December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 178661 : December 02, 2009] JOSE MENDOZA Y COMIA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:
[G.R. No. 178661 : December 02, 2009]
JOSE MENDOZA Y COMIA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 December 2009:
G.R. No. 178661 (Jose Mendoza y Comia v. People of the Philippines).
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR 29893 dated April 30, 2007 and its resolution dated June 27, 2007, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, 4th Judicial Region, Branch 13, Lipa City, dated July 21, 2005, finding the accused Jose Mendoza y Comia guilty for illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) as amended.
Acting on the instruction of the head of the Mataasnakahoy Philippine National Police (PHP), SPO3 Edson L. Macasaet, the deputy Chief of Police, organized a team composed of SPO2 Nestor Babadilla, SPO1 Reynaldo Calingasan, and SPO1 Reynaldo Mendroz to operate against illegal drugs. Based on information from an asset, the team staked out the activity of accused Jose Mendoza of Barangay 1, Mataas na Kahoy, Batangas, who was said to be using and selling prohibited drugs.[1]
On December 10, 1998 at around 1:30 in the morning, after a week of surveillance, SPO3 Macasaet's team saw Mendoza driving his passenger jeepney, with two companions on board, enter Crisanta Homes Subdivision in Barangay IV of Mataas na Kahoy. The police officers had been watching Mendoza's group in the parked jeepney for half an hour when they saw someone in that group light up a cigarette. Based on the smell, police suspected that Mendoza and his companions were in a pot session. The police officers approached and confirmed their suspicion that Mendoza and his companions were taking turns in smoking marijuana.[2] They searched Mendoza and his two companions, Nelson Oleta and Erwin Ona, and seized two sachets of shabu from Oleta; three tea bags of marijuana from Mendoza; and one plastic sachet of shabu from Ona. They brought Mendoza, Oleta and Ona to the police headquarters where they were turned over to the Investigator.[3] SPO1 Mendroz prepared the letter request for examination and marked the seized items with the letters "MZ" before he sent them to the crime laboratory for examination.[4]
The Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory in Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba City, re-examined the materials seized from Mendoza after the police chemist who first examined it resigned from the crime laboratory.[5] The forensic officer testified that the plastic sachet weighing 5.027 grams contained marijuana. After examination, he marked-the sachets of marijuana with his initials "JCD."[6]
For his defense, Mendoza claimed that he was illegally arrested and framed up by the police officers. They made him sign something that he could not understand since he had no eyeglasses and was quite drunk.[7] He claimed that the police fabricated the charge against him.
On July 21, 2005 the RTC rendered a decision, finding Mendoza guilty as charged and sentencing him to imprisonment of two years, four months and one day to four years and two months and one day. It also denied the accused's motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the order of imprisonment sentence to four months of arresto mayor, as minimum penalty, to four years and two months of prision correctional as maximum.[8] It held that the tenor of Section. 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear that when an improvident guilty plea is allowed to be withdrawn, the same will be substituted by a plea of not guilty. It also emphasized that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto; hence, the search conducted by the police officers was contemporaneous with his arrest. The appellate court further ruled that it is inconsequential that the markings were done at the police station or that it was not legibly written, for there is no hard and fast rule as to where and how the markings should be made, as long as the attendant facts show that the chain of custody of the seized items is not broken.
The issues presented in this case are:
One. There is no compelling reason to overturn the decision of the lower court. The arrest of the accused was lawful, he having been caught in flagrante delicto or in the actual use and possession of marijuana pursuant to paragraph (a), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The subsequent body search made on him by the arresting officers was likewise lawful as an incident of a lawful arrest. In accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an arresting officer may take from the person arrested any money or property-found on his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case.[9] When Mendoza was searched contemporaneously with his arrest, the marijuana was found in his possession and seized. Such seizure cannot be considered unlawful or unreasonable. Consequently, there is no need for a court-issued warrant to seize the plastic sachets of marijuana since they were the fruit of the crime; hence, they are admissible as evidence against the accused.
