THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANILO GONZALES Y MATIAGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the Decision^[1] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 124 of Caloocan City wherein accused-appellant
Danilo Gonzales y Matiaga was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
penalized under Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1675, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, under the information which reads:

“That on or about the 8th day of February 1989, in Caloocan City,
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused in violation of the above-mentioned Republic Act, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to another
marijuana flowering tops place in small transparent bag, a prohibited drug,
without being authorized by law.”^[2]

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the
crime charged. After trial on the
merits, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused
DANILO GONZALES Y MATIAGA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 4, Article II, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, as charged in the
Information, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and to pay the costs.

“The subject matter of this case, which are the marijuana flowering
tops placed inside a small, transparent teabag, are forfeited in favor of the
Government and the Deputy Sheriff of this Court is hereby directed to turn over
the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board for disposition.”^[3]

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

“At about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February 8, 1989, a lady
informant named ‘Nene’ called the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City
Police Station and gave the information that one “Danny Pilay’ was openly
selling marijuana along F. Acab Street, Kalookan City. Upon being so informed, Police Capt.
Benjamin Dimaano created a team to arrest the suspect. The members of the team were Pat. Reynaldo
Lechido who was designated as the team leader; Pat. Bienvenido Santianes, Jr.
who was designated the pose-buyer; Pat. Reynaldo Beaño; Pat. Reynaldo Mendoza;
Pat. Manuel Valdos and Police Aide Francisco Garcia, Jr. Capt. Benjamin Dimaano
provided the team with money for the operation consisting of two five-peso
bills. The serial numbers of these
bills were recorded in the police blotter of the Anti-Narcotics Unit. Pat. Santianes shaded with a ballpen the two
eyes of Emilio Aguinaldo on the face of a five-peso bill with serial no.
QG-119690. The eyes of said Emilio
Aguinaldo in the other five-bill with serial No. NM-478122 were not shaded.

“After the conference, the police team proceeded to the designated
place at F. Acab Street aboard the owner-type jeep. The policemen parked their jeep near a market about 400 meters
from the reported place of residence of the suspect and proceeded to their
destination on foot. The accused was
first seen standing alone by the police team in front of his (accused’s)
residence. It was about 3:00 p.m. His appearance tallied with the description
of the suspect which was previously given by the informant.

“Upon seeing the suspect, Pat. Santianes approached the said
suspect while the rest of the members of the police team placed themselves at
strategic positions. Pat. Santianes
started the conversation with the suspect by saying: “Pare, baka pwedeng maka­skor, isang teabag.” He then gave the
two five-peso bills, the serial numbers of which were previously recorded at
the police blotter, to the suspect. The
suspect did not immediately accept the two five-peso bills. He appeared to be undecided but after two
minutes, the suspect accepted the money without saying a word and went inside
the house. After about five minutes,
the suspect emerged from his house, approached Pat. Santianes and handed the
latter a small plastic teabag.

“After receiving the teabag, Pat. Santianes looked over the
contents which could be seen without opening the teabag because the tiny bag
was transparent. When he was satisfied
that the contents of the transparent teabag were most probably marijuana, Pat.
Santianes scratched his neck and held the arm of the suspect. This was the pre-arranged signal. Immediately, the five other members of the
police team approached Pat. Santianes and members of the police team approached
Pat. Santianes and the suspect. At this point,
Pat. Santianes introduced himself as police officer. The team then arrested the suspect. It was Pat. Lechido who first arrested the
suspect by embracing the latter. It was
Pat. Manuel Valdoz, however, who recovered the two-five peso bills from the
right hand of the suspect.

“The suspect was then brought to the Anti-Narcotics Unit Office at
the Kalookan City Police Headquarters for investigation. During the investigation, the members of the
police team gave a joint sworn statement (Exhibit “D”).

“Pat. Reynaldo Lechido was the designated leader of the police team
which arrested the suspect on February 8, 1989. He was also the one designated afterwards to conduct an
investigation of this case. He prepared
the joint sworn statement of the apprehending policemen (Exhibit “D”). He also
prepared a referral letter addressed to the NBI Forensic Laboratory
Section requesting a laboratory examination of the alleged marijuana flowering
tops. It was Pat. Reynaldo Beaño who
brought back to the Kalookan City Police Anti-Narcotics Unit the certification
prepared by NBI Forensic Biologist Beverly Eleria (Exhibit “C”).

“He also prepared the referral slip for the Kalookan City
Prosecutor (Exhibit “E”).

“Beverly G. Eleria, a forensic biologist of the NBI, conducted the
examination of the subject specimen to see if the specimen was positive for
marijuana.

