Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > April 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 71752 April 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO M. RANOLA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 71752. April 12, 1989.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERTO RANOLA y MAGDARAO, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; FINDINGS OF FACT OF TRIAL COURTS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT AND RESPECT. — It is a settled principle of evidence in this jurisdiction that findings of fact and credibility of witnesses by the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal (People v. Millarpe, 134 SCRA 555; Municipality of Victorias v. CA, 149 SCRA 32; People v. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 350; People v. Francia, 154 SCRA 495). Finding no indiscretion on the part of the trial court, We apply the above legal tenet to the case at bar.

2. ID.; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR TESTIMONIAL INCONSISTENCIES. — The appellant failed to controvert the more credible evidence of the prosecution pointing to the fact that the former actually sold to Pat. Puchero marijuana leaves for ten pesos (P10.00) in violation of RA 6425, Sec. 4. While there may be some contradictions in the testimonies of the arresting officers as to incidents in carrying out the buy-bust operation, such are minor and do not affect their credibility (People v. Manalo, 135 SCRA People v. Dava, 149 SCRA 582).

3. ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTIONS; REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY NOT OVERTHROWN IN CASE AT BAR. — Appellant attacks the arresting officers’ motive in apprehending him. However, appellant’s allegations remain unfounded. As such, the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed (Rule 131, Sec. 5[6]) stands. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Solicitor General "there is no showing that prosecution witnesses . . . had any ill-motive against and falsely accused appellant, considering the gravity of the offense charged . . . As such, their testimonies cannot be discredited where no motive is shown why they would frame up the accused (People v. Lim, 71 SCRA 249 [1976])."


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Finding the accused guilty of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 as charged in the information, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 4th day of July, 1983, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to Pat. Eduardo Puchero, who posed as buyer, dried marijuana leaves in a small plastic bag, a prohibited drug, knowing the same to be such and without any lawful authority.

"CONTRARY TO LAW." (p. 17, Rollo)

the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City, Branch 123, in its questioned decision dated July 17, 1985, ordered thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, premises considered the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 and imposes on him the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS. The packet of marijuana leaves are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government and the Social Worker of this Court is hereby directed to turn over said packet of marijuana leaves after proper receipt therefor to the Dangerous Drug Board for proper disposal of the same.

"SO ORDERED." (p. 21, Rollo)

Hence, the accused interposed this present appeal. And as expected of cases of this nature, the parties hold on to their own version of the facts. As found by the trial court, the prosecution’s account in brief states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The evidence for the prosecution showed that at about 4:25 p.m. on July 4, 1983 Pat. Eduardo Puchero and Pfc. Albino Pedria we Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City together with a confidential informer after they were instructed by their chief to cause the arrest of a certain alias ‘John Lennon’ reported to be a drug pusher. Pat. Puchero knew who ‘John Lennon’ was even prior to July 4, 1983 and that his real name was Roberto Ranola. He learned all this from his informer. After conducting a surveillance at the place, they finally saw ‘John Lennon’ at about 8:20 p.m. along G. de Jesus Street Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Pat. Puchero acted as poses while Pfc. Pedria stood about 5 to 8 meters away from them during the transaction. The informer had left.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"Pat. Puchero made contact with ‘John Lennon’, the accused herein and told him he wanted to buy marijuana. After a brief negotiation, the accused gave him a small plastic bag containing the marijuana he was buying. He gave accused a marked ten (P10.00) peso bill and then arrested him (TSN October 3, 1984). Pfc. Pedria joined him and took the marked P10.00 bill from the pocket of the accused after they had arrested him (TSN April 26, 1984). They brought him to Camp Sikatuna. Pat. Ricardo Param conducted the investigation and referred the specimen confiscated from the accused to the PC Crime Laboratory for the necessary examination. The Chemistry Report (Exh.’B’) showed that the specimen was positive for marijuana." (p. 19, Rollo)

Likewise, the court a quo summarized the evidence for the defense in this manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On the other hand, the lone witness for the defense, who was the accused himself, testified that on July 4, 1983 at about 7:00 p.m. he was going home from work when he stopped at the corner of G. de Jesus St., Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City to converse with two tricycle drivers whom he knew. Two persons approached them, together with a boy who pointed to him and said ‘Yan ho, yan ho.’ He was immediately handcuffed and was told he was John Lennon, a drug pusher. He denied this and said he did not know any John Lennon. The two who handcuffed him introduced themselves as peace officers and forced him to go with them. They showed a plastic container to his companions, the tricycle drivers. The police officers brought him; police HQ at Sikatuna, Quezon City, where he was mauled. They told him to make a statement but he did not give any. They continued mauling him and brought him to the Fiscal, but he did not tell the Fiscal about the mauling because the police threatened him." (TSN January 23, 1985) (p. 19, Rollo)

Basically, appellant submits that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He assails the credibility of the two arresting officers as witnesses for the prosecution, pointing to inconsistencies and alleged improbabilities in their respective testimonies. It is claimed that while Patrolman Pedria testified that there were only two (2) of them involved in he buy-bust operation (TSN, April 26, 1984, p. 4) Patrolman Puchero states that there were three of them, including his informer (TSN, October 31, 1984, p. 6). Appellant also insists that since the arresting officers do not know alias JOHN LENNON as the person to be arrested, they could not be honestly believed in their declarations. He finally submits that, in reality, no such buying and selling of marijuana ever occurred and that he was a victim of the two arresting officers’ eagerness to please their commanding officers in arresting anybody who may be pointed to them as alias JOHN LENNON.

After having gone through the records, We find no reason to alter the trial court’s ruling. As correctly noted by the Solicitor General in his Brief, the issue involved here is one of credibility of witnesses. And like the trial court, We believe the prosecution’s version and uphold the credibility of its witnesses.

It is a settled principle of evidence in this jurisdiction that findings of fact and credibility of witnesses by the trial court are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal (People v. Millarpe, 134 SCRA 555; Municipality of Victorias v. CA, 149 SCRA 32; People v. Taduyo, 154 SCRA 350; People v. Francia, 154 SCRA 495). Finding no indiscretion on the part of the trial court, We apply the above legal tenet to the case at bar. But even if such principle were not invoked the fact is that the appellant failed to controvert the more credible evidence of the prosecution pointing to the fact that the former actually sold to Pat. Puchero marijuana leaves for ten pesos (P10.00) in violation of RA 6425, Sec. 4. While there may be some contradictions in the testimonies of the arresting officers as to incidents in carrying out the buy-bust operation, such are minor and do not affect their credibility (People v. Manalo, 135 SCRA People v. Dava, 149 SCRA 582). And contrary to the appellant’s claim, the evidence shows that Pat. Puchero, who posed as buyer, came to know the person of alias JOHN LENNON through his confidential informer while he was conducting surveillance activities prior to the actual buy-bust operation (see TSN, October 31, 1984, pp. 6, 8). The best evidence the appellant could have presented, aside from his self-serving declarations, are the testimonies of his tricycle driver friends who allegedly witnessed his arrest. As the trial court fittingly observed:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"He could have supported this allegation by presenting his two friends, the tricycle drivers Boy and Kiko, who, according to his testimony were present when he was apprehended by the two policemen, since they were conversing at that time.

‘An accused person runs the risk of an inference against him because of his failure to produce evidence. Unless the failure to produce evidence is explained away, the inference is that the tenor of the specific unproduced evidence would not support his case. (People v. Santos, 91 Phil. 320)

Rule 131, Sec. 5 includes among the disputable presumptions the following: ‘that evidence wilfully suppressed would be adverse if produced." ‘ (RTC Decision, p. 20, Rollo)

Having failed in this respect, the above presumption made by law operates against appellant. All these taken together create a moral certainty as to appellant’s guilt, compelling us to affirm the trial court’s ruling.