Two. This Court applies in this case the well-entrenched rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest consideration by this Court.[10]
In convicting the accused, the trial court relied on the testimonies of the police team who conducted the operation. Their testimonies were not only unwavering but consistent with usual police practice. It is spontaneous, straightforward and categorical. Mendoza's defense of frame-up and denial cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward testimonies of the police officers who have performed their duties regularly and in accordance with law, and have not been shown to have been inspired by any improper motive or to have improperly performed their duty.[11] They absolutely had no ill motive to incriminate and testify against Mendoza.
With respect to the alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of SPO3 Macasaet and SPO2 Babadilla that supposedly manifested their lack of credibility: the alleged inconsistencies regarding the place where their car was parked and their position while observing the accused. These points refer to trivial matters that have no bearing on the elements of the crime as these do not affect the credibility of the witnesses considering that their testimonies are identical in all other aspects and they have established the essential elements of the crime as charged.
As to Mendoza's insistence that the marijuana confiscated from him was not sufficiently established by the prosecution, the records of the case indicate that SPOl Mendroza testified that SPO2 Babadilla handed to him the items seized from Mendoza.[12] Thereafter, he personally made the markings "MZ" (representing the first and last letters of his surname, Mendroz) on the seized items, as well as made the request for laboratory examination which was signed by Chief of Police Emerenciano D. Ilagan.[13] The seized items which had the markings "MZ" were brought to the crime laboratory for examination and were later on determined to be positive for marijuana. The sachets seized from Mendoza were positively identified by all the prosecution witnesses when it was presented in court. Thus, the identity of the drugs has been duly preserved and established by the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals' decision in CA-G.R. CR 29893 dated April 30, 2007 is AFFIRMED..
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 178661 (Jose Mendoza y Comia v. People of the Philippines).
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR 29893 dated April 30, 2007 and its resolution dated June 27, 2007, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, 4th Judicial Region, Branch 13, Lipa City, dated July 21, 2005, finding the accused Jose Mendoza y Comia guilty for illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) as amended.
The Facts and the Case
Acting on the instruction of the head of the Mataasnakahoy Philippine National Police (PHP), SPO3 Edson L. Macasaet, the deputy Chief of Police, organized a team composed of SPO2 Nestor Babadilla, SPO1 Reynaldo Calingasan, and SPO1 Reynaldo Mendroz to operate against illegal drugs. Based on information from an asset, the team staked out the activity of accused Jose Mendoza of Barangay 1, Mataas na Kahoy, Batangas, who was said to be using and selling prohibited drugs.[1]
On December 10, 1998 at around 1:30 in the morning, after a week of surveillance, SPO3 Macasaet's team saw Mendoza driving his passenger jeepney, with two companions on board, enter Crisanta Homes Subdivision in Barangay IV of Mataas na Kahoy. The police officers had been watching Mendoza's group in the parked jeepney for half an hour when they saw someone in that group light up a cigarette. Based on the smell, police suspected that Mendoza and his companions were in a pot session. The police officers approached and confirmed their suspicion that Mendoza and his companions were taking turns in smoking marijuana.[2] They searched Mendoza and his two companions, Nelson Oleta and Erwin Ona, and seized two sachets of shabu from Oleta; three tea bags of marijuana from Mendoza; and one plastic sachet of shabu from Ona. They brought Mendoza, Oleta and Ona to the police headquarters where they were turned over to the Investigator.[3] SPO1 Mendroz prepared the letter request for examination and marked the seized items with the letters "MZ" before he sent them to the crime laboratory for examination.[4]
The Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory in Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Calamba City, re-examined the materials seized from Mendoza after the police chemist who first examined it resigned from the crime laboratory.[5] The forensic officer testified that the plastic sachet weighing 5.027 grams contained marijuana. After examination, he marked-the sachets of marijuana with his initials "JCD."[6]
For his defense, Mendoza claimed that he was illegally arrested and framed up by the police officers. They made him sign something that he could not understand since he had no eyeglasses and was quite drunk.[7] He claimed that the police fabricated the charge against him.
On July 21, 2005 the RTC rendered a decision, finding Mendoza guilty as charged and sentencing him to imprisonment of two years, four months and one day to four years and two months and one day. It also denied the accused's motion for reconsideration.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the order of imprisonment sentence to four months of arresto mayor, as minimum penalty, to four years and two months of prision correctional as maximum.[8] It held that the tenor of Section. 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is clear that when an improvident guilty plea is allowed to be withdrawn, the same will be substituted by a plea of not guilty. It also emphasized that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto; hence, the search conducted by the police officers was contemporaneous with his arrest. The appellate court further ruled that it is inconsequential that the markings were done at the police station or that it was not legibly written, for there is no hard and fast rule as to where and how the markings should be made, as long as the attendant facts show that the chain of custody of the seized items is not broken.
Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
1. Whether the arrest and search of the accused without a warrant is valid; and
2. Whether the guilt of Mendoza of the crime charged has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's Rulings
One. There is no compelling reason to overturn the decision of the lower court. The arrest of the accused was lawful, he having been caught in flagrante delicto or in the actual use and possession of marijuana pursuant to paragraph (a), Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The subsequent body search made on him by the arresting officers was likewise lawful as an incident of a lawful arrest. In accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an arresting officer may take from the person arrested any money or property-found on his person which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case.[9] When Mendoza was searched contemporaneously with his arrest, the marijuana was found in his possession and seized. Such seizure cannot be considered unlawful or unreasonable. Consequently, there is no need for a court-issued warrant to seize the plastic sachets of marijuana since they were the fruit of the crime; hence, they are admissible as evidence against the accused.
Two. This Court applies in this case the well-entrenched rule that the findings of the trial court regarding the issue of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest consideration by this Court.[10]
In convicting the accused, the trial court relied on the testimonies of the police team who conducted the operation. Their testimonies were not only unwavering but consistent with usual police practice. It is spontaneous, straightforward and categorical. Mendoza's defense of frame-up and denial cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward testimonies of the police officers who have performed their duties regularly and in accordance with law, and have not been shown to have been inspired by any improper motive or to have improperly performed their duty.[11] They absolutely had no ill motive to incriminate and testify against Mendoza.
With respect to the alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of SPO3 Macasaet and SPO2 Babadilla that supposedly manifested their lack of credibility: the alleged inconsistencies regarding the place where their car was parked and their position while observing the accused. These points refer to trivial matters that have no bearing on the elements of the crime as these do not affect the credibility of the witnesses considering that their testimonies are identical in all other aspects and they have established the essential elements of the crime as charged.
As to Mendoza's insistence that the marijuana confiscated from him was not sufficiently established by the prosecution, the records of the case indicate that SPOl Mendroza testified that SPO2 Babadilla handed to him the items seized from Mendoza.[12] Thereafter, he personally made the markings "MZ" (representing the first and last letters of his surname, Mendroz) on the seized items, as well as made the request for laboratory examination which was signed by Chief of Police Emerenciano D. Ilagan.[13] The seized items which had the markings "MZ" were brought to the crime laboratory for examination and were later on determined to be positive for marijuana. The sachets seized from Mendoza were positively identified by all the prosecution witnesses when it was presented in court. Thus, the identity of the drugs has been duly preserved and established by the prosecution.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals' decision in CA-G.R. CR 29893 dated April 30, 2007 is AFFIRMED..
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 2nd day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1]TSN, February 29, 2000, pp. 6-20.
[2] TSN, October 2. 2001, pp. 11-17.
[3] TSNS February 29,2000, pp. 6-20.
[4] TSN, March 13, 2001, pp. 12-13.
[5] TSN, September 16, 2003, pp. 5-11.
[6] Id. at 20-25.
[7] TSN, September 20, 2004, p. 8,
[8] Rollo, pp. 41-58.
[9] Aballe v. People, G.R. No. 64086, March 15, 1990, 183 SCRA 196, 202; Alvero v. Dizon, 16 Phil. 637, 645 (1946); People v. Veloso, 43 Phil. 169, 180-181 (1925); Moreno v. Ago Chi, 12 Phil 439, 442 (1909).
[10] People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 105689, February 23, 1994, 230 SCRA 291, 295, citing People v. Quilaton, G.R. No. 69666, January 23, 1992, 205 SCRA 279, 286; People v. Babac, G.R. No. 97932, December 23, 1991,204 SCRA 968, 975.
[11] Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 914, 925 (2003); People v. Mala, 458 Phil 180, 190 (2003); People v. Saludes, 451 Phil. 719, 725 (2003).