“She received a letter-request from the Kalookan City Police
Station to examine the specimen on February 8, 1989, together with the specimen
(See Exhibit “F”). She identified the
specimen contained in a small transparent plastic teabag. The specimen was marked as Exhibit “G”. The masking tape attached to the plastic
teabag was marked as Exhibit “H”. The
plastic teabag was marked as Exhibit “I”. The markings on the teabag itself which were made by Beverly Eleria were
marked as Exhibit “I-1”. The other
markings on the teabag were marked as Exh. “I-2”. A white coupon bond was used to wrap the plastic teabag with its
contents and was marked as Exhibit “J”. The markings on this coupon bond were made by Beverly Eleria and were
marked as Exh. “J-1”. The other
markings on the coupon bond were marked as Exh. “J-2”.

“The preliminary laboratory examination of the specimen was first
conducted. The specimen gave positive
results for marijuana. (See Certificate
marked as Exhibit “C”). Beverly Eleria
handed the original of this Certificate (Exhibit “C”) to Pat. Reynaldo Beaño of
the Kalookan City Police Station. Afterwards, Beverly Eleria conducted a chromatographic examination of the specimen. The specimen also gave positive results for
marijuana. A final report was prepared
(Exhibit “K”). After this, Beverly
Eleria placed the specimen and the wrappers inside a white letter envelope
which she sealed for safe-keeping (Exhibit “L”).

“Pat. Bienvenido Santianes and Pat. Reynaldo Lechido were two of
the Kalookan City policemen team who were chosen to arrest the suspect, Danilo
Gonzales y Matiaga. Both of them
testified on the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of the suspect.

“Pat. Santianes is a 27-year-old policeman who joined the Kalookan
City Police Force on March 30, 1985. He
was a member of the Anti-Narcotics Unit on February 8, 1989, when the suspect
was arrested. He identified the suspect
(now the accused) Danilo Gonzales inside the courtroom during the trial held on
June 22, 1989. (TSN-June 22, 1989, p.
6). He also identified the two
five-peso bills he used during the operation. He pointed at a five-peso bill with serial No. QG-119690 which serial
number was recorded at the police blotter of the Anti-Narcotics Unit before the
team left the office in the afternoon of February 9, 1989 (TSN-June 22, 1989,
p. 17). The bill was marked as Exhibit
“A”. He also pointed at the eyes of the
picture of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo on the face of the P5 bill which he blackened
with a ballpen at his office before the arrest of the suspect. This blackened eyes of Gen. Aguinaldo were
marked together as Exh. “A-1”. (TSN-June 22, 1989, p. 7) He identified the other P5 bill with serial
no. NM-478122, and this was marked as Exhibit “B”. All the team members were present when Pat. Santianes received
the two five-peso bills from Capt. Dimaano (TSN-June 22, 1989, p. 15). When asked during the cross-examination as
to why he did not blacken the eyes of the picture of Gen. Aguinaldo on the face
of exhibit “B”. Pat. Santianes
explained that the accused might suspect he was a policeman if the eyes of Gen.
Aguinaldo on both of the two
five-peso bills used in the operation were blackened (TSN, June 22, 1989, p.
16).

“The two five-peso bills and their serial numbers used in the
operation were mentioned in the joint sworn statement of Pat. Santianes, Pat.
Reynaldo Lechido, Pat. Manuel Baldoz and Pat. Reynaldo Beaño (Exhibit
“D”). This was prepared at about 5:00
p.m. of February 8, 1989, just after the police team brought the accused to the
Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City Police Headquarters. The two five-peso bills and their respective
serial number were also mentioned in the referral letter dated February 8, 1989
addressed to the Kalookan City Fiscal (Exhibit “E”).

“Pat. Santianes identified the marijuana flowering tops (Exhibit
“G”) which are contained inside a transparent teabag which he purchased from
the accused. He pointed at his initials
“BCS” which he wrote on the plastic teabag itself for identification purposes. This was marked as Exhibit “I-2”. He also identified the rolling papers (3)
found inside the plastic teabag (TSN-June 29, 1989, pp. 22-23).

“Pat. Santianes emphasized that he did not know the accused before
the latter was arrested on February 8, 1989 (TSN-June 22, 1989, p. 19).

