Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > September 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 91001 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILFERIO F. SILLO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 91001. September 18, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SILFERIO SILLO Y FERRER, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; AFFECTED BY MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS. — The inconsistencies and contradictory statements of Patrolman Oñes himself and the inconsistencies of the statements of Patrolman Oñes with respect to the statements of P/Cpl. Ilagan and Pat. Mabolo engender serious doubts as to their reliability and veracity.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED; RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES; DENIED BY THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE ALLEGED POSEUR-BUYER; CASE AT BAR. — The presentation of the poseur-buyer is very material and relevant in this case. The alleged buy-bust team members’ statements can now be regarded as pure hearsay without the presentation of the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer. He alone could definitely testify whether accused-appellant sold to him two foils of marijuana for Twenty (P20.00) Pesos. Accused-appellant’s constitutional right to cross-examine the alleged poseur-buyer was thus violated. True it is that the Court has ruled in several cases that the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer’s testimony would have been merely corroborative, the most recent of which is People v. Dag-uman, but in accused-appellant’s case, considering the material discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony, the prosecution’s case must necessarily rise or fall on the civilian-informer-poseur’s testimony.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS; PRESUMPTION THAT EVIDENCE WILLFULLY SUPPRESSED WILL BE ADVERSE IF PRODUCE; APPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. — The identity of the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer is vital when the accused, as in the case at bar, denies having sold marijuana to anyone. The failure to present the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer engenders a well-grounded belief that either he does not exist, or that, if he does, his evidence is being willfully suppressed because it will be adverse if produced. While it is the rule that the accused’s common-law wife’s testimony should be taken with a grain of salt because of their common-law marital relationship, considering, however, the proven material discrepancies in the alleged buy-bust team operatives’ testimonies, it becomes now credible that the civilian-informer’s (Kulot) testimony was suppressed as there is the distinct possibility, that Kulot might have revealed something adverse to the policemen’s interest under skillful cross-examination.

4. ID.; ID.; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; PROSECUTION MUST RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF ITS OWN EVIDENCE AND NOT ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENSE. — The evidence of the prosecution is sorely wanting to justify conviction. Settled is the rule that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not in the weakness of the defense.


D E C I S I O N


NOCON, J.:


In what would have been an otherwise perfect frame-up, the People’s case falls flat on its face and the accused-appellant has to be acquitted as the poseur-buyer in the alleged buy-bust operation was never presented in court by the prosecution.

According to the People:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On or about 8:30 o’clock in the evening of March, 18, 1987, Patrolmen Ricardo Oñes and Elmer Mabolo and Corporal Valentin Ilagan of the Vice Division of the Pasay City Police, while on duty at the Office of the Anti-Narcotics Unit, received information from an anonymous phone caller that there were pushers in the vicinity of Lakandula St., Pasay City. Immediately, they formed themselves into a group for the purpose of conducting a buy-bust operation. They entered in the police blotter their mission and the one ten peso and two five peso bills they will use as marked money. (TSN, p. 4-5, June 15, 1987).chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

"About 9:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, the policemen, along with a ‘civilian informant’, proceeded to Dolores Street, a block away from Lakandula Street. The informer led Patrolman Oñes to appellant’s house at 164 Int., Dolores Street, while the other officers positioned themselves a few meters away from the house. Thereafter, the informer called someone by the name of Penpen. Later, a man, who turned out to be appellant Silferio Sillo y Ferrer, went down and talked to the informer. The latter told appellant in the presence of Patrolman Oñes, who posed as buyer/companion, that they wanted to buy marijuana. Appellant went upstairs, leaving the undercover cop and the informer. When he returned, appellant received from the informer the marked money and thereafter handed to the latter the two foils of marijuana. Immediately, Patrolman Oñes identified himself as a police officer and, with the help of other police officers, arrested appellant. Appellant was brought to the police station and turned over to Police Investigator Eduardo Manfoste for further investigation. (TSN, p. 6 to 8, May 11, 1988). The two foils of marijuana were turned over to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination (Exh.’B’). After examination, Forensic Chemist Alicia Juan certified that the evidence thus examined gave positive result for marijuana (Exh.’C’)." 1

Accused-appellant was, therefore, charged with violation of Section 4, R.A. 6425 in Criminal Case No. B7-11539-P filed with the Pasay City Regional Trial Court.

