SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 140679, January 14, 2004 ]PEOPLE v. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL, APPELLANT.
DECISION
PEOPLE v. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MANNY A. DOMINGCIL, APPELLANT.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
For the sale and delivery of one (1) kilo of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, the appellant Manny Domingcil was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 16, for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 in an Information,
the accusatory portion of which reads:
The Case for the Prosecution
On August 12, 1994, at around 11:00 a.m., Belrey Oliver, an employee of Ferd's Upholstery Shop located in Barangay 2, Laoag City, arrived at the Laoag Police Station. He reported to Chief Investigator SPO4 Rodrigo Ventura that the appellant went to their shop looking for a buyer of marijuana. Oliver recounted telling the appellant that he knew of someone who was interested and ready to buy marijuana, and instructing him to bring one (1) kilo of the substance to a store located in front of the Divine Word College of Laoag at General Segundo Avenue, Laoag City at around 1:30 p.m. of that same day.[3]
Acting on the said report, SPO4 Ventura formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. He assigned SPO1 Orlando Dalusong as the poseur-buyer, and SPO2 Marlin Ramos, SPO2 Warlito Maruquin, SPO1 Rovimanuel Balolong, SPO1 Loreto Ancheta, and SPO2 Rosemarie Agustin, all assigned at the Investigation Section of the Laoag Police Station as back-up. The marked "buy-money" consisting of one P500-bill bearing Serial No. G-242745 was recorded in the police blotter in accordance with standard operating procedure.[4]
Except for SPO1 Dalusong and Oliver, the rest of the team left the precinct on board two (2) owner-type jeeps and posted themselves near the Macmac Store, across the gate of the Divine Word College. Five minutes later, SPO1 Dalusong and Oliver arrived at General Segundo Avenue.[5] Oliver immediately approached the appellant, who was then standing between the Macmac Store and a xerox center, and introduced poseur-buyer SPO1 Dalusong, who was sporting casual clothes and slippers: "Pare, daytoy tay gumatangen" ("Friend, this is the buyer"). At this point, the appellant who was carrying an orange plastic bag, brought out a brick-like item wrapped in newspaper. He handed the item to SPO1 Dalusong, who forthwith checked the same by making a small hole through it. Convinced that the brick-like item was indeed marijuana, SPO1 Dalusong handed the P500 bill to the appellant. He thereupon scratched his head, a signal to the back-up men that the transaction had been consummated.[6] Momentarily, the back-up officers, who had earlier positioned themselves separately in different strategic locations near the poseur-buyer, rushed to the scene and arrested the appellant. SPO1 Dalusong then handed the orange plastic bag containing the suspected marijuana to SPO4 Ventura. SPO2 Ramos frisked the appellant and recovered the buy-money from the latter's pocket. Thereafter, the appellant was brought to the headquarters where he was booked, and the incident was recorded in the police blotter.[7] The suspected marijuana was brought to and initially examined by Dr. Joseph Adaya, an accredited physician of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), who certified that the item comprised of three genuine mixture of marijuana leaves with seeds.[8]
On September 5, 1994, SPO4 Ventura sent a letter to the Commanding Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Camp Diego Silang, San Fernando, La Union, requesting for the examination of samples of the suspected marijuana taken from the appellant.[9] On September 6, 1998, SPO1 Loreto Ancheta, evidence custodian of the Laoag City, PNP, delivered the orange plastic bag containing the suspected marijuana to the PNP provincial crime laboratory service in Camp Juan, Laoag City. The bag, together with SPO4 Ventura's letter-request, was received by SPO3 Diosdado Mamotos.[10] On September 8, 1994, SPO3 Mamotos forwarded the laboratory request and the confiscated item, and were duly received by SPO4 Tampos.[11] The latter, in turn, handed the item to Police Superintendent Theresa Ann B. Cid, Forensic Chemist of the Crime Laboratory Center, Region I, Camp Diego Silang, Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union, who conducted an examination of representative samples extracted from the suspected marijuana confiscated from the appellant.[12] On the basis of her examination, Superintendent Cid issued Chemistry Report No. D-074-94 with the following findings:
The Case for the Appellant
The appellant interposed the twin defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that sometime in the first week of August 1994, he and Ernesto Gamiao went to the City of Laoag to canvass the price for the repair of the upholstery of a passenger jeepney. On that occasion, they befriended a certain Belrey Oliver who was an employee of the Ferd's Upholstery Shop. In the course of their conversation, Oliver asked the appellant where he came from and what his occupation was. Upon being told that he helped in harvesting mangoes in Cagayan, Oliver immediately offered refreshments to Gamiao and the appellant. While taking their snacks, Oliver inquired whether they wanted to back up the promotion of certain policemen who, in the future, might be able to return the favor to them. When the appellant asked in what way they could extend help, Oliver suggested that they look for somebody in Cagayan from whom they could buy one (1) kilo of marijuana. He agreed to Oliver's suggestion. The latter handed to him the amount of P700.00 to cover the purchase of the marijuana. The appellant immediately went to the terminal bound for Cagayan to look for somebody from that province who could be of help. When he could not find anyone, he decided to personally take the trip. He then instructed Gamiao to just go home to Vintar and inform his mother that he was going to Cagayan.
The appellant thereafter took a bus bound for Tuguegarao, Cagayan. After three (3) days, he was able to buy one kilo of marijuana for P300.00. When he returned to Laoag City on August 12, 1994, he went to Ferd's Upholstery Shop at 11:30 a.m. to inform Oliver that he had procured the order. After seeing the marijuana, Oliver instructed him to take it and meet him at about 12:30 p.m. of the same day in front of the Divine Word College where they would hand over the marijuana to the policemen they intended to help.
At about 12:00 noon, the appellant arrived at Macmac's Store and took his merienda. Momentarily, Oliver arrived alone on a tricycle. Oliver summoned him and they walked southward, away from the Macmac's Store, looking for the policemen to whom they would deliver the marijuana. They walked back northward, at which point they encountered an owner-type jeep which suddenly stopped. He was nonplussed when Oliver grabbed him by the neck, seized his knapsack containing the marijuana, and pushed him inside the jeep. He was made to sit beside the driver with another policeman, while Oliver seated himself at the back seat with another policeman. The jeep they were riding was followed by a patrol car. Still dazed at the sudden turn of events, he asked Oliver four times, "Why is it that this is now happening to me(?)," but Oliver did not respond. At the police station, he was immediately locked up. That afternoon, SPO4 Ventura and SPO2 Ramos, accompanied by Oliver, brought him to the City Fiscal's Office. He was later brought to the provincial hospital where he was subjected to a physical check-up. That was the last time he saw or heard of Oliver.[14]
On July 9, 1999, the court a quo rendered judgment,[15] the dispositive portion of which reads :
The appellant submits the following assignment of errors:
The appeal has no merit.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that the evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide thereon, having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[17] After a thorough and careful review of the records of this case, we find that the guilt of the appellant was sufficiently established by the evidence, and the trial court's judgment is well-supported by law and jurisprudence.
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[18] In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant sold one (1) kilo of marijuana to poseur-buyer SPO1 Orlando Dalusong in the entrapment operation.
Police Superintendent Theresa Ann Cid, the Forensic Chemist assigned at the PNP Crime Laboratory Center at San Fernando, La Union, confirmed[22] Dr. Joseph Adaya's initial finding[23] that the substance seized from the appellant was indeed marijuana, a prohibited drug.
It was also fairly established by SPO3 Diosdado Mamotos[24] and SPO1 Loreto Ancheta[25] that the confiscated marijuana was the same substance examined by the forensic chemist and later presented as evidence in court.
The testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses complement each other, giving a complete picture of how the appellant's illegal sale of the prohibited drug transpired, and how the sale led to his apprehension in flagrante delicto. Their testimonies establish beyond doubt that dangerous drugs were in the possession of the appellant who had no authority to possess or sell the same. More importantly, all the persons who obtained and received the confiscated stuff did so in the performance of their official duties. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[26]
The appellant's bare denial of the crime charged and his barefaced claim that he was merely instigated by Oliver into procuring the marijuana cannot prevail over the straightforward and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is incredible that the appellant, who had just met Belrey Oliver in the course of his canvass for the upholstery of his brother's jeepney, would readily leave his errand behind and allow a stranger to talk him into buying a prohibited drug, a known criminal activity for which he could be prosecuted, and if convicted, sentenced to reclusion perpetua. All this he was willing to risk, in exchange for an empty promise of alleged future favors from another who was also unknown to the appellant. The appellant supposedly traveled to and spent almost three days in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, just to be able to accommodate a newly found acquaintance, who handed the appellant the meager sum of P700.00 for the intended purpose. The Court cannot give credence to such a preposterous stance as advanced by the appellant and confirmed by his supposed corroborative witness, Ernesto Gamiao.
It is axiomatic that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances. In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided by evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in harmony with the usual course of human experience and not by mere conjecture or speculation. Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are necessarily accorded little weight or credence.[27] Besides, instigation, or the appellant's claim of a frame-up, is a defense that has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor because the same can easily be concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[28] Thus, in People vs. Bongalon,[29] the Court held:
The appellant's claim that the prosecution offered in evidence a mere xerox copy of the P500.00 buy money and did not account for its failure to adduce in evidence the original copy thereof is not supported by the records. The records show that the original, and not merely a xerox copy of the marked money, was in fact offered in evidence by the prosecution.[31] The appellant would surely have objected if the prosecution had offered in evidence a mere xerox copy of the bill. The appellant did not do so. The only ground for his objection to the admission of the marked money was that it was self-serving.
Even if the xerox copy of the P500.00 bill was erroneously admitted in evidence by the trial court, the absence of the original of the marked money is inconsequential. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases;[32] it is merely corroborative evidence. Moreover, the appellant was charged not only for the sale of marijuana but also for the delivery thereof, which is committed by the mere delivery or transfer of the prohibited drug. The consideration for the transaction is of no moment.[33]
The law defines deliver as "a person's act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another with or without consideration."[34] Considering that the appellant was charged with the sale and the delivery of prohibited drugs, the consummation of the crime of delivery of marijuana may be sufficiently established even in the absence of the marked money. The erasures and alterations in the Joint Affidavit of the policemen involved in the buy-bust operation did not debilitate the case of the prosecution. First. The Joint Affidavit of the policemen was not admitted in evidence for any party. Second. The investigator who prepared the "Joint Affidavit" erroneously stated that the two P500.00 bills were used by the policemen who conducted the buy-bust operation bearing Serial Numbers AA823675 and G242745. As shown by the prosecution's evidence the policemen used only the P500.00 bill bearing Serial No. G242745 for the purchase of the drug. Hence, the "Joint Affidavit" of the policemen had to be corrected to reflect the truth.
All told, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is, in this case, uncontradicted by evidence to the contrary and, therefore, stands. This is bolstered by the fact that the prosecution's evidence fully shows and confirms such regularity. Accordingly, there exists no cogent reason to reverse or even modify the findings of the trial court giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution.
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 16, in Criminal Case No. 7079, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 1-2.
[2] Record, pp. 17-18.
[3] TSN, 3 June 1998, p. 3.
[4] Id. at 4-5; TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 3-4; Exhibits "D," "E" & "F" and their respective submarkings.
[5] TSN, 8 June 1998, pp. 6-7; TSN, 24 August 1998, p. 4.
[6] TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 5-6.
[7] TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 7-8; TSN, 24 August 1998, p. 7; Exhibit "G" & submarkings.
[8] TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 8-11; TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 4-7; TSN, 26 October 1998, pp. 3-4; Exhibits "B," "H" & "I" & their respective submarkings.
[9] TSN, 3 June 1998, p. 11; Exhibit "A."
[10] TSN, 28 August 1998, pp. 3-5; TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 8-9; Exhibits "A-4" & submarkings.
[11] TSN, 28 August 1998, p. 6; Exhibit "A-1."
[12] TSN, 11 February 1998, pp. 3-6.
[13] Exhibit "C" & sub-markings.
[14] TSN, 20 April 1999, pp. 2-4; TSN, 3 May 1999, pp. 1-7; TSN, 17 May 1999, pp. 1-5.
[15] Records, pp. 128-135.
[16] Rollo, p. 50.
[17] People vs. Larry Caritativo, G.R. Nos. 145452-53, June 10, 2003.
[18] People vs. Agnes Padasin y Chakiton, G.R. No. 143671, February 14, 2003.
[19] TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 3-7.
[20] TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 3-12.
