ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 : GLICERIO MANGOMA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 : ROMEO G. JALOSJOS vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 : ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 : MERLE A. ALONZO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 : R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 : CONCERNED CITIZENS vs. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 : EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 : AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 : ARMANDO GEAGONIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 : CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 : FERNANDO FAROLAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 : JOSE M. BULAONG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 : NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 : February 13, 1995 : EMERITO M. AGCAOILI vs. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 : AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 : OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 : VICTOR ELIPE vs. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 : SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 : ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 : PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. vs. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 : EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 : DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. vs. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 : ALFREDO BITALAC vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 : POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 : COCOFED, ET AL. vs. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 : PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 : LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995

    IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 : TEOTIMO GIL vs. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 : APOLINARIO MUÑEZ vs. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 : PLDT COMPANY vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 : PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 : DENNIS DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 : ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. vs. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 : LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 : SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 : ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. vs. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 : MIGUEL A. ARVISU vs. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 : SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV'T. CENTER vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 : ILUMINADO ILUMIN vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 : ALDORA LARKINS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 : HATIMA C. YASIN vs. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 : LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 : JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 : CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 : EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. vs. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 : FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 : ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. vs. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 : SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 : ALVIN TUASON vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  • G.R. No. 90628 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE A. RAYRAY

  • G.R. No. 97949 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. GIRENG

  • G.R. No. 99375 February 1, 1995 - GLICERIO MANGOMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105776 February 1, 1995 - ROMEO G. JALOSJOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105992 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO CABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106161 February 1, 1995 - ILOCOS SUR ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995 - MERLE A. ALONZO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICK A. NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111187 February 1, 1995 - R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1183 February 6, 1995 - CONCERNED CITIZENS v. ARMIE E. ELMA

  • G.R. No. 97969 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100133 February 6, 1995 - EDGARDO C. MORALES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104891 February 6, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE MALLARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113591 February 6, 1995 - AGUIDO LACSON, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114427 February 6, 1995 - ARMANDO GEAGONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99346 February 7, 1995 - CASA FILIPINA REALTY CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109832 February 7, 1995 - FERNANDO FAROLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116206 February 7, 1995 - JOSE M. BULAONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 - NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113547 February 9, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANITA L. BAUTISTA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-6-251 February 13, 1995 - EMERITO M. AGCAOILI v. JOSE O. RAMOS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-12-111-MeTC February 13, 1995 - AUDIT REPORTS OF ATTY. GENER C. ENDONA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-684 February 13, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAMINTING A. MALLI

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1068 February 13, 1995 - VICTOR ELIPE v. HONESTO FABRE

  • G.R. No. 100635 February 13, 1995 - SPS. RAMON AND ERLINDA TARNATE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100665 February 13, 1995 - ZANOTTE SHOES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104994 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEAN B. BALINGAN

  • G.R. No. 110836 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO V. CASIL

  • G.R. No. 110854 February 13, 1995 - PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. v. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112027 February 13, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO B. BALSACAO

  • G.R. No. L-112513 February 14, 1995 - EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-858 February 15, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. PEDRO ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. L-41968 February 15, 1995 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. DELIA P. MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45835 February 15, 1995 - ALFREDO BITALAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75257-58 February 15, 1995 - POTENCIANA CALAHAT, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98277 February 15, 1995 - COCOFED, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106783 February 15, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. DE ROXAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995 - PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114145 February 15, 1995 - LEE ENG HONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 - IN RE JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-741 February 21, 1995 - TEOTIMO GIL v. EUFRONIO SON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-985 February 21, 1995 - APOLINARIO MUÑEZ v. CIRIACO ARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 94374 February 21, 1995 - PLDT COMPANY v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995 - PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 109032 February 21, 1995 - DENNIS DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109662 February 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALDY GUAMOS

  • G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 - ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR. v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112285 February 21, 1995 - LOIDA ACAB, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113890 February 22, 1995 - SPS. GIL AND ELMA DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114032 February 22, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CAMAHALAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117078 February 22, 1995 - ALFREDO G. LAMEN, ET AL. v. DIR., BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-922 February 23, 1995 - MIGUEL A. ARVISU v. AUGUSTO O. SUMILANG

  • G.R. No. 82631 February 23, 1995 - SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEV’T. CENTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85667 February 23, 1995 - ILUMINADO ILUMIN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92432 February 23, 1995 - ALDORA LARKINS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94986 February 23, 1995 - HATIMA C. YASIN v. SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT

  • G.R. No. 101683 February 23, 1995 - LBC AIR CARGO, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103975 February 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

  • G.R. No. 105710 February 23, 1995 - JAG & HAGGAR JEANS AND SPORTSWEAR CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 106108 February 23, 1995 - CABALAN PASTULAN NEGRITO LABOR ASSO., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107303 February 23, 1995 - EMMANUEL C. OÑATE, ET AL. v. ZEUS C. ABROGAR

  • G.R. No. 108164 February 23, 1995 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995 - ELPEDIO LASCO, ET AL. v. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION

  • G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995 - SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113779-80 February 23, 1995 - ALVIN TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101794 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO MORIN

  • G.R. Nos. 110991-92 February 24, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR DELA IGLESIA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 103975   February 23, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS

     

    FIRST DIVISION


    [G.R. No. 103975. February 23, 1995.]


    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS, Accused-Appellant.


    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    Richard Zervoulakos was charged with violation of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).cralaw

    The information filed by the Assistant Prosecutor of Makati alleges, viz:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    That on or about the 6th day of November 1990, in the municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a regulated drug. nadchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    CONTRARY TO LAW. 1

    Upon arraignment, Richard Zervoulakos entered a plea of not guilty.

    Thereafter, trial ensued.

    The evidence on record shows that on November 5, 1990, the Police Station of Makati received a complaint from concerned citizens that a certain Richard Zervoulakos was engaged in the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu". After surveillance on the activities of the appellant was conducted, a buy-bust operation was planned. Pat. Martin was tasked to act as poseur-buyer and Pat. Lamberto Pantaleon as back-up. 2

    On November 7, 1990, at about 12:30 in the morning, Martin posted himself in front of Rixon Restaurant located at J.P. Rizal Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila. Appellant approached him and asked if he wanted to buy some shabu. Martin said yes and took out two (2) marked one hundred peso bills in exchange for a small plastic bag containing shabu. At the precise moment appellant was handling the plastic bag, Pat. Pantaleon and another policeman, Pat. Garcia, arrested the appellant and brought him to the police headquarters. 3 The substance in the small plastic bag was later on examined by Demelen Renten de la Cruz, a forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who confirmed it to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 4

    Appellant had a different story to tell. He claimed that on November 7, 1990 at about 12:30 in the morning, he brought "pasalubong" for his mother at JBB Bakery along J.P. Rizal Street, Makati. On his way home, he was bumped by somebody who was being chased by two policemen. When the policemen failed to catch their quarry, they returned. One of them, Pat. Martin, addressed him "Eric." Appellant thought he was only mistaken for his twin brother so he told Pat. Martin that he was not Eric but Richard. 5 He was, nonetheless searched. Pat. Martin was able to get from him some P1,500.00 in cash. The policemen then hailed a taxicab and brought appellant to the police precinct allegedly for verification purposes. On board the cab, Martin asked him how he can afford for his release. Appellant said he could not give anything because he had no more money. 6

    Later, at the detention cell, another policeman by the name of Patrolman Bobby Yap told appellant in the vernacular, "Marami ng atraso and kapatid mo. Tabla na lang tayo." 7 The appellant further contended that Pat. Martin wanted P3,000.00 for the settlement of his case.

    On July 15, 1991, after weighing the evidence presented, the trial court rendered judgment, 8 the decretal portion of which reads:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    "WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS y TRINANES of 4-B Pasig Line St., Makati, Metro Manila, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of VIOLATION OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE III, OF REPUBLIC ACT 6425, as amended, said accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), with all the accessories of the law.

    SO ORDERED." 9

    Accused-appellant now wants this Court to reverse the aforementioned judgment contending in his assignment of errors that the lower court erred in (1) giving credence to the inconsistent and unreliable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, (2) not believing the credible testimony of the accused, and (3) convicting him despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 10

    Upon a careful examination of the facts on record, we are convinced that the guilt of the appellant has been sufficiently proven beyond peradventure of doubt.

    In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of illicit drug took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller thereof, and the presentation further of the drug as evidence in court. 11 The identity of the shabu inside the small plastic bag which constitutes the corpus delicti must be firmly established before the court. In the case at bench, the prosecution has proven with certainty all the elements necessary for a charge of illegal sale of shabu which are: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 12 Prosecution witnesses were unanimous in identifying the appellant as the seller of the prohibited drug. Their testimonies likewise established that the object, which is the 0.2105 gram of shabu contained in a small plastic bag, was handed over or delivered by appellant to Pat. Martin in exchange for consideration, the two (2) P100.00 marked bills.

    Appellant maintains that he could not have flaunted his trade as carelessly as what the prosecution tried to project, that is, by asking a total stranger if he wanted to buy shabu. 13

    The argument is without merit.

    Appellant's bare denial cannot prevail against his positive identification as the peddler by the prosecution witnesses. His lame excuse therefor cannot be given any credit. The sale of prohibited drugs to complete strangers, openly and in public places, has become a common occurrence. Indeed, it is sad to note the effrontery and growing casualness of drug pushers in the pursuit of their illicit trade, as if it were a perfectly legitimate operation.

    Appellant's contention that there were serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cannot save the day for him. The alleged inconsistencies refer only to insignificant matters, that is, (a) Pat. Martin testified that Pat. Yap frisked appellant, then changed it by saying that it was Pat. Pantaleon who did it, 14 and (b) the same witness stated that Pat. Yap frisked the appellant at the scene of the crime, 15 then, subsequently stated that the frisking was done at the precinct. 16 These minor lapses in the testimony of the witness do not necessarily brand him a liar as long as his testimony is, on the whole, consistent and believable. 17 Neither do they detract from the credibility of the witness. 18 If at all, such inconsistencies may be considered as badges of veracity or manifestation of the truthfulness on material points in the testimony.

