Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > July 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO ARMENTANO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 90803. July 3, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EPIFANIO ARMENTANO, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marcelo G. Flores for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WITNESSES; CREDIBILITY THEREOF, NOT AFFECTED BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES. — The discrepancies in the declarations of the policemen — for example, as to who of them searched Armentano — are minor inconsistencies that do not vitiate the essential thrust of their common assertion that Armentano was searched and found to be in possession of the prohibited narcotics and the marked bill. Who actually effected such search and confiscation does not really matter; what does is that the search and confiscation were made, resulting in the real and telling evidence of the marijuana and the marked bill. Besides, a witness is not likely to remember every minute detail of an incident, especially where, as in this case, there were a number of protagonists participating in the same act of apprehending and searching the Accused-Appellant. Not a little confusion or imperfection may be expected in the recollection more than 8 months later of how such an incident happened.

2. ID.; ID.; PRESENTATION THEREOF, SUBJECT TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE PROSECUTION. — The decision not to present Pfc. Alcoran was another prerogative of the prosecution that the defense has no right to question. The prosecution is entitled to conduct its own case and to decide what witnesses to call to support its charges. The defense posture that the non-presentation of Pfc. Alcoran constitutes suppression of evidence favorable to Armentano is nothing short of ridiculous. If it felt that Pfc. Alcoran would admit to having planted the marijuana and the marked bill, what it could, and should, have done was call him to the stand as its own witness. One of the constitutional rights of the accused is "to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf." It could easily have Pfc. Alcoran subpoenaed. It did not do so. For what reason, it does not say now.

3. ID.; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; WARRANTLESS ARREST; LAWFUL WHEN ACCUSED WAS ARRESTED IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO. — The argument that the accused-appellant was illegally arrested and searched must also be rejected. He was arrested in flagrante delicto and thus came under Rule 113, Section 5(a) authorizing a warrantless arrest where a crime is actually being committed in the presence of the person making the arrest.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SEARCH INCIDENTAL THERETO, ALSO LAWFUL. — The arrest being lawful, the search incidental thereto was also lawful, in accordance with settled jurisprudence on this matter and specifically Rule 126, Section 12, of the Rules of Court.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


For violation of Article 2, Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the accused-appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment plus a fine of P20,000.00 and costs. 1 He is now in the National Penitentiary awaiting the outcome of this appeal. We shall keep him there.

We are convinced with the trial court that he is guilty of the crime as charged. It has been sufficiently established by the prosecution that on November 21, 1987, at about eight o’clock in the evening, Epifanio Armentano, Jr. was apprehended while in the act of selling marijuana to a member of a buy-bust team created to entrap him. The operation was held at the corner of Cervantes and Colon Ext. streets in Dumaguete City. Armentano was seated outside the shoe repair shop where his family was residing. Pat. Wenefredo Noble, one of the team members, posed as the buyer and approached Armentano to inquire where he could buy marijuana cigarettes. Armentano said he had some for sale. Noble asked for two sticks and handed Armentano a previously marked five-peso bill in payment. In exchange therefor, Armentano took two sticks of marijuana cigarettes from the plastic bag which was handed to him by his wife. Noble then identified himself as a NARCOM agent and placed Armentano under arrest. The other team members approached the two. They searched Armentano and retrieved the five-peso bill. They also found twenty-five grams of dried marijuana leaves in his right pants pocket. Upon demand, Armentano’s wife, Cynthia Paghasi-an, surrendered the plastic bag from which Armentano had gotten the cigarettes he had given Noble. Armentano and his wife were then taken to police headquarters for investigation.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