[21] TSN, 8 June 1998, pp. 2-8.
[22] TSN, 11 February 1998, pp. 3-7; Exhibit "C" & submarkings.
[23] TSN, 26 October 1998, pp. 2-4; Exhibit "I."
[24] TSN, 28 August 1998, pp. 2-7.
[25] TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 1-11.
[26] People vs. Reynaldo Remerata y Remoquillo, G.R. No. 147230, April 29, 2003.
[27] People vs. Fausto Obedo y Borbajo, G.R. No. 123054, June 10, 2003.
[28] People vs. Evelyn Patayek y Calag, G.R. No. 123076, March 26, 2003.
[29] 374 SCRA 289 (2002).
[30] People vs. Uy, 380 SCRA 700 (2002).
[31] Exhibit "E." NOTE: The Folder of Exhibits contained the envelope (Exhibit "F") on which it is written that the P500.00 bill (Exhibit "E") is contained therein. However, the envelope does not contain the said P500.00 bill.
[32] People vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 (1998).
[33] People vs. Ruel Eugenio y Angeles, G.R. No. 146805, January 16, 2003.
[34] People vs. Ganenas, 364 SCRA 582 (2001).
That on or about the 12th day of August, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver mixed dried marijuana leaves, tops and seeds in brick form, wrapped with paper placed in a plastic bag, a prohibited drug, weighing 800 grams, to a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted by Police Officers of Laoag City, in violation of the aforesaid law.[1]Upon arraignment on August 29, 1994, the appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.[2] The case thereafter proceeded to trial.
The Case for the Prosecution
On August 12, 1994, at around 11:00 a.m., Belrey Oliver, an employee of Ferd's Upholstery Shop located in Barangay 2, Laoag City, arrived at the Laoag Police Station. He reported to Chief Investigator SPO4 Rodrigo Ventura that the appellant went to their shop looking for a buyer of marijuana. Oliver recounted telling the appellant that he knew of someone who was interested and ready to buy marijuana, and instructing him to bring one (1) kilo of the substance to a store located in front of the Divine Word College of Laoag at General Segundo Avenue, Laoag City at around 1:30 p.m. of that same day.[3]
Acting on the said report, SPO4 Ventura formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. He assigned SPO1 Orlando Dalusong as the poseur-buyer, and SPO2 Marlin Ramos, SPO2 Warlito Maruquin, SPO1 Rovimanuel Balolong, SPO1 Loreto Ancheta, and SPO2 Rosemarie Agustin, all assigned at the Investigation Section of the Laoag Police Station as back-up. The marked "buy-money" consisting of one P500-bill bearing Serial No. G-242745 was recorded in the police blotter in accordance with standard operating procedure.[4]
Except for SPO1 Dalusong and Oliver, the rest of the team left the precinct on board two (2) owner-type jeeps and posted themselves near the Macmac Store, across the gate of the Divine Word College. Five minutes later, SPO1 Dalusong and Oliver arrived at General Segundo Avenue.[5] Oliver immediately approached the appellant, who was then standing between the Macmac Store and a xerox center, and introduced poseur-buyer SPO1 Dalusong, who was sporting casual clothes and slippers: "Pare, daytoy tay gumatangen" ("Friend, this is the buyer"). At this point, the appellant who was carrying an orange plastic bag, brought out a brick-like item wrapped in newspaper. He handed the item to SPO1 Dalusong, who forthwith checked the same by making a small hole through it. Convinced that the brick-like item was indeed marijuana, SPO1 Dalusong handed the P500 bill to the appellant. He thereupon scratched his head, a signal to the back-up men that the transaction had been consummated.[6] Momentarily, the back-up officers, who had earlier positioned themselves separately in different strategic locations near the poseur-buyer, rushed to the scene and arrested the appellant. SPO1 Dalusong then handed the orange plastic bag containing the suspected marijuana to SPO4 Ventura. SPO2 Ramos frisked the appellant and recovered the buy-money from the latter's pocket. Thereafter, the appellant was brought to the headquarters where he was booked, and the incident was recorded in the police blotter.[7] The suspected marijuana was brought to and initially examined by Dr. Joseph Adaya, an accredited physician of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), who certified that the item comprised of three genuine mixture of marijuana leaves with seeds.[8]
On September 5, 1994, SPO4 Ventura sent a letter to the Commanding Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Camp Diego Silang, San Fernando, La Union, requesting for the examination of samples of the suspected marijuana taken from the appellant.[9] On September 6, 1998, SPO1 Loreto Ancheta, evidence custodian of the Laoag City, PNP, delivered the orange plastic bag containing the suspected marijuana to the PNP provincial crime laboratory service in Camp Juan, Laoag City. The bag, together with SPO4 Ventura's letter-request, was received by SPO3 Diosdado Mamotos.[10] On September 8, 1994, SPO3 Mamotos forwarded the laboratory request and the confiscated item, and were duly received by SPO4 Tampos.[11] The latter, in turn, handed the item to Police Superintendent Theresa Ann B. Cid, Forensic Chemist of the Crime Laboratory Center, Region I, Camp Diego Silang, Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union, who conducted an examination of representative samples extracted from the suspected marijuana confiscated from the appellant.[12] On the basis of her examination, Superintendent Cid issued Chemistry Report No. D-074-94 with the following findings:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED :
One (1) block of suspected marijuana fruiting tops weighing eight hundred grams (800) wrapped with newspaper pages contained in an orange plastic bag.