    In any case, the alleged contradictory testimonies are so inconsequential that they do not affect the credibility of the witness nor detract from the established fact of illegal sale of shabu by appellant.

    It is further argued that the trial court should not have lent credence to the supposed uncorroborated testimony of Pat. martin, the poseur-buyer.

    This argument is specious.

    Other than Pat. Martin, only Pat. Garcia and Pat. Yap witnessed the transaction. Pat Yap died during the hearing of the case. On the other hand, Pat. Pantaleon's testimony will merely corroborate that of Pat. Martin. It is a settled rule that there is no need to present other witnesses especially if their testimonies would only be cumulative or corroborative. 19 The testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to support conviction. 20

    Again, we reiterate the time-honored principle that the trial court's findings of fact are entitled great weight and respect by this Court. 21 We find nothing in this case which would warrant a deviation from that general rule.

    Moreover, police officers have in their favor the presumption that they have performed their duties in a regular manner. 22 Her, appellant failed to successfully overcome such presumption.

    Finally, we turn to the determination of the penalty properly imposable upon appellant Richard Zervoulakos.

    The provision on penalties under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425) were amended by Section 20 and other related provisions of R.A. No. 7659, thus:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    SEC. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    1. 40 grams or more of opium;

    2. 40 grams or more of morphine;

    3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;

    4. 40 grams or more of morphine;

    5. 750 grams or more of Indian hemp or marijuana;

    6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin oil;

    7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; or

    8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public consultation/hearings conducted for the purpose. nadchanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity.

    Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, administration, delivery, transportation or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs and the possession of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs shall carry with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of all the proceeds of the crime including but not limited to money and other assets obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which it was committed, unless they are property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay. Dangerous drugs and plant sources of such drugs as well as the proceeds or instruments of the crime so confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall be turned over to the Board for proper disposal without delay.

    Any apprehending or arresting officer who misappropriates or misapplies or fails to account for seized or confiscated dangerous drugs or plant-sources of dangerous drugs or proceeds or instruments of the crime as herein defined shall after conviction be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.

    The aforequoted provision of R.A. No. 7659 is applicable in the case at bench pursuant to the principle in criminal law, favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides as follows:nadchanroblesvirtualawlibrary

    Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

    Said provision is applicable even to special laws. 23

    Accordingly, under the foregoing provisions and as construed and applied in the recent case of People v. Martin Simon, 24 the penalty properly imposable upon appellant Zervoulakos is prision correccional considering that the "shabu" confiscated from the appellant consisted only of 0.2105 gram 25 and that no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance was found in the instant case. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by Section 1 of R.A. No. 7659.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court dated July 15, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the following modification. Accused-appellant Richard Zervoulakos is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum to TWO (2) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of prision correccional as maximum.

    It appearing that accused-appellant has been detained since November 7, 1990, already beyond the period of his maximum sentence, his immediate release from custody is ordered unless he is lawfully held for some other cause.

    No pronouncement as to costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Quiason, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:




    1. Original Records, p. 1; Rollo, p. 7.

    2. TSN, April 15, 1991, pp. 3-4.

    3. Id., at 3-9.

    4. Exhibits "B" and "C", Original Records, pp. 59-60.

    5. TSN, May 22, 1991, pp. 6-10.

    6. Id., at 13-18.

    7. Id., at 23-24.

    8. Per Judge Oscar B. Pimentel.

    9. Original Records, p. 52; Rollo, p. 85.

    10. Brief for Accused-Appellant, p. 1; Rollo, p. 62.

    11. People v. Labarias, 217 SCRA 483 [1993]; People v. Pacleb, 217 SCRA 92 [1993]; People v. Sanchez, 192 SCRA 653 [1991]; People v. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762 [1989].

    12. People v. Esguerra, 221 SCRA 261 [1991]; People v. Rumeral, 200 SCRA 194 [1991].

    13. Appellant's Brief, p. 7.

    14. TSN, April 16, 1991, p. 2.

    15. Ibid.

    16. Id., at 3.

    17. People v. Abaya, 185 SCRA 383 [1990].

    18. People v. Morre, 217 SCRA 219 [1993].

    19. People v. de Jesus, 205 SCRA 383 [1992].

    20. People v. De la Cruz, 148 SCRA 58 [1987].

    21. People v. Escamillas, 208 SCRA 441 [1992]; People v. Mancao, 208 SCRA 573 [1992]; People v. Collantes, 208 SCRA 853 [1992]; Borillo v. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 130 [1992]; People v. Simon, 209 SCRA 148 [1992]; People v. Garcia, 209 SCRA 164 [1992]; People v. Baslot, 209 SCRA 537 [1992].

    22. People v. Juma, 220 SCRA 432 [1993].

    23. U.S. v. Soliman, 36 Phil. 5 [1917].

    24. G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994.

    25. Certification from the Forensic Chemistry Section of the National Bureau of Investigation, Exhibit "B", Original Records, p. 58.


    G.R. No. 103975   February 23, 1995 : PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. RICHARD ZERVOULAKOS


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED