Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012] MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012]

MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 March 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

G.R. No. 199914 (Mel Mike Gamin y Tari v. People of the Philippines) - We resolve the petition under Rule 45 filed by accused Mel Mike Gamin y Tari (petitioner) from the 15 September 2011 Decision and 22 December 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32598.[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its 25 March 2009 Decision,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 67, convicted petitioner of violating Section 11, Article II, of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Petitioner was found to be in illegal possession of 0.02 gram of shabu for which he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000. The RTC gave credence to the straightforward and candid testimonies of the police officers. Petitioner's arrest and the discovery of the drugs, as recited in the testimony, were accorded the presumption of regularity. The trial court also found petitioner's defense of denial to be weak, uncorroborated, and self-serving.

The CA Ruling 

On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA held that the requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs were fully satisfied. The defense failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to impute a serious crime to petitioner. Thus, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. The CA further ruled that the chain of custody over the seized substance was unbroken, and that the drugs seized from petitioner was properly identified before the trial court.

We now rule on the final review of the case.

Our Ruling  

We deny the petition.

After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting officers, less so in the present case wherein the said findings were affirmed by the CA.

Petitioner contends that the CA erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in finding that there was an unbroken chain of custody with respect to the allegedly confiscated drugs.

With respect to the first issue, petitioner contends that the prosecution's version of events � that the police officers confiscated the plastic sachet containing the dangerous drug when petitioner attempted to surreptitiously throw it while he was being investigated at the police station for a traffic violation � is incredible. Petitioner claims that the standard procedure for the arrest of offenders is to search and frisk the latter. Had such search and frisk been conducted, there would have been no doubt as to the source of the plastic sachet.

Indeed, the test for determining the credibility of a complainant's testimony is whether it is in conformity with common knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind. Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies outside of judicial cognizance.[3] In this case, however, the fact that no search immediately followed petitioner's arrest does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the testimony of the prosecution was false. In People v. Esguerra,[4] the accused therein also contested the fact that he was not searched at the time of his arrest, and that the drugs on his person were discovered when they were already at the police station. This Court explained that a number of causes may account for the absence of an immediate body search of a suspected offender in any particular arrest. The most obvious is lack of proper training on the part of the arresting officer or officers. It could also happen that the arresting officers may conclude that the offender poses no danger, and that it would be best to defer to a later time a more thorough body search. What is significant is that petitioner was caught red-handed in possession of the prohibited item.

Further, the CA was correct in holding that the chain of custody of the seized illicit drugs remained unbroken, and that no proof was adduced to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drugs were compromised. While Police Officer (PO) Jeffrey Ditablan recalled the marking on the seized item to be "MMGT" or "MMTG," PO Froilan Quisquino correctly testified that the item was marked "MTG." However, any seeming inconsistency on this point would refer to a minor detail and would not in any way destroy the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. As long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, slight clashing statements dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimony.[5]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the 15 September 2011 Decision and 22 December 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32598 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Ramon A. Cruz; rollo, pp. 29-41, 42-43.

[2] Docketed as Crim. Case No. 07-1020; id. at 61-62. 

[3] People v. Jampas, G.R. No. 177766, 17 July 2009, 593 SCRA 241. 

[4] G.R. No. 97959, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 261. 

[5] People v. Tanilon, G.R. No. 94569, 11 May 1993, 221 SCRA 671.




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-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 192822 : January 16, 2012] PEOPLE OE THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR Y TAMAYO

  • [G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012] ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187571 : March 05, 2012] FILIPINO ACADEMY OF MOVIE ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JUMMY A. TIU V. ART M. PADUA, ANGEL CALSO, UP THEATER, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER VONN PERDON GOLFO, AND ABC TV-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ROBERTO BARRIERO AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM ACQUISITION VICTORINO VIANZON

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2906 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P) : March 05, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CESAR V. ACANCE, RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, QUEZON CITY

  • [G.R. No. 200210 : March 05, 2012] BENJAMIN DE VILLA Y CANTERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012] BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

  • [UDK No. 14623 : March 07, 2012] SCAD SERVICES PTE. LTD. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 14TH DIVISION, JORGE YANSON, EDDIE GOLDE, EDGAR NOCHE, ET AL.