“Pat. Reynaldo Lechido was assigned to the Anti-Narcotics Unit of
the Kalookan City Police Station on February 8, 1989. He was named as the leader of the team which was organized on
said date to arrest the accused (TSN-June 23, 1989, p. 4). He was hiding and was ten meters away when
Pat. Santianes was transacting with the accused (TSN-June 23, 1989, p. 8). He was able to identify the two five-peso
bills which were used in the operation. He recognized and pointed at a five-peso bill with serial No.
QG-119690 marked as Exhibit “A” because he was present when Pat. Santianes
shaded the two eyes of the picture of Gen. Aguinaldo on the face of the
bill. He was also able to identify the
other five-peso bill with serial no. NM-478122 which was marked as Exhibit
“B”. He was the one who stapled these
two bills on a white coupon bond and placed the name of the accused, Danilo
Gonzales, at the bottom of the coupon bond paper (TSN-June 23, 1989, pp.
7-8). Pat. Valdoza retrieved the two
five-peso bills used in the operation from the right hand of the accused, and
Pat. Valdoz turned over the said two five-peso bills used in the operation from
the right hand of the accused, and Pat. Valdoz turned over the said two
five-peso bills to team leader Pat. Reynaldo Lechido immediately after the
arrest, Pat. Santianes also turned over the teabag of marijuana flowering tops
he bought from the accused to Pat. Lechido immediately after the arrest of the
accused. Pat. Lechido brought
personally with him the two five-peso bills and the teabag of marijuana
flowering tops from the place of the arrest of the accused where these items
were turned over to him up to the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Kalookan City
Police Headquarters (TSN-June 23, 1989, pp. 34-36).

“Pat. Lechido identified during the trial the marijuana flowering tops
(Exhibit “G”) contained in a small, transparent teabag which were turned over
to him by Pat. Santianes after the arrest of the accused. Pat. Lechido placed his initials “R.L.” on
the plastic teabag itself. These
initials of Pat. Lechido and the initials of Pat. Santianes were bracketed and
were marked as Exhibit “I-2”. He also
identified the accused inside the Courtroom.

“Pat. Lechido was questioned on cross-examination why he had the
joint affidavit of the apprehending officers (Exhibit “D”) prepared as early as
5:00 p.m. of February 2, 1989 stating that the teabag bought from the accused
contained marijuana flowering tops when the preliminary certificate coming from
the NBI Forensic Laboratory (Exhibit “C”) showing that the subject of the
laboratory examination gave positive results for marijuana was issued only
after 8:25 p.m. on February 8, 1989. Pat. Lechido explained that he and his policemen companions were almost
certain that the contents of the teabag were marijuana because of experience and
in order to expedite matters. However,
they waited for the certification from the NBI Forensic Laboratory Unit before
the apprehending policemen swore to the truth of their joint sworn statement
before the Inquest Fiscal at 11:30 p.m. of February 8, 1989 (TSN-June 23, 1989,
pp. 44-48).^[4]

The defense however, presents a different story. Thus –

“At about 4:30 in the afternoon of February 9, 1989, appellant just
woke up from sleep in the house at 44 F. Acab Street, Kalookan City (p. 5, tsn,
August 9, 1989). He was boiling water
in the kitchen (p. 5, tsn August 9, 1989), when two men who later turned out to
be members of the Kalookan City Police climbed over the fence of the house of
appellant (p. 14, tsn. July 6, 1989; p. 5, tsn, July 12, 1989; p. 4, tsn, August
11, 1989). One of the policemen poked
his gun at appellant. Appellant asked
the policeman why he was doing so. The
policeman got irked and boxed appellant in the stomach (p. 5, tsn, August 9,
1989).

“The two other policemen entered the house through the main door in
front of the house (p. 4, tsn, July 12, 1989; p. 6, tsn, August 9, 1989; p. 4,
tsn, August 11, 1989). Without any
search warrant (p. 10, tsn, July 12, 1989), the two policemen who climbed over
the fence and the other two who entered the house through the door searched the
house of appellant, including the upper floor, bathroom and kitchen (p. 6, tsn,
August 9, 1989), while appellant was made to stay in the corner of the house
(p. 5, tsn, August 9, 1989).

“After
violating the sanctity of appellant’s house, the policemen compelled and
dragged appellant to go with them (p. 4, tsn, August 11, 1989; p. 6, tsn,
August 9, 1989). Not one of the
relatives of appellant who wanted to go along with appellant was allowed to
accompany him to be present during the investigation (p. 11, tsn, July
12, 1989; pp. 9 and 15, tsn, August 9, 1989).

“During the investigation, three of the policemen were reeking with
the smell of liquor (p. 4, tsn, August 9, 1989).

“One of the policemen, whom appellant later came to know as
Patrolman Lechido, took out a pair of socks from a locker and pulled out an
envelope which contained what turned out to be marijuana (p. 9, tsn, August 9,
1989). Patrolman Lechido told
appellant, ‘Yari ka na ngayon.’ (p. 7, tsn, August 9, 1989).

“Appellant was not allowed to leave the police headquarters but was
detained in a cell. In the evening of
February 8, 1989, a cousin’s wife named ‘Baby’ visited appellant in his cell. In consideration of the release of
appellant, ‘Baby’ was asked by the policemen to produce P1,000.00 (p. 8, tsn,
August 9, 1989).

