PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDILBERTO RUELO Y LAHAYLAHAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

For selling and possessing shabu Edilberto Ruelo y
Lahaylahay was accused of violating Secs. 15 and 16 of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise
known as “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” as amended, in two (2)
separate Informations^[1]
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which were however ordered
consolidated on 5 March 1991.

On 4 October 1991, the court a quo rendered
a decision^[2]
finding the accused guilty as charged and imposing upon him the following –

(a) In People v.
Edilberto Ruelo, Crim. Case No. 91-92126, the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P30,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and

(b) In People v.
Edilberto Ruelo, Crim. Case No. 91-92127, an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day as
minimum to twelve (12) years as maximum, and a fine of P10,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The accused interposed this appeal imputing error to the trial
court in holding: (1) that none of the
policemen mentioned were impelled by any devious or ill motive to concoct the
charges against him; (2) that the accused failed to identify Pat. Mario Montes,
one of the arresting officers; (3) that Cpl. Manolito Suralvo was impelled to
divulge the truth even if he would in the process implicate his Station
Commander; (4) that the accused has not even bothered to file any criminal
and/or administrative charges against the erring policemen; (5) that the
testimony of Pat. Victor Guinto, the lone prosecution witness, satisfied the
court beyond reasonable doubt; and, (6) that the trial court nurtured veritable
doubts about the credibility of defense witness Aniceto Añana, a co-worker of
the accused. The appellant also takes
issue with the court when it expressed surprise why the defense did not present
Adelfa Cortez to corroborate his testimony.^[3]

The evidence of the prosecution, on which the trial court mainly
based its judgment, shows that on 16 February 1991, Sgt. Aguirre, then
Officer-in-Charge of the Western Police District Command, received a
confidential report from police informer “Lanie” about the drug
pushing activities of the accused Edilberto Ruelo alias “Eddie” at
the Las Palmas Hotel, corner Pedro Gil and A. Mabini Sts., Ermita, Manila. Thereupon, Sgt. Aguirre formed a
surveillance team led by Pat. Victor Guinto to verify the truth of the
information. After four (4) consecutive
nights of surveillance, the police operatives were able to confirm that the
accused was indeed peddling drugs in the area.

On 23 February 1991, Sgt. Aguirre ordered a buy-bust operation
composed of Pat. Guinto as poseur-buyer, “Lanie,” and Cpl. Manolito
Suralvo as the back-up man and investigator of the case. Sgt. Aguirre handed over to Pat. Guinto
three (3) P100.00-bills as the “buy-bust” money. Pat. Guinto placed the initials
“MS” representing the initials of Cpl. Suralvo on each of the bills
to serve as the identifying marks.

At about twelve-twenty in the morning, the operatives proceeded
to the corner of Pedro Gil and A. Mabini Sts. on board an owner-type jeep. After they parked their jeep the group
waited for “Eddie.” When they saw him coming from a building near the
Las Palmas Hotel, “Lanie” with Pat. Guinto approached him and
introduced Pat. Guinto as a shabu user. Pat. Guinto himself told the accused that he wanted to buy three (3)
decks of shabu. The accused then turned
to “Lanie” and inquired about Guinto’s trustworthiness saying, Ano
ba talaga, user iyan? With
the assent of “Lanie,” Pat. Guinto gave “Eddie” the three
(3) P100-bills which the latter placed in the front pocket of his pants. Accused then pulled out a box from his back
pocket, took out three (3) plastic tea bags of shabu, and gave them to Pat.
Guinto who at once signaled to Cpl. Suralvo. The latter rushed to the scene. The policemen frisked the accused and recovered from him a box
containing four (4) more plastic tea bags of shabu and the three (3)
P100-bills.

The police officers later brought “Eddie” to Police
Station No. 9 where Cpl. Suralvo conducted his investigation. Thereafter, Cpl. Suralvo handcarried the tea
bags of shabu and the written request of Lt. Elmer Jamias to the NBI for
laboratory examination. Both Pat.
Guinto and Cpl. Suralvo executed a “Joint Affidavit of Apprehension.”
Cpl. Suralvo also prepared and signed the “Booking Sheet and Arrest
Report” on the basis of which the accused, who refused to sign the report,
was placed under arrest for violation of Secs.
15 and 16 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.

At about six o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, the
common-law wife of “Eddie” came to the station and offered Cpl.
Suralvo P30,000.00 for the release of the accused. Cpl. Suralvo refused.

On 24 February 1991, the NBI Forensic Chemist Nicanor Cruz, Jr., certified that upon preliminary
examination the specimen submitted yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Consequently, the Station Commander, Major
Prospero Barcenas, referred the cases of the accused to the City Prosecutor of Manila for inquest. After due investigation, the Prosecutor
recommended that the proper information be filed against the accused.

Meanwhile, three (3) media men from the Department of National
Defense arrived and talked to Station Commander Barcenas. They interceded for the release of accused
and for the settlement of the case. However, they did not pursue their intercession when informed by Cpl.
Suralvo that the case had already been forwarded to the Inquest Prosecutor and
that the accused had pointed to them as the source of the shabu.

On 25 February 1991, Forensic Chemist Cruz, Jr., confirmed his
earlier report that the specimen submitted was found positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, so that on 26 February 1991 an information
against the accused was filed in court.

The defense narrates a different
version. According to the accused, on
the night he was apprehended, he left his brother’s residence with an extra
pair of socks and a handkerchief for washing at the JJC Apartelle located near
the corner of Pedro Gil and Mabini Sts. Actually, he was occupying Room No. 304 of the apartelle as he was also
working as manager of the “1814 Pub Disco” at the ground floor
belonging to the same owner.

At about ten-thirty in the evening, the accused requested his
assistant to take charge of the Pub Disco while he went upstairs to wash his
socks and handkerchief. After washing
and while about to go downstairs, he was accosted by two men who turned out to
be Patrolmen Victor Guinto and Mario Montes. They asked him whether he was “Dong.” Upon receiving a
negative reply, the police officers kicked him and pushed him towards his
room. He asked them whether they had a
search warrant but they did not respond. The accused then screamed for help. The owner of the apartelle, Adelfa Cortez, a security guard and a waiter
responded. However, the policemen
warned them not to interfere saying, Papatayin
namin ito. Huwag kayong makialam. Fearing
for their lives, the responding neighbors all fled.

The policemen then continued to drag him to his room, thoroughly
searched inside and seized his personal belongings including the P2,000.00
which the latter allegedly borrowed from a certain Lydia Bernaldez on 22
February 1991.^[4]
They later brought the accused to their jeep and proceeded to “Andok’s
Lechon House” where they bought one (1) chicken lechon from the P2,000.00
they took from him earlier. At the
Police Station, the policemen showed the accused five (5) grams of shabu which
they alleged had been confiscated from him. Pat. Montes demanded from the accused P50,000.00 for his release but the
latter replied that he had no money. Subsequently, Cpl. Suralvo informed the accused of the charges against
him. Cpl. Suralvo similarly demanded
P45,000.00 from the accused as a condition for his release.

The accused claims that he came to know the apprehending
officers, Patrolmen Guinto and Montes, only during his detention. He likewise avers that he was mauled and
maltreated at the police station, and that upon his transfer to the Manila City
Jail, his lawyer advised him to secure medicines from the infirmary. He adds that he was not examined by a doctor
despite representations of his common-law wife and brother.

We affirm the judgment of conviction. The basic thrust in this appeal is the credibility of
witnesses. It is a settled doctrine
that the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses
are entitled to great weight and respect unless some material facts have been
overlooked or misconstrued as to affect the result.^[5] These
excepting circumstances however are not present in the case at bench.

Appellant denies being a drug pusher. He claims that he was washing his socks and handkerchief at the
third floor of JJC Apartelle when mauled and arrested by Patrolmen Guinto and
Montes in the presence of his co-worker, Aniceto Añana. He strongly urges the Court to disbelieve
the testimony of Pat. Guinto regarding his arrest as the same is
uncorroborated. He argues that where
there are two different versions of his arrest and detention the weight of
evidence should be determined by the number of witnesses.

Appellant’s arguments are far from persuasive. The records reveal that the apprehending
officers were Pat. Guinto and Cpl. Suralvo, not Pat. Montes. Appellant’s insistence on the participation
of Pat. Montes is baseless as he himself could not present the person who gave
him the information. At the hearing,
the prosecution manifested its choice not to present Cpl. Suralvo as witness to
the arrest because his testimony would only be corroborative;^[6]
instead, he would testify on other matters such as the investigation and
preparation of the Booking Sheet, Arrest Report and the Letter-Request to the
Inquest Prosecutor.^[7]
Significantly, the defense did not raise any objection to this move.^[8]
Verily, it cannot be seriously contended that the prosecution’s testimony went
uncorroborated in the light of appellant’s acquiescence to the strategy of the
prosecution. Besides, there is no law
which requires that the testimony of a single witness must always be
corroborated, except where expressly mandated.^[9] We
have held that the testimony of only one witness, if credible and positive,
provided it satisfies the court beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to
convict.^[10]

A hard look at the testimony of defense witness Aniceto Añana
shows that the alibi of appellant cannot prevail. Appellant claims that Patrolmen Montes and Guinto who mauled him
were burly men.^[11]
Yet, the trial court itself disputed the alleged physical description of Pat.
Mario Montes because it had on some occasions seen and observed him as on the
“lean side with a regular body-build, certainly much leaner than
appellant,” when he would testify in drug cases.^[12]
Again, Añana stated that aside from the two (2) policemen who assaulted
appellant, four (4) more from the Western Police District responded to the call
of appellant’s employer.^[13] But
appellant made no mention of the presence of these policemen at the scene of
the incident either in his affidavit-complaint^[14] or
in his testimony.