At the arraignment, Accused-appellant pleaded "Not Guilty!" because according to him:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

" [O]n March 18, 1987, between 8:00 PM and 8:20 PM, Silferio Sillo went out of the house to fetch the children of his live-in wife. At about 8:30 PM, he and the children were already at home. His wife prepared their supper and at about 9:00 PM, Pat. Oñes and P/Cpl. Ilagan with the civilian named Kulot suddenly entered their house. He knows the two policemen because he was a barangay tanod from 1983-1986. Pat. Oñes was holding something like foils of cigarettes when he was about to search the body of Silferio but the latter was able to move back. The policemen then pointed their guns at Silferio and he was told not to make a scandal. Silferio then showed off his pant’s pocket and wallet to the policemen who found nothing. The policemen conducted a search inside the house and they likewise found nothing. Silferio’s mother and wife who were then present were afraid. Silferio was then brought to the police headquarters but he did not see anymore kulot, a well known snatcher and with whom he (accused) had encountered several times in their barangay selling stolen items. (TSN, pp. 2-8, July 13, 1988 and pp. 2-6, August 10, 1988 Sillo). 2

The trial court gave more credence to the People’s version and on September 30, 1988 rendered a decision which stated in its dispositive portion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of all the foregoing, the Court finds the accused Silferio Sillo y Ferrer guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged in the information and hereby sentences him to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 with all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the cost.

"Likewise, the two (2) sticks of marijuana and the dangerous drugs subject of this case is hereby confiscated in favor of the government and ordered turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board thru the National Bureau of Investigation for proper disposition.

"SO ORDERED." 3

Hence, this appeal.

The accused-appellant claims that the trial court erred in:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Convicting him despite material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witness; and

2. Finding that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I


It is to be noted, that in this particular buy-bust operation, it was the civilian informer who allegedly handed the money to the accused-appellant and who subsequently received the marijuana from the latter. This is clear from the joint affidavit submitted by Pats. Oñes and Mabolo, Pfc. Manlongat and P/Cpl. Ilagan 4 right after the buy-bust operation which in its fractured syntax states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"THAT, minutes later upon arrival at the subject place, WE, P/CPL. Valentino Ilagan, PFC. Samuel Manlongat and Pat. Elmer Mabolo, positioned ourselves to obscure/dim portion in front of house nr. — 164 Int., Dolores, St., Pasay, while Pat. Ricardo Oñes together with a civilian informer proceeded directly at the footstair of said house and after several called by his alias PENPEN, the suspected drug pusher came down and approached the informant and Pat. R. Oñes;chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"THAT, the suspected pusher went upstair after short conversation with the Informant and Pat. Oñes and minutes after, went back to the informer and Pat. Oñes and handed two foils of suspected Marijuana leaves to the informer and kept the Twenty pesos as payment to his pants front right pocket;

"THAT, immediately after the payment, Pat. R. Oñes held the suspected Marijuana pusher by the right hand, subsequently identified himself as police member of Pasay, at this juncture, Cpl. V. Ilagan, PFC. S. Manlongat and Pat. E. Mabolo showed themselves and assisted Pat. Oñes in apprehending the suspect;"

The civilian informer was not presented as a prosecution witness 5 in spite of the fact that, as testified to by Pat. Oñes, it was the civilian informer who, while acting as the poseur-buyer, gave the accused P20.00 and received from the latter the two marijuana sticks. Thus, Pat. Oñes testified:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Fiscal Barrera:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

who handed the money, ten peso bill and five peso bill to the suspect?

A: My civilian informant.

Q: After handing him the money what happened?

A: He go (sic) upstairs and then he went down and handed to my civilian informant the two foils of marijuana.

x       x       x


Court: Who received the marijuana from the accused?

A: My civilian informer." 6

One of the rights of an accused is to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. 7 Only two (2) persons allegedly were eyewitnesses to the alleged sale of marijuana by the accused-appellant — the civilian informer who was also the poseur-buyer and Patrolman Oñes.

Reviewing Patrolman Oñes’ testimony, We find the same riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Regarding who allegedly gave the marked money to the suspected drug pusher, on direct examination, Patrolman Oñes already contradicted himself, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Fiscal Barrera: While there at the house of the accused a certain Penpen, what happened there?