At the trial, Noble and two of his team-mates, namely Sgt. Ruben Laddaran and Pat. Nelson Exito, testified on the execution of the buy-bust operation. Noble was the principal witness as the poser-buyer. 2 Exito said he searched the accused-appellant and confiscated the marijuana leaves contained in a plastic bag and the marked bill found on his person. The bill had previously been marked with the initials of Laddaran’s name on the left cheek of the picture of Emilio Aguinaldo and its serial number had been noted down a DY 804206. 3 Laddaran declared that he made a field test of the suspected narcotics and found them to be positive for marijuana. It was he who personally took them to the PC Crime Laboratory in Cebu City for examination. 4 His preliminary findings were later confirmed on the stand by Myrna P. Areola, forensic analyst of the said laboratory, who also submitted two Chemistry Reports that were offered as exhibits for the prosecution. 5

Armentano had a different tale to tell, and tale it was. He claimed that on the evening in question he was at a store about three meters from his house and waiting for his wife to call him for supper when a friend approached him and invited him to go for a walk. As he stood up to do so, Pat. Noble and Pfc. Arthur Alcoran came and said his wife wanted to talk to him. They forced him to board a waiting pedicab where he found his wife, who handed him a plastic bag and a five-peso bill which she said the policemen had asked her to give him. He refused to accept them, but Pat. Exito threw them on his lap. He and his wife were then taken to police headquarters, where they were confronted with the contents of the plastic bag, which appeared to be marijuana cigarettes. The two of them were manhandled and forced to sign a piece of paper which they were not allowed to read. His wife was released later, but he was detained.

His wife confirmed his testimony and declared that, prior to being taken to the pedicab, she was in their house when Sgt. Laddaran, Pfc. Alcoran and Pat. Noble barged in and conducted a search without warrant. She averred that the plastic bag and the five peso bill she was asked to give her husband came from Pfc. Alcoran himself and not from her or her husband. A third defense witness, Lester Andaya, said he was the friend who had invited the accused-appellant for a walk before the policemen arrived and took Armentano to the waiting pedicab. 6

In his brief, the accused-appellant submits that the trial judge erred in giving credence to the prosecution evidence without considering the contradictions of the policemen who described the buy-bust operation. The failure of the prosecution to include Paghasi-an as his co-accused bolsters her testimony that the marijuana came not from them but from Pfc. Alcoran, who "planted" it on them. Moreover, the non-presentation of Pfc. Alcoran by the prosecution amounted to suppression of evidence favorable to the Accused-Appellant. All told, the constitutional presumption of innocence in his favor had not been overcome and he is therefore entitled to an acquittal.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Not so.

We shall sustain the trial court, which had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses as they testified and to assess their credibility under oath. The discrepancies in the declarations of the policemen — for example, as to who of them searched Armentano — are minor inconsistencies that do not vitiate the essential thrust of their common assertion that Armentano was searched and found to be in possession of the prohibited narcotics and the marked bill. Who actually effected such search and confiscation does not really matter; what does is that the search and confiscation were made, resulting in the real and telling evidence of the marijuana and the marked bill. Besides, a witness is not likely to remember every minute detail of an incident, especially where, as in this case, there were a number of protagonists participating in the same act of apprehending and searching the Accused-Appellant. Not a little confusion or imperfection may be expected in the recollection more than 8 months later of how such an incident happened. **

The non-inclusion of Cynthia Paghasi-an as co-accused with Armentano is irrelevant to this case. The prosecution may have any number of reasons for not prosecuting her; in any event, her non-inclusion is not the issue here. Neither may it be considered conclusive of the claim that the confiscated marijuana came from the police and not from her or the accused-appellant, for there is more convincing evidence to the contrary. That evidence is decidedly more plausible and credible, especially because it came from witnesses without any known or apparent motive to perjure themselves against a person they hardly knew.

The decision not to present Pfc. Alcoran was another prerogative of the prosecution that the defense has no right to question. The prosecution is entitled to conduct its own case and to decide what witnesses to call to support its charges. The defense posture that the non-presentation of Pfc. Alcoran constitutes suppression of evidence favorable to Armentano is nothing short of ridiculous. If it felt that Pfc. Alcoran would admit to having planted the marijuana and the marked bill, what it could, and should, have done was call him to the stand as its own witness. One of the constitutional rights of the accused is "to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf." 7 It could easily have Pfc. Alcoran subpoenaed. It did not do so. For what reason, it does not say now.

Finally, the argument that the accused-appellant was illegally arrested and searched must also be rejected. He was arrested in flagrante delicto and thus came under Rule 113, Section 5(a) authorizing a warrantless arrest where a crime is actually being committed in the presence of the person making the arrest. The arrest being lawful, the search incidental thereto was also lawful, in accordance with settled jurisprudence on this matter 8 and specifically Rule 126, Section 12, of the Rules of Court reading as follows:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.

The constitutional presumption of innocence has been overcome in this case by the evidence submitted against the accused-appellant that points unmistakably to his guilt of the crime imputed to him. It is a despicable offense that feeds on the weaknesses of hundreds of thousands of our people, especially the youth, whose lives have been damaged — many irreparably — because of the greed of drug pushers like him. He deserves in full the heavy penalties imposed upon him.

WHEREFORE, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED and the appeal DISMISSED, with costs against the Accused-Appellant. It is so ordered.

Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 30; Decision penned by Judge Jesus L. Tabilon, of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 44.

2. TSN, September 16, 1988, p. 8.

3. Ibid., pp. 25-26.

4. Id., pp. 28-31.

5. TSN, November 14, 1988, pp. 11-17.

6. TSN, June 5, 1989, pp. 4-5, and 7.

** Exito testified on July 18, and August 12, 1988; Noble and Laddaran on September 16, 1988, and February 6, 1989.

7. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 14(2).

8. People v. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 (1991); Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 143 SCRA 267 (1986); People v. Castiller, 188 SCRA 376 (1990).




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






July-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 94785 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELPIDIO A. LOSTE

  • G.R. No. 98243 July 1, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ARADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98432 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO PLETADO

  • G.R. No. 100198 July 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLIE VILLORENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100772 July 1, 1992 - ALEX GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94588 July 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. NLRC (POEA), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96745 July 2, 1992 - MANUEL MELGAR DE LA CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-90-490 July 3, 1992 - YOLANDA DIPUTADO-BAGUIO v. FELIPE T. TORRES

  • A.C. No. 2349 July 3, 1992 - DOROTHY B. TERRE v. ATTY. JORDAN TERRE

  • G.R. Nos. 37012-13 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NOMAT, SR.

  • G.R. No. 64284 July 3, 1992 - JOSE S. VELASQUEZ v. MARTIN NERY

  • G.R. No. 69971 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO C. LUVENDINO

  • G.R. Nos. 76818-19 July 3, 1992 - CDCP TEWU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88752 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO P. MANANSALA

  • G.R. No. 88912 July 3, 1992 - TIERRA INT’L. CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 90803 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO ARMENTANO

  • G.R. No. 92136 July 3, 1992 - EDGARDO DYTIAPCO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 92391 July 3, 1992 - PFVI INC. v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 93016 July 3, 1992 - UNITED ALUMINUM FABRICATORS v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 94566 July 3, 1992 - BA FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95048 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER MONTILLA

  • G.R. No. 96054 July 3, 1992 - MARIANO M. LAZATIN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96628 July 3, 1992 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. EUFEMIO DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 96825 July 3, 1992 - RAVA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96865 July 3, 1992 - MARCELINO KIAMCO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96410 July 3, 1992 - NATIONAL POWER CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96915 July 3, 1992 - CONCEPCION DUMAGAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 97419 July 3, 1992 - GAUDENCIO T. CENA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 98440 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME LAURORA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 101208 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY R. TOMENTOS

  • G.R. No. 101273 July 3, 1992 - ENRIQUE T. GARCIA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

  • G.R. No. 101526 July 3, 1992 - RODELA D. TORREGOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101703 July 3, 1992 - LUCRECIA DELA ROSA v. ROSARIO M. MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 101724 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 101808 July 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON BOLANOS

  • G.R. No. 101919 July 3, 1992 - RODOLFO ALCANTARA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 102342 July 3, 1992 - LUZ M. ZALDIVIA, v. ANDRES B. REYES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 102494 July 3, 1992 - MAXIMO FELICILDA v. NATHANAEL M. GROSPE

  • G.R. No. 102606 July 3, 1992 - LINO R. TOPACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105111 July 3, 1992 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 105323 July 3, 1992 - FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 49282 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT PIZARRO

  • G.R. No. 88300 July 6, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNIE C. LAPAN

  • G.R. No. 91879 July 6, 1992 - HEIRS OF MAXIMO REGOSO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100168 July 8, 1992 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 101619 July 8, 1992 - SANYO PHIL. WORKERS UNION v. POTENCIANO S. CANIZARES

  • G.R. No. 41420 July 10, 1992 - CMS LOGGING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89554 July 10, 1992 - JUANITO A. ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95253 July 10, 1992 - CONSUELO ARANETA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 97144-45 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO "BEN" VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 98430 July 10, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINO NECERIO

  • G.R. No. 98467 July 10, 1992 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 101749 July 10, 1992 - CONRADO BUNAG, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96189 July 14, 1992 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA

  • G.R. No. 100866 July 14, 1992 - REBECCA BOYER-ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 75879 July 15, 1992 - VIRGINIA SECRETARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 93752 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAROY T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. 97147 July 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX QUERRER

  • G.R. No. 100482 July 15, 1992 lab

    NEW VALLEY TIMES PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 68102 July 16, 1992 - GEORGE MCKEE v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 89265 July 17, 1992 - ARTURO G. EUDELA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92383 July 17, 1992 - SUN INSURANCE OFFICE, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94493 July 17, 1992 - ALEJANDRO ATIENZA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95778 July 17, 1992 - SKYWORLD CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM.

  • G.R. Nos. 64725-26 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ALACAR

  • G.R. No. 77396 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO T. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992 - DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • G.R. Nos. 93411-12 July 20, 1992 - ENCARNACION FLORES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 94534 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO BIGCAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 95844 July 20, 1992 - COMMANDO SECURITY AGENCY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96712 July 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 104678 July 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 95254-55 July 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCOS U. ABUYAN, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96091 July 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO L. HOBLE

  • G.R. No. 73679 July 23, 1992 - HONESTO B. VILLAROSA v. CRESENCIANO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. 79903 July 23, 1992 - CONTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 82293 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO B. MADRIAGA

  • G.R. No. 85490 July 23, 1992 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. v. JESUS C. SEBASTIAN

  • G.R. No. 90856 July 23, 1992 - ARTURO DE GUZMAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95067 July 23, 1992 - GERARDO ARANAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 95900 July 23, 1992 - JULIUS C. OUANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 96914 July 23, 1992 - CECILIA U. LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100493 July 23, 1992 - HEIRS OF JAIME BINUYA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 102070 July 23, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID A. ALFECHE, JR.

  • G.R. No. 90270 July 24, 1992 - ARMANDO V. SIERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90318 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 91847 July 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO MARTOS

  • G.R. No. 97816 July 24, 1992 - MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.C. No. 1129 July 27, 1992 - PERFECTO MENDOZA v. ALBERTO B. MALA

  • G.R. No. 97092 July 27, 1992 - PEPSI-COLA SALES AND ADVERTISING UNION v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL

  • A.C. No. 2984 July 29, 1992 - RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, JR. v. ISMAEL F. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 40145 July 29, 1992 - SEVERO SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50260 July 29, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 68037 July 29, 1992 - PARAMOUNT INSURANCE CORP. v. MAXIMO M. JAPZON

  • G.R. No. 94547 July 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID S. SAULO

  • G.R. No. 94590 July 29, 1992 - CHINA AIRLINES LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94771 July 29, 1992 - RAMON J. VELORIA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS