G.R. No. 92643. August 09, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEFINO DE LOS SANTOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
SARMIENTO, J.:
Josefino de los
Santos appeals the decision of the Regional Trial Court of the National Capital
Region, Branch 152 of Pasig, Metro Manila in Criminal
Case No. 714-D, convicting him of violation of Section 4, Art. II, of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act, and sentencing him to life imprisonment, plus a fine of
Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and to pay the costs.[1]
The evidence of the prosecution shows that having been informed
of rampant drug trafficking activities among the youth at the corner of Malvar and Bonifacio Streets in Marikina, Metro Manila, Patrolman Melanio
Valeroso, PFC Harrison Amanon,
and Sgt. Jimmy Navarro, all of the Anti-Narcotics Unit of Marikina,
organized a buy-bust operation which was implemented on July 22, 1988 at around 9:30 in the morning.
Patrolman Valeroso acted as a poseur-buyer
with a marked twenty-peso bill with Serial No. DR-185346 and with his initials
on it.[2]
The team proceeded to the named streets and there Patrolman Valeroso saw the suspect, the accused-appellant, wearing a
“HANG TEN” flesh-colored T-shirt, as earlier described by their
“asset” (informer). He
approached Josefino, told him, “iiskor ako,” meaning,
“I’d like to buy marijuana,”[3]
and gave him the marked twenty peso bill.
After two minutes, Josefino returned and
handed Patrolman Valeroso six (6) sticks of
cigarettes wrapped in a transparent plastic bag. Thereupon, Patrolman Valeroso
arrested Josefino, who instantly dropped the paper
bill and stepped on it. The officer held
Josefino by the arm; at the same time, identifying
himself as an agent of the law.
Josefino, trying to repulse the arrest,
broke loose from Patrolman Valeroso’s grip, and ran
into the crowded alley or “iskinita.” But
he was collared by Patrolman Valeroso’s companion.[4]
He was then taken to the Eastern Police District Headquarters. The six confiscated cigarette sticks were
turned over to Camp Crame Crime Laboratory Service
for examination. The tests positively
identified the subjects under examination as marijuana as shown by Chemistry
Report No. D-680-88, Exhibit “A”.[5]
Josefino vehemently denied Patrolman Valeroso’s accusation that he was selling a prohibited
drug, and claimed he was a victim of “mistaken identity.”
It was Josefino’s first arrest. At the time he was on his third year of
employment as a shoemaker in a factory at the back of his house at Malvar Street, Marikina.[6]
His job was to apply paste on the heels of shoes and he was paid on a per-piece
basis. On July 22, 1988, he reported to work at 7:00 in the morning and left the factory four and a half
hours later, at 11:30, to have lunch
at home.[7]
While he was cooking lunch, he was startled by a commotion
outside his house. When he went out to
check what was going on, a stranger suddenly seized him by the arm and arrested
him without a warrant of arrest.[8]
He did not have the slightest idea about what was going on had not his
employer, Dante Aguirre, intervened.
From the arresting officer, Dante learned that Josefino
was being arrested for selling marijuana cigarettes.
The accused-appellant challenges the inconsistencies of the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which render them unbelievable. He also faults the trial court for its
failure to appreciate certain material facts.
Thus, in his Brief he assigned only one error committed by the trial
court, i.e.,
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION HAS FAILED TO MEET THE TEST OF
MORAL CERTAINTY OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S GUILT AND TO OVERCOME THE CONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR.
The issue raised in the appellant’s Brief hinges on the
credibility of witnesses. On this point,
we have consistently deferred to the findings of the trial judge, who observes
first hand the demeanor and deportment of the witnesses so as to determine the
believability of their testimonies.[9]
As an appellate court, this Court has none of the judge’s advantageous
position, relying as it does only on the cold records of the case, and on the
judge’s discretion.[10]
The lower court established the following facts: That on July 22, 1988 at about 9:30
a.m., Josefino was caught red-handed
peddling or “pushing” six sticks of marijuana cigarettes to an
undercover NARCOM agent, Patrolman Valeroso, in a
buy-bust operation.
The discrepancies in the testimonies of Patrolman Valeroso are minor inconsistencies that do not invalidate Josefino’s conviction.
As long as the testimonies jibe on
material points, the slight clashing statements neither dilute the witnesses’
credibility nor the veracity of their testimonies. Patrolman Valeroso,
like any other witness on the stand, was confused by the questions raised by
the fiscal and the court. In one
instance, he declared that he did not actually see the person he arrested selling
marijuana.
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
Did you see him selling?
A: Thru
our asset.
Q: You answer the question.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You are sure, you are under oath, that you
actually saw the person you arrested selling marijuana? To the youth?
You better tell the truth.
A: No,
sir.
Q: Why are you saying that on…. around 10:45 in the morning, this person whom you
arrested was selling marijuana?
A: It was only reported to us by our asset.
Q: Do
you have a warrant of arrest?
A: None,
your honor.[11]
This so infuriated the court that it remarked:
COURT: There is no use to try [sic] this case,
Fiscal.
FISCAL:
If this witness would insist in testifying in this manner, we would be
constrain [sic] to utilize him as hostile witness. May we just proceed, your Honor.
COURT:
Proceed.[12]
xxx xxx xxx
Be that as it may, Patrolman Valeroso
later categorically named and positively identified Josefino
as the drug pusher, the very person who sold him the six sticks of marijuana
and to whom the police officer-poseur paid the marked P20-bill.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When this [sic] six sticks was [sic] handed
to you, what happen [sic] next?
A: I
apprehended this person.[13]
xxx xxx xxx
Q: This person whom you are referring to, were
[sic] you said you bought this marijuana cigarette in the amount of P20.00 bill
were [sic] you able to know the name of this person after the arrest?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
is the name of this person?
A: Josefino de los Santos,
sir.
Q: If
this Josefino de los Santos
is inside this Court room, will you be able to point to [sic] him?
A: Yes,
sir.
Interpreter: Witness pointing to a person wearing a white
T-shirt by the name of…. What is your name please.
Accused:
JOSEFINO DE LOS SANTOS, sir.[14]
xxx xxx xxx
We note that Patrolman Valeroso and his
two other companions who conducted the buy-bust operation had not known Josefino when they arrested him on July 22, 1988.
Such being the case, they had no reason to arrest and charge him without
cause, much more, perjure themselves by unjustly accusing Josefino
of a grave crime that would put him behind bars for life if found guilty by the
court.
Josefino, moreover, has not imputed any
motive to Patrolman Valeroso for giving the
allegedly false testimony against him.[15]
At the trial, Dante Aguirre, shoe manufacturer for entrepreneur
Corazon de Jesus and employer of Josefino, testified
that for years he had known Josefino to be a fine
boy.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: What
was his record in the factory as worker?
A: What
I know in his performance is (sic) shy and industrious.
Q: And when he is being accused of selling or
pushing marijuana, what can you say
about that accusation?
A: I do not believe on [sic] that.
Q: Why don’t you believe on [sic] that?
A: Because I know this boy is good.[16]
xxx xxx xxx
Aguirre’s deposition may bear all the earmarks of candor and
credibility. It does not, however,
preclude us from affirming the finding of the lower court. Aguirre, as the employer of Josefino and his (Josefino’s)
father for several years, felt naturally and morally bound to help both in any
way he could. Moreover, his opinion of Josefino’s good moral character is not sufficient to
overturn the court’s honest and objective appreciation of the evidence.
Likewise, Eufronio Lazaro’s
testimony may seem convincing at first blush.
Barangay Captain of Jesus de la Peña, Marikina,
Lazaro corroborated Aguirre’s testimony thus:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: This certification stated that Mr. de los Santos has resided since birth at
General
Malvar Street, Jesus dela Peña, Marikina, Metro Manila, this is correct Capt. Lazaro?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: In issuing this certificate, are you also
after the moral character of this person?
A: Based on our records, sir, but if there is
no record that’s the time we issue a
certificate.
Q: Are you telling us that he has no record in
your barangay?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have a complete file of records of
residence [sic] of your barangay?
A: We just based it in the records of Katarungang Pambarangay, sir.[17]
In the course of the cross-examination, Captain Lazaro, however, said he could only certify to the
accused-appellant’s residency of Barangay Jesus de la
Peña, but not to his moral character.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: This Josefino de los Santos, do you know what is his occupation?
A: No, sir.
Q: I thought you know him since birth?
A: Yes, sir, as a residence [sic] of our Barangay.[18]
xxx xxx xxx
As aptly noted by the court a
quo, the counsel for the accused failed to submit Exhibit “3”,
a Barangay Certificate, and Exhibit “2”, a
Police Clearance, despite an order to that effect. It held that the absence of a police clearance and barangay certificate would not affect the outcome of the
case as they are not necessary evidentiary proofs that the accused did not
commit an offense.[19]
The Court zealously guards against the curtailment of a person’s
basic constitutional and natural right to liberty. But the Court also upholds the law which
specifically allows a warrantless arrest under Rule
113, section 5, paragraph (a) of the Rules of Court if the accused is caught in flagrante delicto, as
in the case at bar. The passing from Josefino’s hand of the six sticks of marijuana cigarettes
to Patrolman Valerosa’s hand in full view of
anti-narcotics agents compelled Patrolman Valeroso to
arrest Josefino without a warrant. He tried to
conceal the marked money by dropping it to ground and stepping on it. Under these circumstances, Josefino can not claim that his right to liberty was violated. Nor can he invoke his constitutional right to
the protection of the innocent against any manner of highhandedness from the
authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.[20]
Josefino’s flight from the scene may
not indicate guilt, but it puts a question
mark on his innocence. For there is no
trap for an innocent man.
We are convinced Patrolman Valeroso has
given the prosecution the evidence needed to accuse Josefino
of drug-pushing.
We are further
convinced that all the proofs lead to the unavoidable conclusion that the
accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
Persons like the accused-appellant deserve the severe sanctions
of the law for the misery they spread among our people, especially the youth,
many of whom have forfeited their future because of drug addiction. The strong arm of the law must never falter
against the onslaughts of this terrible affliction.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Pasig,
Metro Manila, Branch 152; Hon. Manuel A. Patron, Presiding Judge.
[2]
Original Record, Exhibits “D”, “D-2”, and “E”,
98-99.
[3]
TSN, October 19, 1989, 6.
[4]
Id., 11.
[5]
Original Records, Exhibit “A”, 96.
[6]
TSN, October 26, 1989, 25.
[7]
Id., 26.
[8]
Accused-Appellant’s Brief, 1.
[9]
People v. Isabelo Sanchez, G.R. No. 89407,
December 21, 1990; People v. Anciano, G.R. No.
88937, September 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 519; People v. Bernardo, G.R. No.
89542, June 27, 1990, 186 SCRA 876; People v. Andiza,
G.R. Nos. 71986-87, August 19, 1988, 164 SCRA 642.
[10]
People v. Sanchez, supra, at 5.
[11]
TSN, October 19, 1989, 4.
[12]
Id., 5.
[13]
Id., 7.
[14]
Id., 7-8.
[15]
People v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 89542, June 27, 1990, 186 SCRA 876.
[16]
TSN, November 8, 1989, 5.
[17]
TSN, November 13, 1989, 7-8.
[18]
Id., 8.
[19]
Decision, 5.
[20]
People v. Aminnudin, No. 74869, July 6, 1988,
163 SCRA 402.