Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > March 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 64262 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELERINO A. VIOLA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 64262. March 16, 1989.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CELERINO VIOLA y ARLENTE, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT GENERALLY UPHELD ON APPEAL. — The determination of the issues on appeal raised by appellant hinges on the credibility of the witnesses. The defense maintains that appellant was instigated and not entrapped by the Philippine Constabulary, CANU officers and to substantiate such claim, Accused himself was presented as the only witness for the defense. The trial court, obviously gave more weight to the evidence for the prosecution in convicting the accused. Appellant has failed miserably to show any reason or improper motive why the witnesses for the prosecution would implicate him. We are satisfied that the trial court has not overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance as would affect the result of the case.

2. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHOSE TESTIMONY WOULD BE CORROBORATIVE NEED NOT BE PRESENTED. — The fact that the confidential informant was not presented as a witness does not affect the findings of the lower court since his additional testimony would merely be corroborative.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


On appeal from a conviction imposing life imprisonment for violation of Section 15, Article III of R.A. 6425 as amended by P.D. No. 44 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), Accused Celerino Viola y Arlente submits the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

I


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPELLANT AND IN CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

II


THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

III


THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT IS CONTRARY TO EXISTING LAW AND APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE. (Rollo, p. 75)

The theory of the prosecution can be gathered from the documentary exhibits and testimonies of its witnesses, 2nd Lt. Miguel Marcelo, Sgt. Abelardo Lasam both of the Philippine Constabulary (PC), CANU, Camp Crame, Quezon City and Lt. Nelly Cariaga of the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In the morning of October 5, 1981, the office of the PC, CANU received information about the presence of a drug pusher at Pedro Gil in the City of Manila. Lt. Marcelo and Sgt. Lasam who responded to the report, proceeded to the place relayed to them and posted themselves at a gasoline station near Arellano High School (p. 6-7, t.s.n. Dec. 1, 1981). At about 12:30 P.M., Accused herein Celerino Viola y Arlente, approached their confidential informant, whose name was not disclosed for security reasons, wherein the latter gave the accused a marked P50.00 bill. This transaction was witnessed by the two officers at a distance of about five (5) meters. Thereafter the accused left to secure the prohibited drug without being followed by the two (2) officers. Accused returned after 30 minutes and in the process of giving nine (9) Mogadon tablets to the confidential informant, the two CANU officers introduced themselves to the accused (pp. 7-8, Ibid.) and inquired from him where he secured them (p. 12, Ibid.). The accused led them to a certain place to see a certain Jojo as the alleged supplier of the Mogadon tablets. However, said Jojo was nowhere to be found in said place (p. 13, Ibid.)chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Accused, who was taken to Camp Crame for further investigation, admitted his guilt in a written unsubscribed statement after being informed of his constitutional rights. The nine (9) tablets of Mogadon were submitted to the laboratory for analysis. In her testimony later in court, Lt. Nelly Cariaga of the Philippine Constabulary Crime Laboratory testified that the nine (9) tablets of Mogadon marked `Roche’ wrapped in aluminum foil (Exh. C), which were the same nine (9) tablets of Mogadon submitted for examination showed a positive result that they were Mogadon tablets (Exhibit B).

On the other hand, defense gave the following version:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On October 5, 1981 at about 11:30 o’clock in the morning, the accused was inside the premises of Arellano University, F.G. Calderon High School, located at Pedro Gil Street, Sta. Ana, Manila, where he is a student. Then Eddie Chua, a student of Mapua Institute called him and invited him to a nearby restaurant — the Egg Bitter Restaurant for a softdrink. While thereat they saw "Boy Toothpick" and Joel Garcia. "Boy Toothpick" is a student but he does not know of what school while Joel Garcia is also a student of Arellano University. "Boy Toothpick" and Joel Garcia joined them (accused and Eddie Chua) and when they had finished their drinks, the CANU agents, Sgt. Lasam and Lt. Marcelo, arrived. The accused was then handed fifty pesos (P50.00) consisting of two (2) P20.00 bills and one (1) P10.00 bill by "Boy Toothpick" and was told to buy Mogadon. The accused refused as Eddie Chua and "Boy Toothpick" did not want to accompany him. However the CANU agents assured and told the accused they would follow him so that they could apprehend the seller. The accused then took a tricycle to buy the Mogadon tablets in Makati. He did not see anybody following him but nevertheless bought the Mogadon tablets for fear of being mauled by the group. When he returned with the Mogadon tablets which cost P49.50 and while on his way to the restaurant, the CANU agents immediately arrested him. He gave the change of P0.50 to "Boy Toothpick." He was then brought to Camp Crame where he was detained. He was made to sign a blank paper at about midnight of the same date. He signed the same because he was promised to be freed if he signs it. The person who investigated him is not one of the CANU agents. That at the time of his arrest, he was merely 19 years old. (Brief for the Appellant, pp. 3 & 4).cralawnad

The trial court after giving more weight to the evidence for the prosecution rendered a decision, * the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sec. 15 of Article III of RA 6425 as amended by PD No. 44 and as further amended by PD No. 1683, ** otherwise known as `The Dangerous Drug Act of 1972,’ and consequently he is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of P20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

"SO ORDERED." (p. 46, Rollo)

Hence the accused interposed the present appeal.

The appeal is not worthy of consideration.