“Another policeman, whom appellant later came to know as Patrolman
Santianes asked money from appellant. Appellant pulled out his wallet. When the policeman saw two five peso bills, he took the bills from the
wallet (p. 8, tsn, August 9, 1989). These bills were later presented as the money supposedly used to pay the
tea bag.”^[5]

Accused-appellant anchors his defense on denial and assigned the
following as errors of the trial court:

I

THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE THAT THE POLICEMEN WHO WENT TO
APPELLANT’S HOUSE CONDUCTED ILLEGAL SEARCH, UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED APPELLANT AND
PLANTED EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM;

II

THE HONORABLE COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONSIDERING
THE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AS MERE ENTRAPMENT AND
NOT IN FACT AN INSTIGATION;

III

THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
NOT CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WHICH COULD HAVE LED TO ITS
DISMISSAL AND ACQUITTAL OF APPELLANT.

We agree with the court a quo in finding
accused-appellant Danilo Gonzales guilty of the crime charged.

Accused-appellant contends that the search conducted at his
residence was illegal and in violation of his constitutional rights. But no formal complaint to the illegal search
was filed by the appellant against
the police officers concerned. What he
did file was a complaint against some Kalookan City policemen with the National
Police Commission for his alleged apprehension five (5) months thereafter or on
June 28, 1989. Appellant never
presented evidence on what happened to this complaint.

True, that three witnesses testified to the alleged illegal
search at the house of the accused?appellant. But their testimonies are not only incredible but more of an
afterthought. Rebecca Gonzales Hapa and
Natividad Gonzales, are the sister and mother of appellant, respectively, and
their testimonies in favor of the appellant were to be expected. With the
exception of Rebecca Gonzales Hapa, Natividad Gonzales and Nenita de la Vega
executed their respective sworn statements about the alleged illegal search
only on April 7, 1989 or two (2) months after the incident.^[6] No reason was given why it is
so. On the other hand, Rebecca Hapa
never executed a sworn statement at all on said illegal search.

The other contention of the
accused-appellant is that the police authorities instigated him to commit the
crime, a method which is not
allowed by our penal laws hence, should entitle him to an acquittal.

Accused-appellant’s arguments do not convince Us of his
innocence.

The buy-bust operation conducted by the police authorities was a
result of a “tip” from a lady
informant named “Nene” that accused-appellant who is known as “Danny Pilay” was
openly selling prohibited drugs along F. Acab St. in Caloocan City. The buy-bust operation conducted by the
police authorities to catch the accused-appellant was an entrapment and allowed
by law.^[7]
The evidence before Us clearly shows that the accused-appellant was not instigated
by the police authorities to commit the crime. In fact, accused?appellant
gave a tea bag of marijuana to the police authorities upon receipt of the two
(2) marked bills.

The arresting officers who have no known motive or reason to
falsely impute a serious charge against the accused are credible.^[8]
The prosecution witnesses are law enforcers. They are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the
absence of proof to the contrary.^[9]

As held by the court below:

“The testimonies of the two principal witnesses of the Prosecution,
Pat. Reynaldo Lechido and Pat. Bienvenido Santianes, Jr. may be relied
upon. Their testimonies were positive,
clear and convincing. There is in their
favor the presumption that they performed their official duties in a regular
manner. (Paragraph [m] of Section 3, Rule 131, Revised Rules
on Evidence; People vs. De Jesus, 145 SCRA 521). This presumption was not overcome by the evidence adduced by the
accused. Moreover, it has not been
shown that these Prosecution witnesses had improper motives when they
testified. The two policemen did not
know the accused before the accused was arrested in the afternoon of February
8, 1989 (TSN-June 22, 1989, p. 19). In
fact, the accused admitted in his testimony that he did not know either Pat.
Lechido or Pat. Santianes before the incident of February 8, 1989 (TSN-August
9, 1989, p. 112). Thus, the ruling in
the case of People vs. Asil (141 SCRA 286) is applicable here. The Supreme Court ruled here that where
eyewitnesses had no grudge against the accused and they did not know him before
the incident, their testimony is credible.”^[10]

It would seem that the real issue of the case is the credibility
of the witnesses. Jurisprudence teaches
us that the findings of the trial court judge who tried the case and heard the
witnesses are not to be disturbed on appeal unless there are substantial facts
and circumstances which have been overlooked and which, if properly considered,
might affect the result of the case.^[11] The
trial judge’s evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility deserves utmost respect
in the absence of arbitrariness.^[12] We
find no reason to overrule such findings of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, there being no error in the judgment appealed
herefrom, the same is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 17-24.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 7.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 24.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 17-21.

^[5]
Appellant’s Brief, pp. 4-6.

^[6]
Exhibits “1” and “3”, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 1 and 4.

^[7]
People vs. Rumeral, 200 SCRA 194.

^[8]
People vs. Segwaban, 194 SCRA 239.

^[9]
Ibid.

^[10]
Rollo, p. 21.

^[11]
People vs. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571 (1991).

^[12]
People vs. Tongson, 194 SCRA 257 (1991).