April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184790 : April 27, 2009] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. WILFREDO HIMPISAO Y MARQUESES :
[G.R. No. 184790 : April 27, 2009]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. WILFREDO HIMPISAO Y MARQUESES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 27 April 2009:
G.R. No. 184790 (People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Himpisao y Marqueses). - Appellant was arrested for the illegal sale of shabu following a buy-bust operation. A sachet of the prohibited drug as well as the marked �100.00 bill was recovered from him. The contents of the seized sachet was examined and found by PNP Forensic Chemist Lorna R. Tria to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.[1]
An information was thereafter filed charging appellant with the violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:
Appellant vehemently denied the charges against him alleging that police officers had barged into his home one night without any warrant, searched his home for illegal drugs but found none, and confiscated his wallet, watch and tricycle key. He was thereafter taken to the police station where he learned that somebody had allegedly found a hundred peso bill from his pocket.
The trial court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish the elements of the crime the transaction or sale of shabu with appellant as seller and the identification of the corpus delicti - " to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was sentenced "to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos."[3]
On appeal, appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the poseur-buyer and his identity as seller in the alleged sale because the informant did not testify in court and the testimony of its lone eyewitness, SPO2 Rodolfo Hizon, was uncorroborated.
The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction, ruling that all the requisites for the prosecution of a dangerous drugs case were sufficiently established, namely: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[4] It found no need for the prosecution to present the informant in court because SPO2 Hizon witnessed the whole transaction where marked money was exchanged for a sachet of shabu. Anent the admissibility of the sachet due to the alleged illegal search, the appellate court deemed appellant to have waived his right to object thereto as his counsel made no objection when the prosecution made its formal offer of evidence.
This case is now before us on automatic review. This Court directed the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.[5] Both the appellant and the Solicitor General manifested that they are dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief and that they are adopting their respective briefs submitted before the appellate court.[6]
While courts are committed to assist the government in its campaign against illegal drugs, a conviction under the Dangerous Drugs Law will prosper only after the prosecution discharges its constitutional burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, this Court is likewise duty-bound to uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence.
The prosecution sufficiently discharged its burden.
SPO2 Hizon, the police officer involved in the buy-bust operation competently testified on the transaction that had taken place between appellant and the poseur-buyer. The marked money was confiscated from the appellant and the sachet containing the suspected shabu was marked and initialed by SPO2 Hizon who confiscated the same. The seized sachet was then brought to the crime laboratory where it was examined, the contents of which tested positive for shabu. It was later identified in court by SPO2 Hizon-to be the same sachet he confiscated from appellant. SPO2 Hizon's testimony was found credible by the trial court and thus, necessitated no corroboration.[7] Settled is the rule that the credible and positive testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[8] Equally settled is the rule that the presentation of a confidential informant in a buy-bust operation is not always required, especially when the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by other prosecution witnesses.[9] We thus refer to the lower court's findings mindful of the rule that its findings of fact and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect and due weight, unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise,[10] which circumstance is not obtaining in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 21 September 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01879, finding appellant Wilfredo Himpisao y Marqueses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Quisumbing, J., on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion and Teresita L. De Castro (additional member per Special Order No. 619), Members, Second Division, this 27th day of April, 2009.
G.R. No. 184790 (People of the Philippines v. Wilfredo Himpisao y Marqueses). - Appellant was arrested for the illegal sale of shabu following a buy-bust operation. A sachet of the prohibited drug as well as the marked �100.00 bill was recovered from him. The contents of the seized sachet was examined and found by PNP Forensic Chemist Lorna R. Tria to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.[1]
An information was thereafter filed charging appellant with the violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:
That on or about 6:30 o'clock in the evening of August 10, 2004 at Sitio Tibag, Brgy. Dos, in the City of Calamba and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu" a dangerous drug, weighing 0.01 gram, in violation of the above-mentioned provision of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Appellant vehemently denied the charges against him alleging that police officers had barged into his home one night without any warrant, searched his home for illegal drugs but found none, and confiscated his wallet, watch and tricycle key. He was thereafter taken to the police station where he learned that somebody had allegedly found a hundred peso bill from his pocket.
The trial court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish the elements of the crime the transaction or sale of shabu with appellant as seller and the identification of the corpus delicti - " to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He was sentenced "to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos."[3]
On appeal, appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the poseur-buyer and his identity as seller in the alleged sale because the informant did not testify in court and the testimony of its lone eyewitness, SPO2 Rodolfo Hizon, was uncorroborated.
The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction, ruling that all the requisites for the prosecution of a dangerous drugs case were sufficiently established, namely: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[4] It found no need for the prosecution to present the informant in court because SPO2 Hizon witnessed the whole transaction where marked money was exchanged for a sachet of shabu. Anent the admissibility of the sachet due to the alleged illegal search, the appellate court deemed appellant to have waived his right to object thereto as his counsel made no objection when the prosecution made its formal offer of evidence.
This case is now before us on automatic review. This Court directed the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) days from notice.[5] Both the appellant and the Solicitor General manifested that they are dispensing with the filing of a supplemental brief and that they are adopting their respective briefs submitted before the appellate court.[6]
While courts are committed to assist the government in its campaign against illegal drugs, a conviction under the Dangerous Drugs Law will prosper only after the prosecution discharges its constitutional burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, this Court is likewise duty-bound to uphold the constitutional presumption of innocence.
The prosecution sufficiently discharged its burden.
SPO2 Hizon, the police officer involved in the buy-bust operation competently testified on the transaction that had taken place between appellant and the poseur-buyer. The marked money was confiscated from the appellant and the sachet containing the suspected shabu was marked and initialed by SPO2 Hizon who confiscated the same. The seized sachet was then brought to the crime laboratory where it was examined, the contents of which tested positive for shabu. It was later identified in court by SPO2 Hizon-to be the same sachet he confiscated from appellant. SPO2 Hizon's testimony was found credible by the trial court and thus, necessitated no corroboration.[7] Settled is the rule that the credible and positive testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction.[8] Equally settled is the rule that the presentation of a confidential informant in a buy-bust operation is not always required, especially when the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by other prosecution witnesses.[9] We thus refer to the lower court's findings mindful of the rule that its findings of fact and conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are accorded high respect and due weight, unless it has overlooked material and relevant points that would have led it to rule otherwise,[10] which circumstance is not obtaining in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 21 September 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01879, finding appellant Wilfredo Himpisao y Marqueses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. Quisumbing, J., on official business.
WITNESS the Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Acting Chairperson, Honorable Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion and Teresita L. De Castro (additional member per Special Order No. 619), Members, Second Division, this 27th day of April, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd)LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd)LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] CA rollo, p. 40.
[2] Id, at 28.
[3] In a Decision dated 8 January 2006 issued by Presiding Judge Medel Amaldo B. Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna. Id. at 12-17.
[4] In a Decision dated 21 September 2007 of the Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals Manila in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01879 penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Lucenito N. Tagle. Id. at 63-73.
[5] In a Resolution dated 3 December 2008. Rollo, p. 19.
[6] Id. at 27.-31.
[7] Lapuz v. People, G.R. No. 150050,17 June 2004,432 SCRA 443.
[8] People v. Tomaquin, 478 Phil. 885, 910 (2004), citing People v. Montero, 76 SCRA 437, 444 (1977); People v. Balag-ey, et. al, G.R. No. 141532, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 384; People v. Hinaut, et. al, 427 Phil. 486, 498 (2002).
[9] People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 622 (1999).
[10] People v. Balag-ey, supra note 8 at 392.