A: After handing the marked money and after giving us the two foils of marijuana I informed him I am a member of the Pasay Police Force. After I gave him the marked money, he put it in his right front pocket and I informed him I am a police officer and effect the arrest.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

x       x       x


Fiscal Barrera: Who handed the money, ten peso bill and five peso bill to the suspect?

A: My civilian informant." 8

(Emphasis supplied).

While on cross-examination, he again contradicted himself, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: Your civilian informer received the marijuana foil and after receiving it you turned over to the accused the alleged marked money?

A: Yes, sir.

x       x       x." 9

"Q: By the way, who gave this money to the accused?

A: The poseur buyer." 10

(Emphasis supplied)

2. Regarding which came first, the exchange of the marijuana or the exchange of the marked money, on direct he contradicted himself as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Court: Did the accused handed you already the marijuana?

A: He handed the marijuana already.

Court: Upon receiving the money?

A: Yes, Your Honor.

x       x       x.

Q: After handing him the money what happened?

A: He go upstairs and then he went down and handed to my civilian informant the two foils of marijuana." 11

(Emphasis supplied).

3. Regarding as to whether he checked if the foils did contain marijuana before arresting the Accused-Appellant. Patrolman Oñes testified on direct, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: You got the cigarette aluminum foil from the hand of the accused and your informant did not open it?

A: He opened it.

Q: While he was looking at the marijuana you effect the arrest?

A: Yes, sir, after handing the money.

x       x       x


Q: All the time that marijuana cigarette foil was in the possession of your informant?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you did not even touch that?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Then you immediately effect the arrest?

A: Yes, sir." 12

(Emphasis supplied).

but on cross, when asked why he arrested the accused-appellant without knowing the contents of the foil, he said:red:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: Why did you arrest him when you are not sure that contained in the foil is marijuana?

A: I looked at the contents of the foil." 13

(Emphasis supplied).

4. Regarding as to when the civilian informer surrendered the marijuana foils to the police, he said on direct:chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

"Fiscal Barrera: Upon receiving these two foils of marijuana, what did your informer do?

Court: In time the civilian informer handed the marijuana to your team leader?

A: In the office already." 14

(Emphasis supplied)

while on cross, he said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: Where was the informant, he followed you?

A: He was together with us proceed to the headquarters. (sic).

Q: At all time he has possession of that cigarette foil confiscated from the accused?

A: No. At the said vicinity after getting the marijuana from the accused he handed the said foils of marijuana to our team leader Corporal Ilagan." 15

(Emphasis supplied)

5. As to whether there was actual drug trafficking in Lakandula St., Pat. Oñes under cross stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Atty. Barcelona: You stated on March 13, 1987 you were in your office and that while present there at 8:30 you received a telephone call there is a drug trafficking in the vicinity of Lakandula St., Cecilia St. and Tramo?

A: Yes, sir." 16

x       x       x.

"Atty. Barcelona: How did you know there were marijuana sold in that area?

A: The civilian informant.

Q: But before that you did not conduct surveillance?

A: After the telephone call, two weeks before we are already receiving information regarding drug pushing in the said vicinity.

Q: Who received that call?

A: Member of our team.

Q: You mean to say that was the second call you received on March 18?

A: We have received call about drug trafficking in that place. Before that call we have been conducting surveillance. At that night we conducted buy bust operation in the said vicinity after receiving the telephone call from a certain resident there informing us a certain alias Penpen is conducting sale of marijuana.chanrobles law library : red

x       x       x." 17

While on further cross, he stated that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Court: In short, the information you received by phone is there is an actual drug trafficking in Lakandula St.?

A: Yes, sir.

x       x       x.

Q: When you arrived at Lakandula St., you did not see any drug trafficking around?

A: No.

Q: What prompted you in going to the house of the accused?

A: To check if said accused is selling marijuana." 18

(Emphasis supplied.)

Apparently, the alleged buy-bust group members cannot even get their act together. For example:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. As above-quoted, Patrolman Oñes stated that the civilian informer surrendered the foils of marijuana to P/Cpl Ilagan either at the scene of the crime or at the police headquarters. However, P/Cpl. Ilagan stated it differently, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: Together with the marijuana foils then what happened after that?