In a last ditch effort to avoid liability, appellant attacks the arresting officers’ motive in apprehending him. However, appellant’s allegations remain unfounded. As such, the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed (Rule 131, Sec. 5[6]) stands. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Solicitor General "there is no showing that prosecution witnesses . . . had any ill-motive against and falsely accused appellant, considering the gravity of the offense charged . . . As such, their testimonies cannot be discredited where no motive is shown why they would frame up the accused (People v. Lim, 71 SCRA 249 [1976])." (Rollo, p. 40-K)

Accordingly, We AFFIRM the trial court’s decision.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 55272 April 10, 1989 - JARDINE-MANILA FINANCE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80687 April 10, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., v. MARIANO M. UMALI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67752 April 10, 1989 - NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  • G.R. Nos. 74151-54 April 10, 1989 - SUPERCARS, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76119 April 10, 1989 - PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78295 & 79917 April 10, 1989 - CELSO D. LAVIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78595 April 10, 1989 - TIMOTEO MAGNO v. FLORENTINA BLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79106 April 10, 1989 - CHRISTIAN LITERATURE CRUSADE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79582 April 10, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62259 April 10, 1989 - DOLORES V. MENDOZA, ET AL. v. AGRIX MARKETING INC.

  • G.R. Nos. 80455-56 April 10, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82009 April 10, 1989 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2144 April 10, 1989 - CELEDONIO QUILBAN, ET AL. v. SANTIAGO R. ROBINOL

  • G.R. No. 29390 April 12, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 37289 April 12, 1989 - THE CITY OF NAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 49022 April 12, 1989 - ANTONIO S. PENDOT v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 53446 April 12, 1989 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. v. CEFERINO DULAY

  • G.R. No. 71752 April 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO M. RANOLA

  • G.R. No. 77539 April 12, 1989 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU-TUCP) v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 78252 April 12, 1989 - PALUWAGAN NG BAYAN SAVINGS BANK v. ANGELO KING

  • G.R. No. 78684 April 12, 1989 - LUIS SUSON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78774 April 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR R. SALCEDO

  • G.R. No. 79718-22 April 12, 1989 - QUEZON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 79946 April 12, 1989 - GERONIMO MANALAYSAY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80800 April 12, 1989 - IMELDA SYJUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 83139 April 12, 1989 - ARNEL SY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84087 April 12, 1989 - TEODORA CATUIRA v. COURT APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 69492 April 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 80089 April 13, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SATURNINO REY

  • G.R. No. 86439 April 13, 1989 - MARY CONCEPCION BAUTISTA v. JOVITO R. SALONGA

  • G.R. No. 26855 April 17, 1989 - FRANCISCO GARCIA v. JOSE CALALIMAN

  • G.R. No. 36786 April 17, 1989 - PEDRO LIM v. PERFECTO JABALDE

  • G.R. No. L-46079 April 17, 1989 - ESTEBAN C. MANUEL v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO

  • G.R. No. 57395 April 17, 1989 - ALFREDO DE GUZMAN v. JESUS M. ELBINIAS

  • G.R. No. 58986 April 17, 1989 - DANTE Y. GO v. FERNANDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 63742 April 17, 1989 - TANJAY WATER DISTRICT v. PEDRO GABATON

  • G.R. No. 64867-68 April 17, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME L. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 66420 April 17, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 72837 April 17, 1989 - ESTER JAVELLANA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 74225 April 17, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78827 April 17, 1989 - ENRIQUE S. VILLARUEL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79425 April 17, 1989 - CRESENCIANA ATUN ESQUIVEL v. ANGEL M. ALEGRE

  • G.R. No. 82072 April 17, 1989 - GEORGIA G. TUMANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82346-47 April 17, 1989 - VICTORIANO ADA v. MARCIANO T. VIROLA

  • G.R. No. 82373 April 17, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO C. LAMOG

  • G.R. No. 84307 April 17, 1989 - CIRIACO HINOGUIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 86595 April 17, 1989 - PHIL. NAT’L. CONSTRUCTION CORP. TOLLWAYS DIVISION v. NAT’L. LABOR RELATIONS COMM.

