Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > August 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91695. August 4, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT MALONZO, Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT; RULE AND EXCEPTION. — Settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court relative to the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses as well as the witnesses themselves are entitled to great respect and are generally sustained by the appellate court unless some material facts have been overlooked or misconstrued, as to affect the results, which, however We do not find in the case at bar.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; POLICE NARRATION OF THE INCIDENT; GIVEN CREDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPROPER MOTIVE TO FALSELY TESTIFY AGAINST THE ACCUSED. — In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, credence should be given to the police narration of the incident as they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Moreover, no improper motive can be shown on the part of the prosecution witnesses on why they would falsely testify against Appellant.

3. ID.; ID.; SELF-SERVING ALLEGATIONS; CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. — The allegation of the appellant that the buy-bust operation was a frame up, is self-serving. Without any supporting evidence or witnesses to support such allegation, the same cannot be given credit.

4. ID.; ID.; PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES; NON-PRESENTATION OF INFORMER, NOT FATAL IN THE PROSECUTION OF DANGEROUS DRUG CASES. — The fact that the informer was not presented as a witnesses is of no moment. The informer merely provided the information which prompted the police officers to conduct a surveillance on the appellant’s selling activities of marijuana. The informer’s testimony is merely corroborative of the testimonies of the police officers as to how they came to know that appellant was selling marijuana. He was not an active participant in the buy-bust operation.

5. ID.; ID.; SIMPLE DENIAL OF THE ACCUSED; CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE POSITIVE TESTIMONIES OF THE WITNESSES. — Accused-appellant’s entire defense is predicated on a simple denial that he sold one (1) gram of marijuana to the police-buyer. That at the time the incident in question took place, he was outside his house talking with a friend by the name of German de Guzman, but appellant’s friend was never presented in court to corroborate his allegation. At any rate, in assessing the credibility of witnesses, greater weight is given to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to the negative testimony of the accused.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision rendered by Branch V of the Regional Trial Court of Manila finding accused-appellant Robert Malonzo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime penalized under Article II, Section 4, of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1675, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, in an information which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about October 10, 1988, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully [sic] and unlawfully sell or offer for sale dried marijuana flowering tops, which are prohibited drugs.

Contrary to law." 1

Upon arraignment, Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against him.

The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At around 6 o’clock in the evening of October 3, 1986, Pat. Magnaye, received a telephone call from an informant that there is an active drug selling by appellant Malonzo at the "lungga" located at No. 600 Governor Forbes St., Sampaloc, Mla., which information he immediately relayed to Capt. Cablayan, Chief of the Narcotics Control and Investigation Section, Western Police District, Police Station I. A team was formed composed of Pfc. Francisco Maniquis, Pat. Rizal Papa and Pfc. Valeriano Bautista, with instructions to conduct a surveillance on the aforementioned place.

As a result of the surveillance, the team conducted a buy-bust operation on October 10, 1986 to entrap the pusher. The team members contributed money consisting of four (4) P10.00 bills, one (1) P20.00 bill and three (3) P5.00 bills which were all marked by Pat. Alferos with his initials. Pat. Papa was then designated as the poseur-buyer. The team then proceeded to the "lungga" aboard a private owner-type jeep. 2

Upon reaching the corner of Fajardo and Gov. Forbes streets, the team met the informant, who introduced Pat. Papa to the accused-appellant as an addict.

Pat. Papa offered to buy one (1) gram of dried marijuana. Accused-appellant agreed to sell it to him for the price of P75.00. He left and then returned with the dried marijuana which he handed to Pat. Papa while the latter in turn handed the money. At this juncture, Pat. Papa and the other members of the buy-bust team apprehended the accused-appellant and confiscated the marked money and the dried marijuana, which was later turned over to police investigator Pat. Bautista who placed the same inside a plastic bag and made the accused-appellant write his initials on it. 3

Pat. Bautista requested for an analysis of the suspected marijuana at the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section. Susan de Vera, a Forensic Chemist at the NBI conducted a microscopic, chemical and chromatographic examination of the specimen submitted consisting of flowering tops and found the same positive for marijuana. 4 A certification (marked as Exhibit "E" was issued to this effect.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After trial, a decision was rendered by the court a quo, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as pusher of Marijuana [sic] as penalized under Section 4, Article II, in relation to Section 2, (e-1), (f), (k),(m), and (o), Article I of R.A. 6425 as amended by P.D. 1675, and penalized the accused Roberto Malonzo y Velasco to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay the fine of Twenty Thousand P20,000.00 Pesos, under Section 4, Article II, Republic Act 6425 as amended.

The dried marijuana flowering tops are confiscated in favor of the State, to be turnover to the Dangerous Drugs Board, Manila and the Seventy Five (75.00) Pesos marked money be returned to the owner.

SO ORDERED." 5

Aggrieved by the decision, Accused Roberto Malonzo interposes the instant appeal.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, disregarding the theory of the defense and finding him guilty despite the insufficiency of the evidence.

We are not persuaded.

The errors prescribed by appellant to the trial court are belied by the testimony of Pat. Papa, whose testimony was corroborated by the other members of the buy-bust operation team.

Settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court relative to the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses as well as the witnesses themselves are entitled to great respect and are generally sustained by the appellate court 6 unless some material facts have been overlooked or misconstrued, as to affect the results, which, however We do not find in the case at bar. 7

There are no attendant circumstances that would justify nonadherence to the rule. In fact, the trial court made a favorable observation on the behavior and deportment of the witnesses. To quote the trial court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"With the entrapment set were [sic] the police not only witness [sic] but play a hand in its execution and with their own eyes witnessed the sale and exchange of cash for the marijuana by the accused, as against the denial of the accused, the positive testimony of the police shall prevail. The plea of being a born-again Christian notwithstanding, the Court taking into consideration the demeanor and actuation of the witnesses finds the version narrated by the police believable and in consonance with the realities of everyday life in the City of Manila, and finds the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against the accused more than enough to pass the requirements of beyond reasonable doubt and warrants the conviction of the accused of selling marijuana." 8

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, credence should be given to the police narration of the incident as they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 9 Moreover, no improper motive can be shown on the part of the prosecution witnesses on why they would falsely testify against appellant. 10

The allegation of the appellant that the buy-bust operation was a frame up, is self-serving. Without any supporting evidence or witnesses to support such allegation, the same cannot be given credit.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The fact that the informer was not presented as a witness is of no moment. 11 The informer merely provided the information which prompted the police officers to conduct a surveillance on the appellant’s selling activities of marijuana. The informer’s testimony is merely corroborative of the testimonies of the police officers as to how they came to know that appellant was selling marijuana. He was not an active participant in the buy-bust operation.

Moreover, Accused-appellant’s entire defense is predicated on a simple denial that he sold one (1) gram of marijuana to the police-buyer. That at the time the incident in question took place, he was outside his house talking with a friend by the name of German de Guzman, but appellant’s friend was never presented in court to corroborate his allegation. At any rate, in assessing the credibility of witnesses, greater weight is given to the positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses than to the negative testimony of the accused. 12

One thing more, Appellant’s submissive stance right after his entrapment and the absence of any protest on his part when arrested, cast doubt on his alleged innocence. 13

WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused-appellant Robert Malonzo to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the decision appealed here from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 1.

2. T.S.N., April 5, 1988, pp. 5-7, 10-16, 25-28.

3. Id., at pp. 32-34.

4. T.S.N., February 22, 1988, pp. 4-8.

5. Decision, p. 5.

6. People v. Sarra, G.R. No. 78530, 183 SCRA 34, (1990).

7. People v. Villeza, No. L-56113, 127 SCRA 349, 360, (1984).

8. Decision, pp. 4-5.

9. People v. Vocente, G.R. No. 80533, 188 SCRA 100, (1990).

10. Ibid.

11. People v. Bernardo, G.R. NO. 89542, 186 SCRA 876, (1990).

12. People v. Mostoles, No. L-38644, 124 SCRA 906 (1983).

13. People v. Madarang, No. L-70569, 147 SCRA 123, (1987).




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






August-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 78341 August 3, 1992 - TURIANO M. SAN ANDRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 85962-63 August 3, 1992 - ROSARIO GACOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95703 August 3, 1992 - RURAL BANK OF BOMBON (CAM. SUR), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97306 August 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TUBURO

  • G.R. No. 75363 August 4, 1992 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER CO. v. FIRESTONE TIRE EMPLOYEES’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83190 August 4, 1992 - CEBU SEAMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86436 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVENCIO DE PAZ

  • G.R. No. 90802 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOM CHANAS

  • G.R. No. 91160 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FULGARILLAS

  • G.R. No. 91695 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT MALONZO

  • G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-95757 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO RAÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 97319 August 4, 1992 - GODOFREDO T. SWAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98251 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CRUDA

  • G.R. No. 100399 August 4, 1992 - TEKNIKA SKILLS AND TRADE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100511 August 4, 1992 - SPS. BENITO TRINIDAD and SOLEDAD TRINIDAD v. SPS. LUIS CABRERA and DELIA CABRERA

  • G.R. No. 100752 August 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 102869 August 4, 1992 - SEN PO EK MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47158 August 5, 1992 - ANGUSTIA M. IBAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57127 August 5, 1992 - RHODORA DEL CASTILLO v. CANDIDO AGUINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82782 August 5, 1992 - JOSE B. TIONGCO, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87434 August 5, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INS., ET AL. v. SWEET LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97291 August 5, 1992 - RUFINO MISA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100138 August 5, 1992 - FIVE J TAXI, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101148 August 5, 1992 - TERRY LYN MAGNO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 - ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102448 August 5, 1992 - RICARDO CUARTERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 60506 August 6, 1992 - FIGURACION VDA. DE MAGLANA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO Z. CONSOLACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94490 August 6, 1992 - JOSE DE LUNA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96635 August 6, 1992 - ATLANTIC, GULF AND PACIFIC CO. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97952 August 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN LIQUEN

  • G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 - PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105628 August 6, 1992 - RODULFO SARMIENTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-90-408 August 7, 1992 - RICHARD M. HOUGHTON, ET AL. v. ANTONIO D. VELASCO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-660 August 7, 1992 - UNKNOWN MUN. COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA v. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 72001 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO BECHAYDA

  • G.R. No. 76966 August 7, 1992 - CAFFCO INT’L. LTD. v. OFF. OF THE MINISTER-MIN. OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91797 August 7, 1992 - WIDOWS & ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95431 August 7, 1992 - FLORENCIA DE LA CALZADA-CIERRAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95838 August 7, 1992 - MARCELINO LAURETO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 101127-31 August 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENIA C. REYES

  • G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992 - NILDA GABRIEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95832 August 10, 1992 - MAYNARD R. PERALTA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 - ESTERIA F. GARCIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97611 August 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO TALENTO

  • G.R. No. 97753 August 10, 1992 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97764 August 10, 1992 - LEVY D. MACASIANO v. ROBERTO C. DIOKNO

  • G.R. No. 102549 August 10, 1992 - ERWIN B. JAVELLANA v. DEPT. OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102795 August 10, 1992 - DAMIAN OGBURN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79664 August 11, 1992 - ANDRES VILLAVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99431 August 11, 1992 - GOLDLOOP PROPERTIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 64019 August 12, 1992 - BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80491 August 12, 1992 - J. ARTIE VERGEL DE DIOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91491 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMENARIO

  • G.R. No. 93516 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO DAMASO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95583 August 12, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO WENCESLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98325 August 12, 1992 - LUCINO DIAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100490 August 12, 1992 - PHILIPPINE RABBIT LINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100942 August 12, 1992 - LUCIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62556 August 13, 1992 - VENANCIO GONZALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100285 August 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAPOLEON DUQUE

  • Adm. Case No. 3187 August 14, 1992 - MYRNA D. ROQUE, ET AL. v. FELICIANO B. CLEMENCIO

  • G.R. No. 100643 August 14, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100969 August 14, 1992 lab

    CARLOS RANARA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75112 August 17, 1992 - FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94555 August 17, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. EDUARDO LABALAN OCIMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101566 August 17, 1992 - FLORENCIO A. RUIZ, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-496 August 18, 1992 - MARCELO B. ASUNCION, ET AL. v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 85997 August 19, 1992 - HORTENSIA L. STARKE v. PHILIPPINE SUGAR COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96182 August 19, 1992 - MARCELO FERNANDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80739 August 2, 1992 - GRACIA R. JOVEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91004-05 August 20, 1992 - JOSEPH TAY CHUN SUY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95305 August 20, 1992 - ELENA LINDAIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90036 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO GONZAGA

  • G.R. No. 90107 August 21, 1992 - DOMINGO A. TUZON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91646 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMIL MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 91846 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO MACLID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94115 August 21, 1992 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. LUIS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94299 August 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO MALLARI

  • G.R. No. 96810 August 21, 1992 - THE HEIRS OF JESUS AMADO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101858 August 21, 1992 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85286 August 24, 1992 - BASILIO A. BALASBAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100401 August 24, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED DAIRY PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101630 August 24, 1992 - VICTOR DE JESUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91129 August 25, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO D. PABLO

  • G.R. No. 94374 August 27, 1992 - PHIL. LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59436 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74740 August 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 48532 August 31, 1992 - HERNANDO B. CONWI, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65532 August 31, 1992 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ VDA. DE TAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66253 August 31, 1992 - METRO PORT SERVICE, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75959 August 31, 1992 - VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92758 August 31, 1992 - EMILIO VENEGAS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93238 August 31, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102131 August 31, 1992 - FRANCO GORION v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU, ET AL.