A: We brought the suspect to the Police Headquarters.

Q: And Pat. Oñes never parted with that 2 foils of marijuana?

A: It was given to me.

Q: When did Pat. Oñes give it to you?

A: After the apprehension.

Q: In the Headquarters?

A: No, in the house of the accused." 19

(Emphasis supplied)

2. A very glaring discrepancy exists in the distance between the group of Pat. Oñes and the civilian informer and the group of the alleged buy-bust operatives who hid themselves as uncovered by the testimony. Pat. Oñes testified on direct that:chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

Q: At that time when the civilian informant handed the marked money to the person of the accused and when the accused went down again and handed the two foils of marijuana to your civilian informer, where were your other companions then, Cpl. Ilagan, Pat. Mabolo and Manlongat.

A: They hid themselves near to me (sic).

Fiscal Barrera: How far were these police officers?

A: A meter away. 20

(Emphasis supplied)

while Pat. Mabolo testified on direct that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: What happened there at Dolores Street?

A: Pat. Oñes together with the informant proceeded to the footstairs of the house #164 Int. Dolores Street.

Q: And what about the rest of the team?

A: We positioned ourselves at the dim portion fronting the house #164.

Q: How far were you from Pat. Oñes and your informant?

A: Around 10 meters away. 21

(Emphasis supplied)

3. Patrolmen Oñes in answer to a question by the Honorable Court had testified, as above-quoted, that the civilian informer received the marijuana from the accused. However, P/Cpl. Ilagan, then alleged team leader, testified differently as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q: So when he went down and gave these alleged 2 foils of marijuana he was immediately apprehended to whom did the accused handled these marijuana?

A: To Pat. Ricardo Oñes.

Q: Are you sure of that?

A: Yes, sir. 22 (Emphasis supplied.).

The inconsistencies and contradictory statements of Patrolman Oñes himself and the inconsistencies of the statements of Patrolman Oñes with respect to the statements of P/Cpl. Ilagan and Pat. Mabolo engender serious doubts as to their reliability and veracity. 23 The presentation of the poseur-buyer is therefore very material and relevant in this case. The alleged buy-bust team members’ statements can now be regarded as pure hearsay without the presentation of the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer. 24 He alone could definitely testify whether accused-appellant sold to him two foils of marijuana for Twenty (P20.00) Pesos. Accused-appellant’s constitutional right to cross-examine the alleged poseur-buyer was thus violated.25cralaw:red

True it is that the Court has ruled in several cases that the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer’s testimony would have been merely corroborative, the most recent of which is People v. Dag-uman, 26 but in accused-appellant’s case, considering the material discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony, the prosecution’s case must necessarily rise or fall on the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer’s testimony. 27

The alleged civilian-informer-poseur-buyer was the only person who could definitely and categorically attest to the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the Accused-Appellant. He was the one who allegedly transacted with the latter and he was the one who allegedly exchanged the P20.00 bills for the two foils of marijuana. A similar situation confronted the Court in People v. Yabut, 28 and the Court stated therein that:chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

" [I]n short, he could have provided the most accurate account of the case. Yet, he was not presented as a witness by the prosecution, and his failure to testify remains unexplained. In such a situation, People v. De Guzman, 194 SCRA 601 is enlightening were this Court was less than tactical. Querubin was the best witness to narrate the transaction: Bazar could at best only corroborate . . . ." 29

The identity of the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer is vital when the accused, as in the case at bar, denies having sold marijuana to anyone. 30 The failure to present the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer engenders a well-grounded belief that either he does not exist, or that, if he does, his evidence is being willfully suppressed because it will be adverse if produced. 31

The Court notes that a witness for the accused-appellant, Amelia Abalos, testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That she is residing at 164 Dolores St., Pasay City about fifteen (15) meters away from the house of the accused. That at about 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. of March 18, 1987, she was at home with her husband and child when a certain Kulot came. That Kulot handed two (2) P10.00 bill to her husband. That in return, her husband gave Kulot 2 foils of marijuana. That after fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes when Kulot left their house, a commotion was heard. That she came to know from the people living in that place that Pen-pen was apprehended. That she saw Kulot with the Police Officers." 32

If Amelia Abalos’ husband had been one of the accused in this case, Amelia Abalos’ statement would have been considered as a declaration against her husband’s penal interest. 33 Definitely, her husband is not the accused, but the trial court should have examined with more care the following portion of her testimony:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q: Was that the first time that you saw your husband handed marijuana to a person to another person?chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And what did you do upon learning that your husband handed marijuana to another person or to alias Kulot?