In contrast, the prosecution showed that the arrest of appellant
was done in accordance with law. A
four-night surveillance was conducted by the police to verify the report on
appellant’s alleged drug pushing activities. Upon confirmation, a buy-bust operation was formed to entrap the
accused. The appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto selling shabu to a poseur-buyer who
used the P100-bills previously marked “MS”. Against this factual backdrop, with the tea bags positive of
methamphetamine hydrochloride and the recovery of the marked money from the
pocket of his pants, appellant’s denial and the dubious testimony of his lone witness
cannot be given any greater evidentiary value.

Moreover, appellant failed to show any improper motive on the
part of the apprehending lawmen. Admittedly, he did not know them before his apprehension and the first
time he saw them was when he was arrested.^[15]
Besides, appellant’s charges of police frame-up and extortion of money remain
mere verbal assertions. His failure to
rebut Cpl. Suralvo’s claim that his (appellant’s) common-law wife tried to
facilitate his release through bribery works against him. The conspicuous absence of any evidence
pointing to ulterior motives on the part of the policemen strengthens the
presumption that the arrest of appellant was done in the regular course of
their official duty. Hence, their testimonies are entitled to
great respect.^[16]

Lastly, appellant decries the maltreatment he received from the
police which purportedly resulted in visible injuries. Again, this complaint is not substantiated
by any medical certificate. His explanation
for his delayed filing of a complaint against his alleged maulers, i.e., that
his lawyer merely advised him to request for medicines from the infirmary and
to await the termination of the case against him before charging the policemen,^[17]
and that his brother and common-law wife even begged the police to allow him
(appellant) to undergo medical checkup but was not denied, fails to convince
us.

A lawyer worth his calling would not hesitate to demand urgent
medical attention for his client who was allegedly already walking in a zigzag
manner (pasuray-suray) and
sporting a swollen face (namamaga).^[18]
The fact that the lawyer merely advised
appellant to get medicines from the infirmary, which the latter did, clearly
indicates appellant’s exaggerated claim. As the trial court
correctly observed –

x x x the accused has not even bothered to present Atty. Lopez to
the court as his witness to buttress his claim. The accused has not even bothered to file any criminal and/or
administrative charges against the erring policemen, with any government
authorities, such as the NBI or the National Police Commission. It was only on March 30, 1991 or more than
one (1) month after the apprehension of the accused that the accused bothered
to execute his complaint-affidavit (Exh. “I”). More, there is no evidence in the record
that when the accused was brought to the Inquest Fiscal for the requisite
inquest of the charges against the accused, the latter ever complained to the
Inquest Fiscal of the mauling and maltreatment and the extortion brazenly
perpetrated by the policemen. If
indeed, the face of the accused was swollen and bulging and that he could not
even walk normally, surely, the Inquest Fiscal could have noticed the same.^[19]

Additionally, we find that even appellant’s own brother, Evelito
Ruelo, did not seriously take the former’s story. While Evelito had a good look at the supposed sorry state of
appellant, he just went home after failing to find the investigator that
day. Neither did he mention to the investigator
whom he saw the following day about appellant’s urgent need for medical
attention.^[20]

Indeed, we find no ground to reverse the judgment of
conviction. Nonetheless, with the
passage of R.A. No. 7659,^[21]
which amended certain sections of “The Dangerous Drugs Act,” and
following our pronouncement in People v. Simon^[22]
to make the amendatory provisions apply retroactively as they are favorable to
the accused, the penalties imposed by the trial court have to be modified
accordingly.

Appellant is found guilty of violating separately Secs. 15 and 16
of R.A. No. 6425 which, as revised, each carry the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and an increased fine of
P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 if the shabu involved is 200 grams or more;
otherwise, if the quantity sold, delivered or distributed be less, only the
penalty ranging from prision
correccional to reclusion temporal shall be imposed.^[23]

In Crim. Case No. 91-92126, the weight of the shabu sold by
appellant was 0.1210 gm. whereas that taken from the appellant in Crim. Case
No. 91-92127, was 0.4200 gm.^[24]
Obviously, the shabu in both cases was less than a gram. Hence, the second paragraph of Sec. 20 as
now amended applies, i.e., the reduced penalty of prision correccional
to reclusion temporal. With no
attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper imposable
component penalty is prision correccional to be applied in its medium
period. Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law,^[25]
the maximum shall be taken from the medium period of prision correccional,
which is two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day, to four (4) years and
two (2) months, while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in
degree, which is arresto mayor, the range of which is one (1) month and
one (1) day to six (6) months.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from finding
accused-appellant EDILBERTO RUELO Y LAHAYLAHAY guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violating Secs. 15 and 16, Art. III, of R.A. No. 6425, in Crim. Case No.
91-92126 and Crim. Case No. 91-92127 is AFFIRMED
with the modification that in each of the aforesaid cases, the accused
is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and
twenty (20) days of arresto mayor maximum as minimum, to three (3)
years and two (2) months of prision
correccional medium as
maximum, with costs against accused-appellant in both cases.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

^[1]
In Crim. Case No. 91-92126, the Information states: “(t)hat on or about February 23, 1991, in the City of Manila
x x x x the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there
wilfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale to a police poseur-buyer white
crystalline substance known as ‘shabu’ placed in three (3) separate small
plastic bags containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug” (Records, p. 2).

In Crim. Case No. 91-92127, the
Information states: “(t)hat on or
about February 23, 1991, in the City of Manila x x x x the accused wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his
possession and under his custody and control white crystalline substance known
as ‘shabu’ contained in four (4) separate small transparent plastic bags,
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription therefor” (Id., p. 3).

^[2]
Penned by Judge Romeo J. Callejo, RTC, Br. XLIX, Manila; Rollo, pp.
14-33.

^[3]
Id., pp. 44-45.

^[4]
(1) Gold necklace, P5,000.00, (2) wrist watch, P2,500.00, (3) wall clock,
P1,000.00, (4) radio, P650.00, (5) Ray-ban sunglasses, P1,500.00, (6) umbrella,
P150.00, (7) travelling bag (big), P350.00, (8) shoulder bag, P150.00, (9)
cash, P2,000.00, and (10) P.P.A. and DOTC Pass I.D.; Rollo, p. 48.

^[5]
See People v. Jones, L-61165, 24 June 1985, 137 SCRA 166, 185; People
v. Exala, G.R. No. 76005, 23 April 1993, 221 SCRA 494, 498-499.

^[6]
TSN, 16 July 1991, pp. 36-37.

^[7]
TSN, 26 July 1991, p. 2.

^[8]
Ibid.

^[9]
People v. Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, 27 May 1992, 209 SCRA 304, 315.

^[10]
People v. Trigo, G.R. No. 74515, 14, June 1989, 174 SCRA 93, 97.

^[11]
TSN, 26 August 1991, p. 11.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 24.

^[13]
TSN, 26 August 1991, pp. 45-46 and 48.

^[14]
Records, p. 47.

^[15]
TSN, 31 July 1991, pp. 48-49.

^[16]
See People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 87884, 4 November 1992, 215 SCRA 339, 348.

^[17]
Rollo, pp. 56-57.

^[18]
TSN, 8 August 1991, p. 9.

^[19]
Rollo, p. 28.

^[20]
TSN, 8 August 1991, pp. 10-14.

^[21]
An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that
Purpose The Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for
Other Purposes.

^[22]
G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994, reiterated in People v. Martinez,
G.R. No. 104708, 30 August 1994, and People v. Santos, G.R.
No. 106213, 23 September 1994.

^[23]
As amended by R.A. 7659, Secs. 15, 16 and 20, R.A. No. 6425, now read:

Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute any regulated drug x x x x

Sec. 16. Possession or
Use of Regulated Drugs. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license
or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as “The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instrument of the Crime. – The penalties for offenses under Secs. 3,
4, 7, 8 and 9 of Art. II and Secs. 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Art. III of this Act
shall be applied if the dangerous
drugs involved is in any of the following quantities: x x x x 3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride x x x x Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to
reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity x x x x

In People v. Simon (G.R.
No. 93028, 29 July 1994), we corrected the overlapping error which
consists in the imposition of reclusion
perpetua both as the
maximum of the penalty where the amount of drugs involved is less than the
quantities specified and as the minimum where the quantity involved is equal to
or more than the amounts specified, as follows x x x x we hereby hold that the
penalty to be imposed where the quantity of the drugs involved is less than the
quantities stated in the first paragraph shall range from prision
correccional to reclusion
temporal, and not reclusion perpetua.

^[24]
Report of the Forensic Chemistry Section, NBI, Records, p. 31.

^[25]
Particularly the first part of Sec. 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law as
explained in People v. Simon.