Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1990 > April 1990 Decisions > G.R. No. 77397 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO P. JOMAO-AS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 77397. April 3, 1990.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONALDO JOMAO-AS y PADILLA and ALEXANDER SPANDONIS alias "BRUTUS", Defendants, ALEXANDER SPANDONIS alias "BRUTUS", Defendant-Appellant.

The Office of the Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dominador G. Suñga, for Defendant-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


The defendant-appellant Alexander Spandonis alias "Brutus" has come to this Court seeking the reversal of the decision rendered by Judge Milagros C. Nartatez in Criminal Case No. 12447 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of ALEXANDER SPANDONIS alias Brutus of Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 179, as charged, proven beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS, and to pay a proportionate part of the costs." 1

The records of the case show that about 4:15 o’clock in the afternoon of 29 June 1985, PC NARCOM agents arrested one Ronaldo Jomao-as y Padilla while selling five (5) matchboxes of marijuana to a civilian informer posing as a buyer, at the Food Plaza situated at the corner of Claveria and San Pedro Streets in Davao City. He was brought to the PC NARCOM headquarters and when questioned, he pointed to the herein appellant Alexander Spandonis as the source of the marijuana confiscated from him. 2 As a result, Ronaldo Jomao-as and the appellant Alexander Spandonis were charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Rep. Act No. 6425 as amended), committed, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about June 29, 1985, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did then and wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously without having been authorized by law dealt with the sale of five (5) matchboxes of Marijuana leaves, which is prohibited drug." 3

When arraigned, both accused pleaded "not guilty" to the commission of the crime. The accused Ronaldo Jomao-as, however, subsequently asked for a reinvestigation of the case after which he withdrew his plea of "not guilty." After a re-arraignment, he pleaded "guilty" to a lesser offense and was sentenced accordingly. 4

The accused, Alexander Spandonis, upon the other hand, moved to dismiss the case against him on the ground that no preliminary investigation was conducted against him prior to the filing of the information, 5 but his motion to dismiss was denied for the reason that he did not file said motion to dismiss before he entered his plea so that he was deemed to have waived it. 6 Trial of the case then proceeded against Alexander Spandonis who denied that the marijuana leaves found in the possession of his co-accused Ronaldo Jomao-as by NARCOM agents in a "buy-bust" operation of 29 June 1985 came from him since he was not in the business of selling marijuana, and that on 29 June 1985 he was at Ecoland, painting the house of his sister. He further stated that his co-accused may have pointed to him as the source of the marijuana leaves because of the grudge Ronaldo Jomao-as had against him as a result of an altercation between them a month before, in May 1985, when he refused to give money to Jomao-as with which to buy some drinks. 7 The trial court gave no credence to his defense.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In support of his appeal, the appellant Alexander Spandonis, through counsel, claims that the trial court erred: (1) in giving credence to the testimony of his co-accused Ronaldo Jomao-as, and that of Joseph Cagas who had been accused of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act in another case; and (2) in not dismissing the case for lack of preliminary investigation.

While the rule is that great weight and respect should be accorded to the trial court’s findings, the severity and harshness of the penalty imposed by law on violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended) calls for a meticulous evaluation of the evidence whether incriminating or exculpating an accused. 8 The Court has also said that "Courts must be extra vigilant in trying drug charges lest an innocent person is made to suffer unusually severe penalties for drug offenses." 9

We have gone over the records of the case and find that the evidence presented by the prosecution is not sufficient to support a conviction. It would appear that the trial court relied mainly, if not entirely, on the uncorroborated testimony of the co-accused Ronaldo Jomao-as in finding the appellant Alexander Spandonis guilty of the offense charged. In fact, without the testimony of the said Ronaldo Jomao-as implicating the appellant, the latter would have been acquitted, as there is no other evidence that would link the appellant to the marijuana leaves found in the possession of the said Ronaldo Jomao-as during the "buy-bust" operation conducted by NARCOM agents on 29 June 1985. While there may be no law which requires that the testimony of a witness has to be corroborated, except in treason where the testimony of at least two (2) witnesses is needed to prove the same overt act, it has been held that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-accused cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be considered as proof to a moral certainty that the latter committed or participated in the commission of the crime; it is required that the testimony be substantially corroborated by other evidence in all its material points. 10

We cannot consider the testimony of Joseph Cagas that he got from the appellant the marijuana leaves confiscated from him by NARCOM agents in a "buy-bust" operation conducted on 9 July 1985, to be corroborative of the testimony of Ronaldo Jomao-as because it appears to be incompatible with the testimony of another prosecution witness on a material point and, therefore, unreliable. Sgt. Adilhaman Asnawi, a member of the NARCOM team which arrested Ronaldo Jomao-as during the "buy-bust" operation on 29 June 1985, declared that his commanding officer decided to have a close surveillance on the appellant Alexander Spandonis after Ronaldo Jomao-as had told them that he (Jomao-as) got the marijuana leaves from the appellant. 11 There being a "close surveillance" on the appellant, it was to be expected that, at least, a report be made on every transaction subsequently entered into by the appellant and a buyer, or that the buyer be arrested together with the appellant. But it would appear that Cagas was not arrested together with the appellant. Nor was a report made on the transaction entered into by them. In fact, the appellant was not included in the criminal case filed against Joseph Cagas. It is thus possible that Joseph Cagas was not telling the truth when he said that he got marijuana leaves from the appellant on 9 July 1985.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

The testimony of Ronaldo Jomao-as, coming from a polluted source without being corroborated in its material points by other evidence, is not, therefore, sufficient to convict the appellant of the offense with which he is charged. Accordingly, the acquittal of the appellant is called for.

In view of the foregoing, we no longer find it necessary to discuss the procedural issue raised by the appellant in his brief that the case should be dismissed for the additional ground of lack of preliminary investigation.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one entered acquitting the appellant Alexander Spandonis, on reasonable doubt, from the charge against him. With costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Original Record, p. 140.

2. tsn of January 21, 1986, p. 3; tsn of January 31, 1986, p. 45.

3. Original Record, p. 1.

4. Id., p. 74.

5. Id., p. 24.

6. Id., p. 45.

7. tsn of April 15, 1986, pp. 87, 89, 93.

8. People v. Rualo, G.R. No. 70287, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 635.

9. People v. Sahagun, G.R. No. 62024, February 12, 1990, citing People v. Taruc, G.R. No. 74655, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 178.

10. Barretto v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 57333-37, September 16, 1986, 144 SCRA 176.

11. tsn of January 31, 1986, p. 48.




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






April-1990 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 47991 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALDEGUER

  • G.R. No. 49856 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BAYBAYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59154 April 3, 1990 - MERIDIAN ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. ABELARDO M. DAYRIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61965 April 3, 1990 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63225 April 3, 1990 - ELEAZAR V. ADLAWAN v. VALERIANO P. TOMOL

  • G.R. No. 75619 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

  • G.R. No. 77397 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO P. JOMAO-AS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81026 April 3, 1990 - PAN MALAYAN INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81493 April 3, 1990 - SUPERSTAR SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82112 April 3, 1990 - ROSA SABADLAN VALENCIA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86164 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR SIMENE

  • G.R. No. 88724 April 3, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CEILITO ORITA

  • G.R. No. 89318 April 3, 1990 - MARIANO R. SANTIAGO v. K. CASIANO P. ANUNCIACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91096 April 3, 1990 - CAPRICORN INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69386 April 4, 1990 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46208 April 5, 1990 - FIDELITY SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. PEDRO D. CENZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63735 April 5, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO MALINAO

  • G.R. No. L-64735 April 5, 1990 - ATLAS DEVELOPER & STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SARMIENTO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72194 April 5, 1990 - HEIRS OF CLARO L. LAURETA v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75640 April 5, 1990 - NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83843-44 April 5, 1990 - IN RE: ROSITA LABRADOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84324 April 5, 1990 - SANTIAGO AQUINO, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO R. LUNTOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42281 April 6, 1990 - GODOFREDA B. SUMALINOG v. CORAZON Q. DORONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46364 April 6, 1990 - SULPICIA JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. VICENTE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47422 April 6, 1990 - ILDEFONSA CERDON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57025 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO C. ARSENIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62021 April 6, 1990 - FLORA LAURON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MEDEL B. TANGLIBEN

  • G.R. No. 76028 April 6, 1990 - SPS. JOSE R. LANSANG, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76213 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBY RONQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 85611 April 6, 1990 - VICTORIANO ZAMORAS v. ROQUE SU, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86728 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS VARGAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 87203 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL DAWANDAWAN

  • G.R. No. 87245 April 6, 1990 - UNIVERSAL TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87617 April 6, 1990 - JOE HODGES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88400 April 6, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMANUEL GUINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88602 April 6, 1990 - TOMASA VDA. DE JACOB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51973 April 16, 1990 - ELY CHAN SA VELASCO v. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35205 April 17, 1990 - NATIVIDAD VILLAFLOR v. JOSE JUEZAN

  • G.R. No. L-47916 April 17, 1990 - HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60323 April 17, 1990 - MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 69816 April 17, 1990 - POLICARPIO Y. FAUSTO v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70393 April 17, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO LATI

  • G.R. No. 71889 April 17, 1990 - SOCORRO VDA. DE MONDRAGON, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74203 April 17, 1990 - JOSE T. TAYOTO, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF CABALO KUSOP, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75773 April 17, 1990 - TOMAS JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76838 April 17, 1990 - LUALHATI A. COJUANGCO v. PURIFICACION VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88537 April 17, 1990 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-89-425 April 17, 1990 - OSCAR PALMA PAGASIAN v. CESAR P. AZURA

  • G.R. No. 76100 April 18, 1990 - SALEM ALEX T. PALO v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE

  • G.R. No. 77755 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO P. CONSUELO

  • G.R. No. 82375 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83260 April 18, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN G. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88550 April 18, 1990 - INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85742 April 19, 1990 - JESUS F. SALAZAR, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70835 April 20, 1990 - ROGELIO P. CELI, ET AL. v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78750 April 20, 1990 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JOSE V. NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 86220 April 20, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO P. CIOBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88561 April 20, 1990 - HERMAN ARMOVIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89604 April 20, 1990 - ROQUE FLORES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89879 April 20, 1990 - JAIME PABALAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57308 April 23, 1990 - GREAT PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 66683 April 23, 1990 - RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44905 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL MONEGRO TORRE

  • G.R. No. 68152 April 25, 1990 - CEFERINO ZAIDE, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78527 April 25, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN K. GUIAGUI

  • G.R. No. 88092 April 25, 1990 - CITADEL LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88538 April 25, 1990 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. DIONISIO C. DELA SERNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89431 April 25, 1990 - ERIBERTO G. VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43277 April 26, 1990 - STANDARD MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49298 April 26, 1990 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56838 April 26, 1990 - GENARO NAVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70008 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO MOLINA

  • G.R. No. 79311 April 26, 1990 - PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80298 April 26, 1990 - EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. LEONOR SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81564 April 26, 1990 - ACTING REGISTRARS OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS OF PASAY, ET AL. v. RTC, BRANCH 57, IN MKT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82362 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO C. CLORES

  • G.R. No. 84313 April 26, 1990 - HEIRS OF DECEASED COSME RABE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85822 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONILO ALBURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85840 April 26, 1990 - SERVANDO’S INCORPORATED v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86163 April 26, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO SALVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87958 April 26, 1990 - NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, ET AL. v. STOLT-NIELSEN PHIL., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46845 April 27, 1990 - PEDRO T. SANTIAGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47281 April 27, 1990 - JUAN SALA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL (Branch V), ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-49241-42 April 27, 1990 - RINCONADA TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. v. CARLOS R. BUENVIAJE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68997 April 27, 1990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO C. LIBAG

  • G.R. No. 73010 April 27, 1990 - REVA RAZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88586 April 27, 1990 - CONTINENTAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.