A: I got angry, sir.

Q: And what did you do?

A: I quarrelled with him when I came to know that he is selling marijuana." 34

(Emphasis supplied)

which could provide a plausible reason for her testifying in favor of accused-appellant even to the extent of incriminating her husband.

And who is this shadowy character Kulot? The accused-appellant’s common-law wife’s testimony sheds some light, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q Are all this police officers who went to your house were police officers?

A There is a civilian who went in our house.

Q Who is that civilian?

A came to know to certain Kulot.

Q Before that incident you do not know this fellow?

A know him for his alias.

Q You have known him that particular date or before the incident?

A Before.

Q How did you come to know this "Kulot" ?

A This Kulot have a misunderstanding between my husband.

Q What was the misunderstanding?

A Because a Kumpadre of my husband complained to him that Kulot snatched the necklace the Kumpadre of my husband.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Q What did your husband do?

A My husband is asking for Kulot, where is necklace which he snatched, Kulot is being pinpointed.

Q Did you notice this incident?

A Yes sir.

Q Where is this confrontation happened?

A Inside the interior of Dolores St., Pasay City.

Q When was that confrontation happen?

A Before the incident happened.

Q How many months before the incident happened?

A About two months.

Q And that was the misunderstanding between Kulot and your husband?

A Yes sir." 35

(Note: SIC not used to avoid cluttering up the testimony; Emphasis supplied).

While it is the rule that the accused’s common-law wife’s testimony should be taken with a grain of salt because of their common-law marital relationship, 36 considering, however, the proven material discrepancies in the alleged buy-bust team operatives’ testimonies, it becomes now credible that the civilian-informer’s (Kulot) testimony was suppressed as there is the distinct possibility, that Kulot might have revealed something adverse to the policemen’s interest under skillful cross-examination.

The evidence of the prosecution is sorely wanting to justify conviction. Settled is the rule that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not in the weakness of the defense. 37

The Court notes the trial judge did not maintain the appearance of the cold neutrality of an impartial judge in rendering the questioned decision 38 for her Honor’s statement, before the trial started. during the hearing of the motion to grant bail to the accused was that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Court: So this is a hearing of the motion to bail.

Atty. Barcelona: The accused is charged under Section 4, this is not a capital offense.

Court: That is why we are hearing this case. It is not among those subject to presidential order. As long as it is in the law, it’s the law. The law could be hard but we should respect the law. Unless they decide to amend it or make it henceforth not punishable with that penalty. In fact if I can have my way I will be frank to you, I was sent as scholar to UNAFE, we have extended studies about drug addiction. The pusher should be shot to the Luneta. I am referring to the pushers. In our rule the dividing line is not very clear. Only the voluntary submission of addicts are there." 39 (Emphasis supplied.).

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellant Silferio Sillo y Ferrer is ACQUITTED of the crime charged with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 64-66.

2. Ibid, p. 43.

3. Decision, penned by Her Honor, Judge Lilia C. Lopez; Original Records, p. 291.

4. Exh. "E", Folder of Exhibits; TSN, June 15, 1987, p. 7, TSN, February 1, 1988.

5. Shown by a recital of the witnesses presented by the prosecution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"To prove their case, the Prosecution presented the following witnesses: The Forensic Chemist, Pat. Ricardo Oñes, Pat. Eduardo Manfoste, P/Cpl Valentin Ilagan and Pat. Elmer Mabolo, all of the Pasay City Police Station." (Decision, p. 1; Original Records, p. 284).

6. TSN, June 15, 1987, pp. 5-6.

7. Section 1(f), Rule 115, Rules of Court.

8. TSN, June 15, 1987, p. 5.

9. Ibid, p. 12.

10. TSN, July 6, 1987, p. 5.

11. TSN, June 15, 1987, p. 5.

12. Id.

13. Id.

14. Ibid, p. 6.

15. Ibid, p. 13.

16. Ibid, p. 8.

17. Ibid, p. 9.

18. Ibid, p. 11.

19. TSN, February 1, 1988, p. 16.

20. TSN, June 15, 1987, pp. 5-6.

21. TSN, May 11, 1988, p. 6.

22. TSN, February 1, 1988, p. 14.

23. People v. Fulgarillas, G.R. No. 91160, August 4, 1992.

24. People v. de Luna, 179 SCRA 245.

25. People v. Bagano, 181 SCRA 747.

26. G.R. No. 96548, May 28, 1992. In this case, the civilian-informer-poseur-buyer was not presented mainly because his life was in danger, the other civilian informer having just been mercilessly gunned down by the relatives of an accused in another drug case and also because the therein accused’s defense was incredible: he knew possession of marijuana was wrong but still he accommodated the request of a stranger to buy marijuana on the ground that the stranger said he was a good friend of the accused’s friend.

27. People v. De Luna, supra, at p. 251.

28. G.R. No. 82263, June 26, 1992.

29. Ibid, p. 6.

30. People v. Ale, 145 SCRA 50.

31. Sec. 5 (e), Rule 131, Rules of Court; People v. Alilin, G.R. No. 84363, March 4, 1992.

32. Decision, p. 6; Original Records, p. 289.

33. "With reference to the admissibility of the admissions and declarations of a defendant charged with a crime, the rule seems to be that the declarations made by a defendant or by a third party, by his authority, if relevant, are admissible against him. . . ." (United States v. Ching Po, 23 Phil. 578, 583).

34. TSN, August 17, 1988, p. 5.

35. TSN, August 25, 1988, pp. 3-4.

36. People v. Carpio, G.R. No. 88942, March 25, 1992.

37. People v. Fulgarillas, supra.

38. People v. Serrano, 203 SCRA 171.

39. TSN, June 15, 1987, p. 3.




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






September-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-88-22 September 1, 1992 - JOEL GARGANERA v. ENRIQUE JOCSON

  • G.R. No. 32075 September 1, 1992 - SIAO TIAO HONG v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 32657 September 1, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 70746-47 September 1, 1992 - BIENVENIDO O. MARCOS v. FERNANDO S. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86051 September 1, 1992 - JAIME LEDESMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86844 September 1, 1992 - SPOUSES CESAR DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC September 2, 1992 - RE: JOSEFINA V. PALON

  • G.R. No. 43747 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46025 September 2, 1992 - FLORITA T. BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50618 September 2, 1992 - LEOPOLDO FACINAL, ET AL. v. AGAPITO I. CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51289 September 2, 1992 - RODOLFO ENCARNACION v. DYNASTY AMUSEMENT CENTER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56865 September 2, 1992 - IRENEO TOBIAS, ET AL. v. TEMISTOCLES B. DIEZ

  • G.R. No. 61043 September 2, 1992 - DELTA MOTOR SALES CORPORATION v. NIU KIM DUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 62554-55 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70120 September 2, 1992 - CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73198 September 2, 1992 - PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74618 September 2, 1992 - ANA LIM KALAW v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75242 September 2, 1992 - MANILA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78777 September 2, 1992 - MERLIN P. CAIÑA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80812 September 2, 1992 - LUZ E. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84256 September 2, 1992 - ALEJANDRA RIVERA OLAC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87318 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME G. SERDAN

  • G.R. No. 91535 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO L. DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92461 September 2, 1992 - ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92789 September 2, 1992 - SILLIMAN UNIVERSITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92795-96 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE B. TANTIADO

  • G.R. No. 93141 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ESTANISLAO GENERALAO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93634 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MASALIM CASIM

  • G.R. No. 94918 September 2, 1992 - DANILO I. SUAREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95249 September 2, 1992 - REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95843 September 2, 1992 - EDILBERTO C. ABARQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95921 September 2, 1992 - SPOUSES ROBERT DINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96333 September 2, 1992 - EDUARDO C. DE VERA v. ERNESTO L. PINEDA

  • G.R. Nos. 96952-56 September 2, 1992 - SMI FISH INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97408-09 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MORENO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97805 September 2, 1992 - NILO H. RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99050 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONWAY B. OMAWENG

  • G.R. No. 99359 September 2, 1992 - ORLANDO M. ESCAREAL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100970 September 2, 1992 - FINMAN GENERAL ASSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103269 September 2, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO VALIENTE

  • A.M. No. P-90-418 September 3, 1992 - EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD v. ALFONSO B. MELGAR

  • G.R. No. 86695 September 3, 1992 - MARIA ELENA MALAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90693 September 3, 1992 - SPARTAN SECURITY & DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91284 September 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO T. PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 92310 September 3, 1992 - AGRICULTURAL AND HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77285 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO ABUYEN

  • G.R. No. 83995 September 4, 1992 - BENJAMIN EDAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 88788 September 4, 1992 - RESTITUTO DE LEON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89278 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDITO S. SICAT

  • G.R. No. 94375 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO A. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 94825 September 4, 1992 - PHIL. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97111-13 September 4, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA P. PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 101469 September 4, 1992 - MALAYAN INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES, CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101539 September 4, 1992 - CECILE DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102397 September 4, 1992 - BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105120 September 4, 1992 - SIMPLICIO C. GRIÑO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105346 September 4, 1992 - RAUL H. SESBREÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93842 September 7, 1992 - ERNANDO C. LAYNO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92988 September 9, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO TIWAKEN

  • G.R. No. 55741 September 11, 1992 - LUZ LATAGAN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73071 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO S. ALVAREZ

  • G.R. No. 82586 September 11, 1992 - SALVADOR M. MISON, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91159 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 91915 September 11, 1992 - DIVINE WORD UNIVERSITY OF TACLOBAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97441 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASINILLO

  • G.R. No. 98062 September 11, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGOBERTO YBEAS

  • G.R. No. 103903 September 11, 1992 - MELANIO D. SAMPAYAN, ET AL. v. RAUL. A. DAZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 57475 September 14, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO NERI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74851 September 14, 1992 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • A.C. No. 3248 September 18, 1992 - DOMINGO R. MARCELO v. ADRIANO S. JAVIER, SR.

  • G.R. No. 70890 September 18, 1992 - CRESENCIO LIBI, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73919 September 18, 1992 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75915-16 September 18, 1992 - SPS. GO IT BUN, ET AL. v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84917 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUEROBEN A. POLIZON

  • G.R. No. 86218 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELSIE B. BAGISTA

  • G.R. No. 91001 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILFERIO F. SILLO

  • G.R. No. 94511-13 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO C. VALENCIA

  • G.R. No. 94828 September 18, 1992 - SPOUSES ROMULO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ASIAN CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95456 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO A. BAÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 95540 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARCHIE Q. DISTRITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96255 September 18, 1992 - HERCULES INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96329 September 18, 1992 - MABUHAY VINYL CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97918 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR E. JAPSAY

  • G.R. No. 102141 September 18, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SABORNIDO

  • G.R. No. 105227 September 18, 1992 - LEANDRO I. VERCELES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61218 September 23, 1992 - LIBERTAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81883 September 23, 1992 - KNITJOY MANUFACTURING, INC. v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83580 September 23, 1992 - ENRICO SY v. ARTURO A. ROMERO

  • G.R. Nos. 85403-06 September 23, 1992 - ANTONIO T. TIONGSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101706 September 23, 1992 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102693 September 23, 1992 - SPOUSES AGOSTO MUÑOZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85086 September 24, 1991

    ARSENIO P. BUENAVENTURA ENTERPRISES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90254 September 24, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. FLORIDA

  • G.R. No. 97765 September 24, 1992 - KHOSROW MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44936 September 25, 1992 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91114 September 25, 1992 - NELLY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91359 September 25, 1992 - VETERANS MANPOWER AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 58027 September 28, 1992 - GOLDEN COUNTRY FARMS, INC. v. SANVAR DEVELOPMENT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 97431 September 28, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN J. ALABAN

  • G.R. No. 99046 September 28, 1992 - AQUALYN CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100574 September 28, 1992 - SPS. MARINO SAPUGAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102381 September 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO H. LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 53630 September 30, 1992 - ENRIQUE KHO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82531 September 30, 1992 - DOMINGO T. MENDOZA v. MARIA MENDOZA NAVARETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82630 September 30, 1992 - MARIA GULANG v. GENOVEVA NADAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94461 September 30, 1992 - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97356 September 30, 1992 - ARTURO C. CORONA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105017 September 30, 1992 - PABLO NIDOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.