  • [March 06, 2012] RE: HOLY WEEK RECESS

  • [G.R. No. 177292 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JESSIE GARBIDA Y FOSTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC : March 07, 2012] UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF TRAVEL ABROAD BY MIGUELITA D. VILLA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), KIBAWE, BUKIDNON

  • [G.R. No. 176126 : March 07, 2012] OSMUND DECANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 192259 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROSALINDA SUMAYA Y MABALON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187792 : March 07, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADA AREVALO

  • [G.R.No. 182210 : March 07, 2012] PAZ BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 200227 : March 12, 2012] LORENZO HIDALGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 200353 : March 12, 2012] SOUTHERN CARRIER CO., INC. v. CARLITO MA�ACAP

  • [G.R. No. 184315 : March 12, 2012] ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) : March 12, 2012] MARIO S. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT VS. MANUEL C. LUNA, JR. EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 39, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO,

  • [A.M. No. 11-1-09-RTC : March 13, 2012] RE: REQUEST FOR THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL DRUGS COURTS IN THE RTC, DUMAGUETE CITY

  • [G.R. No. 181779 : March 13, 2012] ANDREW L. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND TEODORO DELA TORRE VILLAGRACIA, SR.

  • [G.R. No. 192070 : March 13, 2012] EDDIE "AMONG ED" T. PANLILIO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LILIA G. PINEDA.

  • [G.R. No. 176323 : March 14, 2012] LENY B. DIAZ AND SPOUSES ANTONIO B. ESCALONA AND LEONORA ESCALONA VS. CHERRIE PINEZA AND KOJI HAMAMURA

  • [G.R. No. 189875 : March 14, 2012] NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. TRANS DIGITAL EXCEL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012] MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 181957 : March 14, 2012] RENATO P. MENDOZA, NEGOTIATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LADY LOU GENERAL MERCHANDISE V. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 198315 : March 19, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANNIE GULAPA Y ORDINARIO

  • [A.M. No. 14219-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ULPIANO I. CAMPOS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE CONRADO B. VENUS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, BRANCH 58, BUCAY, ABRA; JUDGE NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG, RTC, BRANCH 41, PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, JUDGE FILOMENO A. VERGARA, RTC, BRANCH 2, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY; JUDGE EUFEMIO R. JOLINA, MTCC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION; JUDGE JOSE V. HABALO, MTCC, LUCENA CITY; JUDGE NORBERTO GREGORIO E. TIZON, JR., MTC, SAN ISIDRO, NORTHERN SAMAR; JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS, MTC, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE; AND JUDGE PACIANO B. GALLEPOSO, MCTC, SINDANGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • [A.M. No. 14218-Ret., March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, RTC, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY AND JUDGE ANTONIO C. BAGAG�AN, MTC, GUINOBATAN, ALBAY

  • [G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [A.M. No. 14210-Ret. : March 13, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF MRS. VIRGINIA P. ELBINIAS, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012] SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 176063 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO MIA Y IFSOR

  • [G.R. No. 181969 : March 19, 2012] ROMAGO, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 191684 : March 20, 2012] ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 199196 : March 20, 2012] NELLY RAMOS v. ANACLETO BALDO

  • [A.M. No. 14216-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE RENE R. VICTORIANO, RTC, BRANCH 124, CALOOCAN CITY; JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, RTC, BRANCH 12, SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN; JUDGE IRENEO B. ESCANDOR, RTC, BRANCH 55, IROSIN, SORSOGON; JUDGE CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY; JUDGE EPIFANIO C. LLANOS, RTC, BRANCH 26, ARGAO, CEBU; JUDGE HILARIO I. MAPAYO, RTC, BRANCH 19, DIGOS CITY; JUDGE COROCOY D. MOSON, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, COTABATO CITY; JUDGE MARIANO P. FUENTEBELLA, MTCC, IRIGA CITY; JUDGE JAIME F. VILORIA, MCTC, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ELPIDIO N. QUIÑON, MCTC, POTOTAN-MINA, ILOILO; AND JUDGE CIRIACO C. ARIÑO, MCTC, SAN FRANCISCO, AGUSAN DEL SUR

  • [G.R. No. 193387 : March 21, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (DECEASED), AND JOSE ENOVESO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174682 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ELMER A. BUCA AND WILLIAM B. CAINCAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175052 : March 21, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REPRESENTED BY OIC SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN v. MANUEL DEL ROSARIO.

  • [G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012] CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199430 : March 21, 2012] MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 186464 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANNER "TOTS" IDAL Y SAMPORNA A.K.A. PANOTOLAN DAUNTE Y SAMPORNA

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : April 10, 2012] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.