...
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY EXAMINATION :
To determine the presence of marijuana on the above-mentioned specimen.
F I N D I N G S :
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimen prove POSITIVE result to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.[13]
The appellant interposed the twin defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that sometime in the first week of August 1994, he and Ernesto Gamiao went to the City of Laoag to canvass the price for the repair of the upholstery of a passenger jeepney. On that occasion, they befriended a certain Belrey Oliver who was an employee of the Ferd's Upholstery Shop. In the course of their conversation, Oliver asked the appellant where he came from and what his occupation was. Upon being told that he helped in harvesting mangoes in Cagayan, Oliver immediately offered refreshments to Gamiao and the appellant. While taking their snacks, Oliver inquired whether they wanted to back up the promotion of certain policemen who, in the future, might be able to return the favor to them. When the appellant asked in what way they could extend help, Oliver suggested that they look for somebody in Cagayan from whom they could buy one (1) kilo of marijuana. He agreed to Oliver's suggestion. The latter handed to him the amount of P700.00 to cover the purchase of the marijuana. The appellant immediately went to the terminal bound for Cagayan to look for somebody from that province who could be of help. When he could not find anyone, he decided to personally take the trip. He then instructed Gamiao to just go home to Vintar and inform his mother that he was going to Cagayan.
The appellant thereafter took a bus bound for Tuguegarao, Cagayan. After three (3) days, he was able to buy one kilo of marijuana for P300.00. When he returned to Laoag City on August 12, 1994, he went to Ferd's Upholstery Shop at 11:30 a.m. to inform Oliver that he had procured the order. After seeing the marijuana, Oliver instructed him to take it and meet him at about 12:30 p.m. of the same day in front of the Divine Word College where they would hand over the marijuana to the policemen they intended to help.
At about 12:00 noon, the appellant arrived at Macmac's Store and took his merienda. Momentarily, Oliver arrived alone on a tricycle. Oliver summoned him and they walked southward, away from the Macmac's Store, looking for the policemen to whom they would deliver the marijuana. They walked back northward, at which point they encountered an owner-type jeep which suddenly stopped. He was nonplussed when Oliver grabbed him by the neck, seized his knapsack containing the marijuana, and pushed him inside the jeep. He was made to sit beside the driver with another policeman, while Oliver seated himself at the back seat with another policeman. The jeep they were riding was followed by a patrol car. Still dazed at the sudden turn of events, he asked Oliver four times, "Why is it that this is now happening to me(?)," but Oliver did not respond. At the police station, he was immediately locked up. That afternoon, SPO4 Ventura and SPO2 Ramos, accompanied by Oliver, brought him to the City Fiscal's Office. He was later brought to the provincial hospital where he was subjected to a physical check-up. That was the last time he saw or heard of Oliver.[14]
On July 9, 1999, the court a quo rendered judgment,[15] the dispositive portion of which reads :
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court is morally convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Manny Domingcil is GUILTY under Sec. 4 of Art. II, RA No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The quantity of marijuana involved is more than 750 grams; hence, in accordance with Sec. 20, the penalty provided for in Sec. 4, shall be applied. The accused is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua with all its accessory penalties and to pay the costs.Hence, the present appeal.
The appellant submits the following assignment of errors:
The appellant contends that contrary to the collective testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Oliver instigated him to buy marijuana. The trial court erred in not giving credence and probative weight to his testimony and in considering the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution.
- The lower Court erred in finding that the accused was not instigated in looking for marijuana and bringing it to Laoag.
- The lower Court erred in finding that the accused received the FIVE HUNDRED PESO bill, despite his denial that he received the same and that his denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the police officers who are presumed to be regularly performing their official duties, there being no improper motive attributed to them.
- The lower Court erred in convicting the accused.[16]
The appeal has no merit.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that the evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. The reason for this rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide thereon, having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[17] After a thorough and careful review of the records of this case, we find that the guilt of the appellant was sufficiently established by the evidence, and the trial court's judgment is well-supported by law and jurisprudence.
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.[18] In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant sold one (1) kilo of marijuana to poseur-buyer SPO1 Orlando Dalusong in the entrapment operation.
The foregoing testimony of SPO1 Orlando Dalusong was corroborated on material points by SPO4 Rodrigo Ventura, then Chief of the Intelligence Section of the PNP of Laoag City who organized and conducted the operation and was part of the buy-bust team itself.[20] SPO4 Ventura remained steadfast and unwavering on cross-examination despite intense grilling by the defense counsel.[21]
Police Superintendent Theresa Ann Cid, the Forensic Chemist assigned at the PNP Crime Laboratory Center at San Fernando, La Union, confirmed[22] Dr. Joseph Adaya's initial finding[23] that the substance seized from the appellant was indeed marijuana, a prohibited drug.
It was also fairly established by SPO3 Diosdado Mamotos[24] and SPO1 Loreto Ancheta[25] that the confiscated marijuana was the same substance examined by the forensic chemist and later presented as evidence in court.
The testimonies of the principal prosecution witnesses complement each other, giving a complete picture of how the appellant's illegal sale of the prohibited drug transpired, and how the sale led to his apprehension in flagrante delicto. Their testimonies establish beyond doubt that dangerous drugs were in the possession of the appellant who had no authority to possess or sell the same. More importantly, all the persons who obtained and received the confiscated stuff did so in the performance of their official duties. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[26]
The appellant's bare denial of the crime charged and his barefaced claim that he was merely instigated by Oliver into procuring the marijuana cannot prevail over the straightforward and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is incredible that the appellant, who had just met Belrey Oliver in the course of his canvass for the upholstery of his brother's jeepney, would readily leave his errand behind and allow a stranger to talk him into buying a prohibited drug, a known criminal activity for which he could be prosecuted, and if convicted, sentenced to reclusion perpetua. All this he was willing to risk, in exchange for an empty promise of alleged future favors from another who was also unknown to the appellant. The appellant supposedly traveled to and spent almost three days in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, just to be able to accommodate a newly found acquaintance, who handed the appellant the meager sum of P700.00 for the intended purpose. The Court cannot give credence to such a preposterous stance as advanced by the appellant and confirmed by his supposed corroborative witness, Ernesto Gamiao.
It is axiomatic that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances. In criminal prosecution, the court is always guided by evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in harmony with the usual course of human experience and not by mere conjecture or speculation. Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are necessarily accorded little weight or credence.[27] Besides, instigation, or the appellant's claim of a frame-up, is a defense that has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor because the same can easily be concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[28] Thus, in People vs. Bongalon,[29] the Court held:
As we have earlier stated, the appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be, concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemen's alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists.The failure of the prosecution to present Oliver, the police informant, does not enfeeble the case for the prosecution. Informants are almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with inasmuch as his or her narration would be merely corroborative, especially so in this case, when the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug.[30]
The appellant's claim that the prosecution offered in evidence a mere xerox copy of the P500.00 buy money and did not account for its failure to adduce in evidence the original copy thereof is not supported by the records. The records show that the original, and not merely a xerox copy of the marked money, was in fact offered in evidence by the prosecution.[31] The appellant would surely have objected if the prosecution had offered in evidence a mere xerox copy of the bill. The appellant did not do so. The only ground for his objection to the admission of the marked money was that it was self-serving.
Even if the xerox copy of the P500.00 bill was erroneously admitted in evidence by the trial court, the absence of the original of the marked money is inconsequential. The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in drug cases;[32] it is merely corroborative evidence. Moreover, the appellant was charged not only for the sale of marijuana but also for the delivery thereof, which is committed by the mere delivery or transfer of the prohibited drug. The consideration for the transaction is of no moment.[33]
The law defines deliver as "a person's act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another with or without consideration."[34] Considering that the appellant was charged with the sale and the delivery of prohibited drugs, the consummation of the crime of delivery of marijuana may be sufficiently established even in the absence of the marked money. The erasures and alterations in the Joint Affidavit of the policemen involved in the buy-bust operation did not debilitate the case of the prosecution. First. The Joint Affidavit of the policemen was not admitted in evidence for any party. Second. The investigator who prepared the "Joint Affidavit" erroneously stated that the two P500.00 bills were used by the policemen who conducted the buy-bust operation bearing Serial Numbers AA823675 and G242745. As shown by the prosecution's evidence the policemen used only the P500.00 bill bearing Serial No. G242745 for the purchase of the drug. Hence, the "Joint Affidavit" of the policemen had to be corrected to reflect the truth.
All told, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is, in this case, uncontradicted by evidence to the contrary and, therefore, stands. This is bolstered by the fact that the prosecution's evidence fully shows and confirms such regularity. Accordingly, there exists no cogent reason to reverse or even modify the findings of the trial court giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution.
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 16, in Criminal Case No. 7079, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
[1] Records, pp. 1-2.
[2] Record, pp. 17-18.
[3] TSN, 3 June 1998, p. 3.
[4] Id. at 4-5; TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 3-4; Exhibits "D," "E" & "F" and their respective submarkings.
[5] TSN, 8 June 1998, pp. 6-7; TSN, 24 August 1998, p. 4.
[6] TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 5-6.
[7] TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 7-8; TSN, 24 August 1998, p. 7; Exhibit "G" & submarkings.
[8] TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 8-11; TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 4-7; TSN, 26 October 1998, pp. 3-4; Exhibits "B," "H" & "I" & their respective submarkings.
[9] TSN, 3 June 1998, p. 11; Exhibit "A."
[10] TSN, 28 August 1998, pp. 3-5; TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 8-9; Exhibits "A-4" & submarkings.
[11] TSN, 28 August 1998, p. 6; Exhibit "A-1."
[12] TSN, 11 February 1998, pp. 3-6.
[13] Exhibit "C" & sub-markings.
[14] TSN, 20 April 1999, pp. 2-4; TSN, 3 May 1999, pp. 1-7; TSN, 17 May 1999, pp. 1-5.
[15] Records, pp. 128-135.
[16] Rollo, p. 50.
[17] People vs. Larry Caritativo, G.R. Nos. 145452-53, June 10, 2003.
[18] People vs. Agnes Padasin y Chakiton, G.R. No. 143671, February 14, 2003.
[19] TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 3-7.
[20] TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 3-12.
[21] TSN, 8 June 1998, pp. 2-8.
[22] TSN, 11 February 1998, pp. 3-7; Exhibit "C" & submarkings.
[23] TSN, 26 October 1998, pp. 2-4; Exhibit "I."
[24] TSN, 28 August 1998, pp. 2-7.
[25] TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 1-11.
[26] People vs. Reynaldo Remerata y Remoquillo, G.R. No. 147230, April 29, 2003.
[27] People vs. Fausto Obedo y Borbajo, G.R. No. 123054, June 10, 2003.
[28] People vs. Evelyn Patayek y Calag, G.R. No. 123076, March 26, 2003.
[29] 374 SCRA 289 (2002).
[30] People vs. Uy, 380 SCRA 700 (2002).
[31] Exhibit "E." NOTE: The Folder of Exhibits contained the envelope (Exhibit "F") on which it is written that the P500.00 bill (Exhibit "E") is contained therein. However, the envelope does not contain the said P500.00 bill.
[32] People vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 (1998).
[33] People vs. Ruel Eugenio y Angeles, G.R. No. 146805, January 16, 2003.
[34] People vs. Ganenas, 364 SCRA 582 (2001).