G.R. No. 86656. October 31, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. APOLLO MARIANO Y DING-DING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
The campaign against drug trafficking more than other law enforcement concerns deserves the
priority consideration of Government.
Subject to constitutional constraints contained in the Bill of Rights,
we are duty-bound to lend our full support to the save-a-user-jail-the-pusher
drive currently enforced by narcotic agents.
Resolving the instant appeal, we affirm the judgment of conviction
rendered by the Regional Trial Court,
Third Judicial Region, Branch 10, Malolos, Bulacan as there are no such
constraints warranting a reversal. The
facts call for an affirmance.
The accused-appeIlant was charged with
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act in an information dated August 19,
1986, committed as
follows:
“That on or about the 4th day of June, 1986, in the
municipality of Meycauayan, province of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the said accused Apollo Mariano y Ding-Ding, together with one Marcos de Leon alias “Bebe“, without authority of law, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver,
dispatch in transit and transport one (1) tea bag of dried marijuana flowering
tops, which is prohibited drugs. (Rollo, p. 4)
After trial, following a plea of not guilty entered upon arraignment,
the lower court on November 29, 1988, adjudged the accused-appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as
charged. The pertinent portion of the decision reads:
“Considering, therefore, that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto in a
‘buy-bust’ operation, conducted by law enforcers for the purpose of
apprehending drug traffickers or pushers in Meycauayan,
Bulacan and was positively identified; coupled with
the fact that accused was previously charged and found guilty for violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, a judgment of conviction for the accused in this case
is warranted.
WHEREFORE, finding the accused, APOLLO MARIANO Y
DINGING, alias ‘Bodie‘ guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violating Section 4, Art. II of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
as amended), the Court hereby sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of
P20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with all the accessory penalties provided by
law, and to pay the costs.” (Rollo. p. 22)
The antecedent facts are succinctly summarized by the Solicitor General in his brief, as
follows:
“On June 4, 1986, the Mobile Team stationed at Meycauayan, Bulacan received an information from a Confidential
Informant (CI) that there was rampant drug trafficking in the vicinity of Gasak, Meycauayan, Bulacan (tsn, pp. 1 & 2, June
11, 1987).
After evaluating the information, a buy-bust operation team was
organized headed by Team Leader S/Sgt. Pablito Reyno (tsn, p. 2,
June 11, 1987; tsn, p. 3, September
7, 1987).
Agent Crispin Velarde, an agent of EIIB,
was assigned to act as a
poseur-buyer and was given a marked P10.00 bill (Exhibit “A”; tsn, pp. 2 & 3, June 11, 1987; tsn,
pp. 2 & 3, September 7,
1987).
At around 4:15 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust
operation team proceeded to Gasak, Meycauayan, Bulacan and positioned themselves where they could actually
see the transaction (tsn, pp. 3 & 4, June
11, 1987).
Agent Velarde standing about 30 to 50
meters away from the Meycauayan Church was approached
by the appellant together with his companion and asked if he would like to buy
(‘kung iiskor’, in the local language of the addicts)
and he replied positively (‘oo, iiskor
kami‘) (tsn, pp. 3 & 4, September 7, 1987).
Thereat, appellant handed to Agent Velarde
one (1) plastic tea bag containing marijuana in exchange of a marked P10.00
bill (tsn, p. 4, September 7, 1987).
Thereafter, Agent Velarde gave the pre-arranged
signal to effect the arrest of the appellant and his companion (tsn, p. 4, June
11, 1987; tsn, p. 4, September 7, 1987).
Immediately, the buy-bust operation team effected
the arrest of the appellant and was able to confiscate from him the marked P10.00 bill. The plastic tea bag containing marijuana
handed by appellant to Agent Velarde was taken by the
team from the latter. Appellant’s
companion, however, was able to elude the arrest by running towards a small
pathway (‘eskinita’) where only one person can pass through (tsn,
pp. 4 & 5, June 11, 1987; tsn, pp. 4 & 5,
September 7, 1987).
Later, the team proceeded to the Municipal Police Station of Meycauayan, Bulacan to enter the
incident in the blotter (tsn, pp. 4 & 5, September 7, 1987).
The team returned to its headquarters in Bulacan
and placed the appellant under arrest (tsn, p. 7, June 11, 1987).
The seized one (1) plastic tea bag of marijuana was forwarded to
the PC Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas, Pampanga for examination (Exhibit ‘B’; tsn, pp. 5 & 6, June 11, 1987; tsn,
p. 2, October 5, 1987) and which yielded positive result for marijuana (Exhibit
‘C’; tsn, pp. 3
& 4, October 5, 1987).”
(Appellee’s Brief, pp. 4-7)
The accused-appellant, in his effort to exonerate himself,
testified that:
“xxx [O]n June 1, 1986 at around 3:00 p.m. he was at Gasak, Meycauayan, Bulacan at their house specifically near the
stairway. He was then fetching water
when all of a sudden Sgts. Reyno
and Bazar appeared and handcuffed him. He was brought to a ricefield
and they forced him to point a certain person whom he does not know. Sgts. Reyno and Bazar want him to point
to a certain person named Marcos de Leon who
is unknown to him. When he was
not able to make the day of the two aforementioned nice and friendly sergeants
he was brought to the residence of the barangay
captain of Bangkal, Meycauayan,
Bulacan. The name of the barangay
captain of Bangkal is unknown to him because he is a
resident of Gasak, Meycauayan,
Bulacan which is different and a distant barangay.
While inside the house of the said
barangay captain he was mauled and forced to
admit the possession of one tea bag of marijuana. From 3:00
to 7:00 p.m. of the said date, June 1, 1986, accused-appellant
together with the two military officers stayed at the residence of barangay captain of BangkaI. At around 7:00
p.m. he was brought to the Meycauayan
Municipal Jail where he was detained for four (4) days. While at the Meycauayan Municipal Jail
he was forced to make a statement.
The said statement was signed by the accused-appellant at Camp
Olivas
but the same was not presented in court by the prosecution. After being detained illegally at Meycauayan Municipal Jail for four (4) days he was brought to Camp
Olivas. At the said camp, he was again placed behind
bars up to September 19, 1986. Thereafter, he was brought again to the Meycauayan Municipal Jail.
The arrest or kidnapping on June 1, 1986 was done by two military
officers with no one witnessing the incident.” (Rollo,
pp. 39-40)
Maintaining his position that he is innocent of the crime imputed
to him, the accused-appellant in this appeal presents the following assignment
of errors, to wit:
I
“THE LOWER
COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT, CREDENCE
AND PROBATIVE VALUE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF SGT. RUBEN BAZAR AND AGENT CRISPIN
VELARDE”. (Rollo,
p. 41)
II
“THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE SET FORTH BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AND GIVING WEIGHT
TO THE PREVIOUS VIOLATION OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF R.A. 6425”. (Rollo, p. 47)
III
“THE LOWER
COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION AND IMPOSING UPON HIM
THE PENALTY IN THE DECISION APPEALED FROM.” (Rollo,
p. 48)
All the assigned errors are anchored on the issue of whether or
not the trial court committed reversible error in appreciating and assessing the credibility of the witnesses
who appeared and made their declarations in open court.
For the prosecution, the
following witnesses were presented: (1)
Staff Sergeant Ruben Bazar of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines assigned to the NARCOM Regional Unit, Mobile Team stationed at Meycauayan, Bulacan who testified
that he was one of the members of the seven-man
“buy-bust” operation team which was organized immediately after he
received confidential information on June 4, 1986 relating to drug-trafficking
in Gasak, Meycauayan; (2)
Agent Crispin A. Velarde, intelligence agent of the
Economic Intelligence Investigation Bureau assigned to the Narcotics Command in Malolos, Bulacan who acted as poseur-buyer in the
“buy-bust” operation aforestated; (3) Capt.
Marlene Salangad, forensic chemist at the PC Crime
Laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga who conducted physical, chemical and confirmatory
tests on the contents of a sealed plastic tea bag which yielded positive results for marijuana.
For the defense, there
were also three witnesses, namely: (1) Accused-appellant himself who insisted
that he was framed-up by Staff Sergeants Pablito Reyno and Ruben Bazar after he
failed to direct them to the person whom they forced him to point to; (2)
Corporal Antonio Yap Tinchay, member of the INP, Meycauayan, Bulacan assigned as
jail warden at the Meycauayan Police Station who
testified that the jail blotter for June 1986 was destroyed by flood (so that
there were no records of the alleged detention of the accused-appellant for a
previous offense at the time of the crime under consideration) and that when a person
is brought to the police station for the purpose of safekeeping
only as what probably might have happened to the accused-appellant, such fact is not reflected in the records; and (3) Sergeant Ruben Bazar as an adverse witness whose testimony failed to
strengthen the defenses of the accused-appellant.
The quantum of evidence necessary
to convict the accused-appellant is established by the prosecution. The accused-appellant’s commission of the crime charged is readily
manifest from the evidence on record.
Agent Crispin Velarde, the prosecution witness
who acted as poseur-buyer categorically
pinpointed the accused-appellant as the author of the crime of selling one
small plastic bag of marijuana for P10.00.
When asked to testify on what transpired on June 4, 1986, he gave the following statement:
xxx xxx xxx
“FISCAL:
You mentioned the name
Apollo Mariano, why do you him? (sic)
A. He
was the one who was arrested during the
buy-bust operation in Meycauayan, sir.
Q. Do
you have any participation in this buy-bust operation that was conducted in Meycauayan?
A. Yes,
sir,
Q. What
was your participation in that buy-bust operation?
A. I
was the one who acted as a poseur-buyer.
xx xxx xxx
Q. Who
are your companions?
A. S/Sgt.
Reyno, Ruben Bazar,
Agent Orquia, Pat.
Villaluz
and concerned citizens of Meycauayan.
Q. Were
you able to reach Meycauayan, Bulacan?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And
upon reaching Meycauayan,
Bulacan, what did you do?
A. We
arrived at Meycauayan
Church then I was instructed by the
team leader then he gave P10.00 marked money.
Q. Who
is that team leader?
A. S/Sgt.
Reyno, sir.
Q. And
do you know what is the purpose
of this marked money?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What
is the purpose of this marked money?
A. To
be used in purchasing one tea-bag of marijuana fruiting tops.
Q. After
Reyno gave you this P10.00 marked money what happened
next?
A. We
proceeded to the area together with my confidential
informer.
Q. Were
you able to reach this area together with your confidential informer?
A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Now,
when you were at the area that
(sic) you proceeded what happened
next?
A. Two
males approached us, sir.
Q. After
these males approached you what happened next?
A. They
asked if we are going to buy (kung iiskor
daw kami).
Q. Will
you please explain the meaning of ‘iiskor‘?
A. Meaning
to buy.
Q. What
was your reply?
A. I
replied yes (Oo iiskor kami).
Q. After
you replied what happened next?
A. Apollo
Mariano handed to me one small
plastic bag containing marijuana.
Q. And
after Apollo Mariano handed to you that plastic bag of marijuana what did you
do?
A. I
gave the P10.00 marked money to Apollo Mariano.
Q. You
mentioned that there are two males who approached you,
do you know the identity of the other male aside from Apollo Mariano?
A. I
know him only as ‘alias’ BEBE.
Q. After
you handed to him that P10.00 marked money what happened?
A. I
immediately gave the pre-arranged signal, sir.
Q. To
whom did you address that pre-arranged signal?
A. To
my team members, sir.
Q. And
what is this signal or what is the purpose of this signal?
A. If
the transaction is positive, sir.
Q. And
what is the signal that you gave
to your team members?
A. I
threw a lighted cigarette.
Q. And
after you have drawn this signal what happened next?
A. My
back-up team members came and introduced themselves as NARCOMS.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. You mentioned that your team members
introduced themselves and after that they have introduced themselves what
happened next?
A. They immediately took Apollo Mariano and
arrested him and proceeded to the Municipal Police Department of Meycauayan to make the necessary blotter.
Q. Now, you
mentioned that Apollo Mariano was arrested and do you know what happened to alias ‘BEBE’?
A. He eluded arrest.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Now, if that Apollo Mariano is in court can
you point to him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you look around and tell us if you can
point to Apollo Mariano?
A. He is the one, sir. (witness pointing to
accused who was already identified).
Q. Is this
Apollo Mariano the same Apollo Mariano who handed to you the plastic
tea-bag?
A. Yes, sir. (TSN,
September 7, 1987, pp. 2-6)
We are aware of the
fact that the use of poseur-buyers by narcotic agents as
a means of apprehending prohibited drug violators is susceptible to abuse (People v. Juan dela Cruz y Gonzales, G.R.
No. 83260, April 18, 1990 citing People v. Fernando, 145 SCRA 151 [1986]). However, in the case at bar, there is
convincing proof that such abuse is not present. The testimony of the poseur-buyer is
corroborated by another prosecution witness who took part in the “buy-bust“ operation that led to the entrapment of the
accused-appellant. The pertinent portion
of Staff Sergeant Bazar’s testimony reads:
xxx xxx xxx
“Q. What is your tour of duty on June 4, 1986?
A. 24 hours, sir.
Q.
And did you report for work on June 4, 1986?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On June
4, 1986, where were you at that time?
A. At the office of Mobile
team, Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Q. And while in your office at Meycauayan, what happened?
A. We received from one of our CI
(confidential informant) on June 4, 1986 about 2:00 to 3:00 information that drug trafficking in Gasak, Meycauayan, Bulacan is rampant.
Q. Upon receiving that information, what did you do?
A. We then evaluated the information given us
and found that alias Bodie and Bibe
are one of the drug traffickers in that area.
Q. Will you kindly tell us the name of your CI?
A. I cannot for security purposes.
Q. Now, what did you do after that?
A. After evaluating the information, we
planned the buy-bust operation to effect the
apprehension and arrest of the marijuana pushers.
Q. Do you have any companion?
A. Yes, S/Sgt. Pablito
Reyno.
Q. You mentioned that you were able to effect
the buy-bust operation, what did
you do?
A. At about 4:15
in the afternoon of June 4, 1986, we then
planned the buy-bust operation and one of our members in the team who acted as
pusher-buyer was handed by Sgt. Reyno P10.00 marked
money bill.
xxx xxx xxx
Q. Now, when one of your companions posed as
buyer, what happened next?
A. We proceeded to the place of transaction as reported by our CI.
Q. Were you able to reach that place?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What happened?
A. When we reached Gasak,
Meycauayan, with one of our companions who acted as
buyer with the P10.00 bill and together with our CI, we then proceeded to the place of transaction and we asked for back-up team. We placed ourselves in certain position in
such a way that we could actually see the transaction.
Q. You mentioned that one of your companions
posed as buyer, tell us the name of your companion?
A. Agent Crispin Velarde.
Q. When you have deployed yourselves to see the
transaction, what happened next?
A. When we were in the place of transaction
the CI with Agent Velarde proceeded to the place of
transaction. We saw a man, malefactor approached the
CI and poseur-buyer.
Q. What happened after this man approached your CI and buyer?
A. Later, we saw the malefactor handed
something that we presumed to be marijuana and we likewise saw when agent Velarde handed the P10.00 to the malefactor.
Q. Tell us
how far were you when this transaction was going on?
A. 10 to 15 meters.
Q. And if you will see that malefactor again,
will you be able to identify him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Look around if he is inside the courtroom?
A. Witness pointed to Apollo Mariano.
Q. After the exchange of that item with the
P10.00 bill, what happened next?
A. There was this pre-arrangement signal. If the marijuana transaction is already
complete, he will give the signal and effect the
arrest of the person.
Q. And what is this signal?
A. Scratching the head of the poseur-buyer.
Q. Was the signal given by the poseur-buyer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And after the signal was given, what did you
do?
A. We rushed to the place and introduce
ourselves to said malefactor who identified himself as
Apollo Mariano alias _______.
Q. What did you do next?
A. We arrested said malefactor and we were
able to confiscate the P10.00 bill from his possession.” (TSN, June 11,
1987, pp. 2-5)
There is no doubt from the records that the accused-appellant in
this case was caught in the very
act of selling marijuana fruiting tops, a
prohibited drug in violation of section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The testimonies of the above prosecution
eyewitnesses are consistent and compatible on the material points considering that there is nothing in the record to show that the said
witnesses were actuated by improper motives to falsely testify contrary to the accused-appellant’s allegation.
(See People v. Alvino Anciano,
G.R. No. 88937, September 13, 1990; People v. Robert Camarao
y Laoyan, G.R. No. 78681, August 20, 1990;
People v. Cerelegia, 147 SCRA 538 [1987]). Moreover, the said
prosecution witnesses are both law enforcers, hence, presumed to have regularly
performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary. (People v. Regalado
Bati, G.R. No. 87429, August 27, 1990 citing People
v. Agapito, 154 SCRA 694 [1987]); People v. Moises Maspil, Jr., y Wayway, G.R. No. 85177, August 20, 1990 citing Rule 131,
sec. 5(m), Rules of Court; People v. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990;
People v. Yap and Mendoza, G.R. Nos.
87088-89; May 9, 1990).
The inconsistencies pointed out by the accused-appellant in the
testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses, namely, the disparities in the
pre-arranged signal (whether scratching the hand or throwing a lighted cigarette) and where the
“buy-bust” operation was planned and organized (whether in the office
of the Mobile Team in Meycauayan, Bulacan or in
Camp Olivas,
San Fernando, Pampanga) are, in our view, not substantial
enough to affect the veracity of
the prosecution evidence as to how the crime imputed to the accused-appellant was committed. (see People v. Daniel Mangusan y Butete, G.R. No. 77832, September
14, 1990; People v.
Leonardo Manalansan, G.R. Nos. 76369-70, September
14, 1990). As we have repeatedly held, minor
contradictions are to be expected but
must be disregarded if they do
not affect the basic credibility of the evidence as a whole. (People v. Leonardo Periodica,
Jr., G.R. No. 73006, September 29, 1989)
Moreover, in prosecutions for the offense of illegal sale of
marijuana, what is material is the proof that the selling transaction
transpired coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti
as evidence. We reiterate our ruling in the case of People v. Agayas
Vocente y Toydaan,
G.R. No. 80533, promulgated on July 30, 1990, citing People v. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762 [1989] that:
“The commission of the offense of illegal sale of marijuana
requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction whereby, as in this case, the accused handed over the tea bag of marijuana upon the
agreement with the poseur-buyer
to exchange it for money. xxx What is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the
appellant and that the contents were presented as evidence in court. Proof of the transaction suffices. The identity of the tea bag of marijuana
which constitutes the corpus delicti was established
before the court. xxx”
(on page 11)
This is another
occasion where the presumption of innocence
in favor of the prosecution is overcome by the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The defenses of
denial and alibi given by the accused-appellant in this case require stronger proofs
considering that at the time of the commission of the offense in question, the accused-appellant was under probation for the
previous violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. (TSN, November 12, 1987, p.
4; TSN, November 24, p. 2; TSN, August 18, 1988, pp.
8-9). The alleged manhandling by
the police officers who arrested the accused-appellant was not duly
substantiated. Hence, we find the
defenses used by the accused-appellant to assert his innocence both flimsy and
shallow. It is a time-honoured rule that as between the positive declarations of
the prosecution witnesses and the negative statements of the accused, the
former deserve more credence and weight.
(People v. Jonathan v. Adap, G.R. No. 66237,
September 12, 1990; People v. Cornelio Marilao y
Samson, G.R. No. 71681, September 5, 1989)
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the trial court correctly
found the accused-appellant guilty of the crime with which he is charged. However, for accuracy, the designation of the
penalty imposed upon the accused should be changed from reclusion perpetua, as ordered by the trial court, to life
imprisonment which is the penalty specifically provided for by law. (Art.
II, sec. 4, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended).
There is no adequate basis for tempering with mercy our resolve
to affirm the judgment appealed from as the accused-appellant prays in his
appeal considering that:
“Drug addiction
is one of the most pernicious evils that has ever
crept into our society. More often than
not it is the young who constitute the greater majority of the citizenry who
are the victims. It is of common
knowledge that drug addicts become useless if not dangerous members of society and in some instances turn up
to be among the living dead. This is the
reason why the courts and law enforcement agencies should continue in their
relentless campaign not merely to minimize but to totally eradicate the evil
before it is too late. And everyone must
be involved in this drive if we are to succeed.
The peddlers of drugs are actually agents of destruction. They deserve no less than the maximum
penalty. (People v. Policarpio, 158 SCRA 85 [1988]).
WHEREFORE, with the modification that the accused-appellant
is sentenced to life imprisonment, the judgment appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED with costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., (Chairman), and Bidin, J., concur.
Feliciano, J., on leave.