Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > January 1987 Decisions > G.R. No. 71100 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. SANTIAGO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 71100. January 7, 1987.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANILO SANTIAGO y PASCUAL, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rodolfo U. Jimenez Law Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; APPELLANT ACQUITTED ON REASONABLE DOUBT. — Be it borne in mind that appellant was not actually the object of the drug-busting operation. The police authorities had for their intended quarry a certain "Boy Flint", ostensibly known in the vicinity as an inveterate drug pusher and there is certainly no dispute that appellant is not "Boy Flint" nor has he ever been known by such name. Then again consider the fact that appellant had no prior record as a drug pusher, nor had he ever been previously suspected to be one and the further fact that he stood his ground (in the store) when the policemen rushed in — while all his companions scampered away. A nagging question continues to trouble Us: why did the police deny appellant the benefit of calling up by phone one of his lawyer friends; and why did they ask him to sign an affidavit which is virtually an extrajudicial confession without first informing him of his constitutional rights and without the attendance of counsel? In fine, the charging of appellant appears to have been brought about by the police authorities to "save face" in their failure to apprehend "Boy Flint." It is true that a drug pusher is a vicious bane of our drug — deadened society, but first We must make sure that the person We convict is indeed one. Wherefore, on reasonable doubt, the appellant is hereby acquitted of the crime charged.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, J.:


Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 4, Art. 11, of Republic Act No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by P.D. 1675. The information, insofar as it is material and relevant, reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 26th day of January, 1982, in the Municipality of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another dried Marijuana flowering tops, a prohibited drug, in violation of the above-cited law, as amended.

"Contrary to law."cralaw virtua1aw library

(p. 2, Appellant’s Brief)

After trial, the appellant was convicted as charged and sentenced to reclusion perpetua (plus the payment of a fine) in a decision dated February 25, 1985 the decretal portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the accused is convicted of the crime charged, and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P20,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence, this appeal with the following assigned errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I


The trial court erred in its appreciation of the prosecution evidence.

II


The trial court erred in not giving credence to the defense evidence.

III


The trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant, the prosecution evidence being insufficient to support a conviction." (pp. 3-4, Appellee’s Brief)

The prosecution evidence, as summarized by the trial court, and by the Solicitor-General states:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The prosecution evidence shows that in line with its anti-narcotics campaign, the Mandaluyong Police Station formed a team composed of Sgt. Coronel, Patrolmen Ricamara, Rolando Cruz, Cristino Magliad and Cenen Payloma. The team was ordered to go after a notorious drug pusher in Mandaluyong known as Boy Flint. At about 1:30 P.M. on January 26, 1982 the members of the team talked to Eduardo Lim and asked him if he could help point out Boy Flint to them. Eduardo agreed and received from the policemen, the sum of P200.00 in bills which, as agreed upon, he was going to use in buying marijuana from Boy Flint. Before giving the money to Eduardo, the policemen had the two P100.00 bills xeroxed (Exhibits "E" and "E-1") (tsn., pp. 2-4, August 13, 1982; tsn., pp. 2-4, February 21, 1983).

Somewhere at the corner of A. Bonifacio Street and Shaw Blvd. at Mandaluyong, the team members posted themselves separately at different places. At this juncture, Eduardo approached and talked to a man who turned out to be the accused Danilo Santiago. Eduardo gave to the accused the P200.00 bills given to him by the policemen. After receiving the money, the accused went inside the compound where Boy Flint was allegedly staying. Five minutes later, the accused returned and handed to Eduardo dried marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper. Immediately then, Patrolmen Ortiz and Ricamara approached and tried to arrest the accused who was able to ran away. But before the accused could enter the compound of Boy Flint, the policemen were able to apprehend him near the gate of the compound. Right then and there, the policemen searched the body of the accused and found some marijuana leaves and two mogadon tablets hidden inside the sock of the accused. The policemen did not recover any money, however (tsn., pp. 2-3, September 3, 1982; tsn., pp. 4-6, September 21, 1983).

At the police headquarter, the accused was investigated by Pat. del Caro who took down the statements of Eduardo (Exhibit "A"), Pat. Ricamara and Ortiz (Exhibits "B" and "C") and of the accused (Exhibit "D"). The suspected marijuana leaves were forwarded to the P.C. Crime Laboratory where they were examined (tsn., pp. 6-12, July 9, 1982). According to Forensic Chemist Liza Madeja, the specimen were marijuana leaves and mogadon tablets, all prohibited drugs." (tsn, pp. 8-9, February 21, 1983) (pp. 2-3, Appellee’s Brief)chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Upon the other hand, it is the position of the appellant that he is not a drug pusher at all, that it was not he who had promised to get any marijuana for Lim, that Lim never handed any money to him, much less the two P100.00 bills used as bail money for the purchase of the prohibited drug; that what actually happened insofar as he is concerned is the following: he was in a store on A. Bonifacio Street, Mandaluyong, when Lim approached him and asked if he knew where a certain "Boy Flint" could be contacted, that while he did not know of the existence of a "Boy Flint," he knew of a certain "Boy," that he pointed out to him the building where said "Boy" was staying, that Lim went towards the building, that he then saw Lim conversing with someone from "Boy’s" household, that Lim gave the P200.00 to the person with whom he was talking, that the recipient then went inside the building, and a few minutes later, he (the recipient), came out and handed to Lim something which appeared to be covered, that shortly thereafter policemen entered the store, chased his friends out of the place, but he remained standing for he recognized one of the policemen as a former classmate of his, that he was then asked by the police to accompany them to police headquarters so that he could act as a "witness," that while there he was shown a piece of paper which he was compelled to sign, so that he could be released, that he then asked permission to call his house, and one of his lawyer friends, but this was refused; that in his desire to get away as soon as possible, he was not able to read anymore the contents of the piece of paper (the paper turned out to be an affidavit admitting his participation in the sale of the prohibited drug).

After a study of the case, We have come to the conclusion that there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the appellant.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Be it borne in mind that appellant was not actually the object of the drug-busting operation. The police authorities had for their intended quarry a certain "Boy Flint", ostensibly known in the vicinity as an inveterate drug pusher and there is certainly no dispute that appellant is not "Boy Flint" nor has he ever been known by such name. Then again consider the fact that appellant had no prior record as a drug pusher, nor had he ever been previously suspected to be one and the further fact that he stood his ground (in the store) when the policemen rushed in — while all his companions scampered away. A nagging question continues to trouble Us: why did the police deny appellant the benefit of calling up by phone one of his lawyer friends; and why did they ask him to sign an affidavit which is virtually an extrajudicial confession without first informing him of his constitutional rights and without the attendance of counsel? In fine, the charging of appellant appears to have been brought about by the police authorities to "save face" in their failure to apprehend "Boy Flint." It is true that a drug pusher is a vicious bane of our drug — deadened society, but first We must make sure that the person We convict is indeed one.

WHEREFORE, on reasonable doubt, the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

SO ORDERED.

Feria, Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.




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






January-1987 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-42618 January 7, 1987 - SARMIENTO ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45048 January 7, 1987 - BATONG BUHAY GOLD MINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47286 January 7, 1987 - RAMON BORGUILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47915 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REUBEN D. PIMENTEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48297 January 7, 1987 - DIOGENES TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987 - "BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55702 January 7, 1987 - JOSEPHINE CRUZ MALOLOS, ET AL. v. ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56196 January 7, 1986

    RESTITUTA HULGANZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57493 January 7, 1987 - BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63936 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA E. MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. L-69579 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO RAMILO

  • G.R. No. 70099 January 7, 1987 - MODESTA BORCENA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70569 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL S. MADARANG

  • G.R. No. 70688 January 7, 1987 - ROMULO J. FUENTEBELLA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71100 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. SANTIAGO

  • G.R. No. 72892 January 7, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO VIRAY

  • G.R. No. 73211 January 7, 1987 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27906 January 8, 1987 - CONVERSE RUBBER CORPORATION v. UNIVERSAL RUBBER PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41966 January 8, 1987 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-46960-62 January 8, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO ROJAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59606 January 8, 1987 - EDMUNDO ROMERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-192-RTJ January 9, 1987 - ARTURO A. ROMERO v. GABRIEL O. VALLE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-65048 January 9, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES R. MARCOS

  • G.R. Nos. L-66939-41 January 10, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47738 January 12, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO LIMOSNERO

  • G.R. No. L-56589 January 12, 1987 - JAIME MANLAPAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63698 January 12, 1987 - CRESENCIANO DIONIO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72141 January 12, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLAN L. SARMIENTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74975 January 12, 1987 - TOMASA L. BELGADO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75310 January 16, 1987 - WILFREDO ADVINCULA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27520 January 21, 1987 - GLOBE WIRELESS LTD. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30937 January 21, 1987 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70636 January 21, 1987 - E. B. MARCHA TRANSPORT CO., INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68790 January 23, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLO M. LAGRANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76532 January 26, 1987 - FLOR J. LACANILAO v. JUAN DE LEON

  • G.R. No. L-60036 January 27, 1987 - INVESTMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72740 January 27, 1987 - MARCIANO IPAPO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • B.M. No. 135 January 29, 1987 - IN RE: SOCORRO KE. LADRERA

  • G.R. No. L-45214 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-48065 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO TRAYA

  • G.R. No. L-59180 January 29, 1987 - CLEMENTINO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SIBAGAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59679 January 29, 1987 - TEODULO M. PALMA, SR. v. CARLOS O. FORTICH, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70255 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILBUR E. ABOGA

  • G.R. No. 71272 January 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY TAMBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71391 January 29, 1987 - CELSA PUNCIA ANCHUELO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72841 January 29, 1987 - PROVINCE OF CEBU v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51193 January 30, 1987 - EMILIO ZOZOBRADO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52221 January 30, 1987 - KANEO SOTOYAMA, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-52872-52997 January 30, 1987 - ROLANDO R. MANGUBAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57893 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO OBENQUE

  • G.R. No. L-69123 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODANTE BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69803 January 30, 1987 - CYNTHIA D. NOLASCO, ET AL. v. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70987 January 30, 1987 - GREGORIO Y. LIMPIN, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72307 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO PILAPIL

  • G.R. No. 72353 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO C. CERELEGIA

  • G.R. No. 72899 January 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCO F. POLO

  • A.M. No. 86-8-10603-RTC January 31, 1987 - IN RE: ESTHER N. BANS

  • G.R. Nos. L-40729-30 January 31, 1987 - BERNARDO C. CARBONEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48352 January 31, 1987 - ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v. ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49167-70 January 31, 1987 - TEODORO CHAVEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61773 January 31, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO PARAS

  • G.R. No. L-68687 January 31, 1987 - FRANCISCO CIMAFRANCA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71370 January 31, 1987 - SLOBODAN BOBANOVIC, ET AL. v. SYLVIA P. MONTES