The determination of the issues on appeal raised by appellant hinges on the credibility of the witnesses. The defense maintains that appellant was instigated and not entrapped by the Philippine Constabulary, CANU officers and to substantiate such claim, Accused himself was presented as the only witness for the defense. The trial court, obviously gave more weight to the evidence for the prosecution in convicting the accused.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Accused himself testified that it was agreed that he will be followed by the CANU agents or officers in buying the Mogadon in order to determine the person who is selling the Mogadon tablets and to apprehend him (Appellant’s brief, p. 8) but at the same time admitted that he did not see the CANU agents following him and yet he claimed that despite this, he still bought the drugs out of sheer fear that they might maul him. Such testimony fails to convince Us of witness’ credibility.

It is clear from the established facts that appellant was caught committing the crime charged. He was the one who delivered the Mogadon tablets to the confidential informant. He was the one who supplied the name of a non-existent "Jojo" as the source of the prohibited drug. There is no dispute that appellant received P50.00 and handed nine (9) Mogadon tablets. The testimony of Lt. Marcelo that appellant left for thirty (30) minutes is not at all in conflict with the testimony of Sgt. Lasam that appellant returned after more or less one (1) hour. And even if it were, the inconsistency is immaterial.

Appellant has failed miserably to show any reason or improper motive why the witnesses for the prosecution would implicate him. The fact that the confidential informant was not presented as a witness does not affect the findings of the lower court since his additional testimony would merely be corroborative to the testimonies of Lt. Marcelo and Sgt. Lasam, whose testimonies were found by the trial court to be worthy of credit. All these taken into consideration, We are satisfied that the trial court has not overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance as would affect the result of the case.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



* Penned by Judge Hermenio C. Mariano.

** Took effect March 14, 1980.




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






March-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 34695 March 7, 1989 - PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CEBU, ET AL. v. PRESIDING JUDGE OF CEBU COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45330 March 7, 1989 - EXALTACION CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2385 March 8, 1989 - JOSE TOLOSA v. ALFREDO CARGO

  • A.C. No. 2694 March 8, 1989 - MANUEL LEAÑO v. ERNESTO ANDICO

  • G.R. No. 32864 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 34285 March 8, 1989 - B. JOSE CASTILLO v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 41859 March 8, 1989 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47004 March 8, 1989 - MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61704 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NUEPE M. WAGAS

  • G.R. Nos. 69337-38 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO S. TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 72616-17 March 8, 1989 - FRAMANLIS FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72686 March 8, 1989 - JAIME RAMOS, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73057 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE MADRIAGA IV

  • G.R. No. 74470 March 8, 1989 - NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78261-62 March 8, 1989 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ARIEL C. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78730 March 8, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR LACAP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82144 March 8, 1989 - RURAL BANK OF SAN MIGUEL (BOHOL), INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83239 March 8, 1989 - PHILIPPINE JAPAN ACTIVE CARBON CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 36391-92 March 9, 1989 - ARTURO REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 54161-62 March 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. YMANA

  • G.R. Nos. 71632-33 March 9, 1989 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67634 March 13, 1989 - AGUSAN WOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. 77423 March 13, 1989 - DIOSDADO NUGUID, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82197 March 13, 1989 - MANUEL L. SIQUIAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 58094-95 March 15, 1989 - MAMERTO B. ASIS v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 35475 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN BUSTOS

  • G.R. No. 57642 March 16, 1989 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. BLAS F. OPLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61243 March 16, 1989 - PEDRO CASTAÑEDA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 64262 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELERINO A. VIOLA

  • G.R. No. 66038 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE LUALHATI

  • G.R. No. 68619 March 16, 1989 - LOURDES SORIANO, ET AL. v. DIEGO P. ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69374 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO ALMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76262-63 March 16, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. LAGGUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78491 March 16, 1989 - STARLITE PLASTIC INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79907 March 16, 1989 - SAMUEL CASAS LIM v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80685 March 16, 1989 - ALFREDO S. MARQUEZ v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83578 March 16, 1989 - PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-DOLLAR SALTING TASK FORCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47354 March 21, 1989 - HORACIO G. ADAZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61516 March 21, 1989 - FLORENTINA A. GUILATCO v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74903 March 21, 1989 - PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR. v. CATALINO GAMET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76093 March 21, 1989 - AIR FRANCE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76552 March 21, 1989 - CHURCH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, INC. v. VICENTE P. SIBULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78591 March 21, 1989 - PURE FOODS CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80194 March 21, 1989 - EDGAR JARANTILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 82211-12 March 21, 1989 - TERESITA MONTOYA v. TERESITA ESCAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51208 March 29, 1989 - GODOFREDO BACAR v. AMELIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66645 March 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN BACHO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84462-63 March 29, 1989 - GABRIEL CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38669 March 31, 1989 - PARAMOUNT SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46713 March 31, 1989 - CESAR LACSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49529 March 31, 1989 - VALLEY TRADING CO., INC. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, BRANCH II, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55952 March 31, 1989 - COMMODITIES SALES CORPORATION v. LA SUERTE BUS CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60952 March 31, 1989 - LEONILA L. SANTIAGO v. WILSON TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68873 March 31, 1989 - LUCILDA DAEL, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68898 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTOTO LAPAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69746-47 March 31, 1989 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS EMPLOYEES UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71311 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ESQUILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 71771-73 March 31, 1989 - GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72975 March 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO JUTIE

  • G.R. No. 74271 March 31, 1989 - MARINERS POLYTECHNIC SCHOOL, ET AL. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75379 March 31, 1989 - REYNALDO JAVIER, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78209 March 31, 1989 - DAVAO GRAINS INCORPORATED, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82068 March 31, 1989 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85302 March 31, 1989 - BICOL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.