed and the challenged judgment affirmed, with costs against the accused-appellant, so Placido stands convicted of violating Section 4 of Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a witness is not expected to remember an incident with perfect recollection, down to the insignificant and littlest details. Examiners use this case to test the treatment of minor inconsistencies in prosecution testimony and the sufficiency of the chain of custody in buy-bust operations.