  • G.R. Nos. 28502-03 April 18, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC

  • G.R. No. 46127 April 18, 1989 - CONCEPCION DELA ROSA v. TARCELA FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 48714 April 18, 1989 - GREGORIO JANDUSAY v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 58028 April 18, 1989 - CHIANG KAl SHEK SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 62909 April 18, 1989 - HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORP. v. ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN

  • G.R. No. 67626 April 18, 1989 - JOSE REMO, JR. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 67787 April 18, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSIE CUARESMA

  • G.R. No. 72783 April 18, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO REBANCOS

  • G.R. Nos. 73486-87 April 18, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO SABANAL

  • G.R. No. 76853 April 18, 1989 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80039 April 18, 1989 - ERNESTO M. APODACA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 81833 April 18, 1989 - CATALINA B. VDA. DE ALVIR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 81961 April 18, 1989 - DIRECTOR OF LAND MANAGEMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82741 April 18, 1989 - MANSALAY CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83234 April 18, 1989 - OSIAS ACADEMY v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 83513 April 18, 1989 - LEONCITO PACAÑA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 84481 April 18, 1989 - MINDANAO SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 84764 April 18, 1989 - CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. v. CONSUELO Y. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 39607 April 19, 1989 - UNION CARBIDE PHIL., INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. 45866 April 19, 1989 - OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 47300 April 19, 1989 - GODOFREDO S. GONZAGA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. 55082 April 19, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICANOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 61756 April 19, 1989 - MARIA VDA. DE TOLENTINO v. FELIZARDO S.M. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 75672 April 19, 1989 - HEIRS OF GUMANGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 81162 April 19, 1989 - PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COMPANY v. JOB GUANZON

  • G.R. No. 81176 April 19, 1989 - PLASTIC TOWN CENTER CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 81477 April 19, 1989 - DENTECH MANUFACTURING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 82312 April 19, 1989 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY ASSOC. v. MANUEL L. QUEZON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

  • A.M. No. R-218-MTJ April 19, 1989 - CONCHITA C. VALENCIA v. JOSE MONTEMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 33284 April 20, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CENTENO, Et. Al.

  • G.R. No. 44902 April 20, 1989 - SERGIA B. ESTRELLA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 35238 April 21, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE G. ERICTA

  • G.R. No. 36081 April 24, 1989 - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. QUEZON CITY

  • G.R. No. 44095 April 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR P. SIAT

  • G.R. No. 52119 April 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 74479 April 24, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONCORDIO SARDA

  • G.R. No. 79899 April 24, 1989 - D. ANNIE TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80882 April 24, 1989 - SOUTHERN PHILS. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. PURA FERRER CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 85785 April 24, 1989 - BENITO O. SY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 67451 April 25, 1989 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 76391-92 April 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BAYSA

  • G.R. Nos. 76854-60 April 25, 1989 - AUGUSTO C. LEGASTO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80998 April 25, 1989 - LEONARDO B. LUCENA v. PAN-TRADE, INC.

  • G.R. No. 81332 April 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLAN T. RODRIGUEZ

  • G.R. No. 82580 April 25, 1989 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • A.C. No. 1437 April 25, 1989 - HILARIA TANHUECO v. JUSTINIANO G. DE DUMO

  • G.R. No. 51832 April 26, 1989 - RAFAEL PATRICIO v. OSCAR LEVISTE

  • G.R. No. 57822 April 26, 1989 - PEDRO ESCUDERO v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. No. 64753 April 26, 1989 - PLACIDO MANALO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 73978-80 April 26, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS GLINOGO

  • G.R. No. 77085 April 26, 1989 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80638 April 26, 1989 - GABRIEL ELANE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 81471 April 26, 1989 - CHONG GUAN TRADING v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 58445 April 27, 1989 - ZAIDA G. RARO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 63253-54 April 27, 1989 - PABLO RALLA v. ROMULO P. UNTALAN

  • G.R. No. 78635 April 27, 1989 - LEONORA OBAÑA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80863 April 27, 1989 - ANTONIO M. VILLANUEVA v. ABEDNEGO O. ADRE

  • G.R. No. 81551 April 27, 1989 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION