Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1994 > October 1994 Decisions > G.R. No. 110036 October 7, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO P. GABRIEL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 110036. October 7, 1994.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROSARIO GABRIEL y POLA alias Boy, Accused-Appellant.


D E C I S I O N


CRUZ, J.:


We shall affirm the conviction of the appellant in the case at bar, but we shall reduce the penalty to conform to R.A. No. 7659, to which we have given retroactive effect whenever favorable to the accused.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

At the trial of Rosario Gabriel for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the prosecution sought to prove that in the morning of November 29, 1989, Rodolfo Ventura, a 17-year old student, appeared before the Laoag City Integrated National Police with the information that the appellant was engaged in the illicit trade of marijuana in the town of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. 1 Station Commander Major Ricardo Antalan thereupon organized a buy-bust team composed of Cpl. Rodrigo Ventura, Cpl. Walter Tuzon, Pfc. Warlito Maruquin, Pfc. Marlin Ramos, Pat. Virgilio Adobas and Pat. Ruby Manuel Balolong. Rodolfo Ventura was designated as poseur-buyer and provided with two twenty-peso bills, the serial numbers of which were recorded in the police blotter of the Laoag City PNP. 2 At around 5:00 o’clock that afternoon, the team went to the San Nicolas market area where the police operatives deployed themselves. Ventura then approached Rosario (a male person) and asked to buy marijuana from him. The latter told him to wait and then left, returning after about 3 to 5 minutes with a package wrapped in aluminum foil. He handed this to Ventura after receiving the marked money. 3 At this juncture, the other team members closed in and arrested Rosario. They took him to the police station at San Nicolas where they retrieved the two marked bills from him. The team then went to the Laoag City INP where, after examination of the contents of the two packages and finding marijuana leaves therein, they forwarded the same to the Provincial Processing Center of the PC/INP Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Juan, Laoag City. Later, the specimens were taken to the Crime Laboratory of Camp Diego Silang, San Fernando, La Union, then to the PC/INP Crime Laboratory Service of Camp Crame, Quezon City, where the leaves were subjected to chemical, thin layer photographic, and microscopic examinations. The tests yielded positive results for marijuana. 4

The defense had a different story. The accused testified that on November 29, 1989, he went to the barrio of Dingras, Ilocos Norte, to sell galunggong. Afterwards, he inquired about the current price of fish at the market of San Nicolas. As he was leaving for home, someone approached him and asked him "if there is something," but since he did not know what that person was talking about, he just ignored him. He then went home, changed his clothes, and proceeded to his brother’s house, which was situated near the market. 5 As he was about to enter the house, four men grabbed him and boarded him in a vehicle, then took him first to the Municipal Hall of San Nicolas and later to the police station of Laoag City. He was searched there and nothing was found on him except the P700 he had earned from the sale of the fish. The policemen counted the money, took two P20.00 bills and copied the serial numbers. They then accused him of peddling marijuana. 6

Grace Gabriel (also a male) corroborated the appellant’s testimony. He declared that in the afternoon of November 29, 1989, while on his way home from work, he saw a vehicle which stopped in front of his house. Somebody got off, approached and collared his half-brother Rosario, who was standing near the door of his house. He inquired what Rosario had done. All they said was that they were members of the police force. He asked Rosario what he had done and the latter replied that he had done nothing wrong. The policemen then forced accused into the vehicle. 7

Judge Minviluz C. Astudillo of the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Norte chose to believe the prosecution and in her decision dated March 26, 1993, disposed as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, from the facts established, the Court finds ROSARIO GABRIEL Y POLA alias BOY GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling a prohibited drug under Article II, Section 4, of Republic Act No. 6425 as amended, and imposes upon him the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. He is further ordered to pay a fine of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS.cralawnad

The appellant faults this decision in his appeal for alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, but we find that they are only minor discrepancies that do not impair the essential veracity of their sworn declarations. We do not agree that the appellant was merely "framed," as he claims, for there is no evidence of this allegation. Neither are we persuaded that the policemen tried to extort money from him, as he also makes this assertion without proof. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption in favor of the apprehending officers that they have regularly performed their official duty should be observed.

We affirm the factual findings of the trial judge because she had the advantage of observing first-hand the deportment of the witnesses and was therefore in a better position to form accurate impressions and conclusions on their credibility. As we observed in People v. de Guzman: 8

In the resolution of the factual issues, the Court relies heavily on the trial court for its evaluation of the witnesses and their credibility. Having the opportunity to observe them on the stand, the trial judge is able to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The record will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The questioned decision should, however, be modified in line with R.A. No. 7659, which took effect on December 31, 1993, and amended inter alia, R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Sections 13 & 17 of the new law provide that the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be imposed for the sale, administration, delivery, transportation and distribution of 750 grams or more of indian hemp or marijuana. However, if the quantity involved is less than 750 grams, the penalty shall range from "prision correccional to reclusion perpetua, depending upon the quantity."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the recent cases of People v. de Lara 9 and People v. Simon, 10 this Court held that where the quantity of the drugs involved is less than 750 grams, Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 should be interpreted as providing for a penalty ranging from prision correccional to reclusion temporal only, and not reclusion perpetua. These cases also read the second paragraph of Sec. 17, particularly the phrase" prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity," to mean that "if the marijuana involved is below 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision correccional; from 250 to 499 grams, prision mayor; and 500 to 749 grams, reclusion temporal. Parenthetically, fine is imposed as conjunctive penalty only if the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the instant case, the two packages of marijuana fruiting tops had a total weight of only 9.98 grams as averred in the information itself. Hence, the penalty to be imposed should be prision correccional, which, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law as interpreted in the Simon Case, may be lowered to an indeterminate penalty ranging from arresto mayor, as minimum, to prision correccional, as maximum.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED, but with the modification that the appellant shall be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FIVE (5) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to FIVE (5) years of prision correccional, as maximum, conformably to R.A. No. 7659. Costs against the Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. TSN, October 30, 1990, p. 5-6; Exh. "1-B."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. Ibid., October 30, 1990, pp. 5-9; December 17, 1990, pp. 12-13.

3. Id., December 17, 1990, pp. 14-16.

4. id., April 12, 1991, pp. 5-7; Exh. "H."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. id., November 20, 1991, pp. 26-28.

6. id., pp. 29-31.

7. id., February 25, 1992, pp. 61-65.

8. 188 SCRA 406.

9. G.R. No. 94953, September 5, 1994.

10. G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994.




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






October-1994 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. 109131-33 October 3, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONITO A. MACAGALING

  • G.R. No. 109289 October 3, 1994 - RUFINO R. TAN v. RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88795 October 4, 1994 - SEABORNE CARRIERS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92597 October 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR BELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112093 October 4, 1994 - ANTONIO V. A. TAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87992 October 6, 1994 - HOME SAVINGS BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96597-99 October 6, 1994 - COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2837 October 7, 1994 - ESTEBAN M. LIBIT v. EDELSON G. OLIVA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-776 October 7, 1994 - GREGORIO CUNANAN v. HENRY TUAZON

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-887 October 7, 1994 - LETECIA MIL CAAMIC v. VICTORIO GALAPON, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-961 October 7, 1994 - BENJAMIN Z. LIBAN v. PLARIDEL L. VILLACETE

  • G.R. No. 98027 October 7, 1994 - JOSE A. ABAYA, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104527 October 7, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REY B. CRUZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104751 October 7, 1994 - ISABEL RUBIO ALCASID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104961 October 7, 1994 - FRANCISCO B. ANIAG, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107002 October 7, 1994 - FINASIA INVESTMENTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107930 October 7, 1994 - GEORGE BOFILL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108599 October 7, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO PAMOR

  • G.R. No. 108872 October 7, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN REPOLLO

  • G.R. No. 109053 October 7, 1994 - GERSON R. MENESES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110036 October 7, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSARIO P. GABRIEL

  • G.R. No. 110289 October 7, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR F. BALISTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110571 October 7, 1994 - FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110637 October 7, 1994 - RAMON RASE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113811 October 7, 1994 - ISHMAEL HIMAGAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114135 October 7, 1994 - LEON M. GARCIA, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48050 October 10, 1994 - FELICIDAD JAVIER v. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II

  • G.R. No. 112387 October 13, 1994 - MANUEL P. MARTINEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 103226-28 October 14, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO C. MAGUIKAY

  • G.R. No. 107458 October 14, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMES DALANON

  • G.R. No. 111988 October 14, 1994 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS (ALU)-TUCP, ET AL. v. ROSALINA LETRONDO-MONTEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 105669-70 October 18, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY REJANO

  • G.R. No. 97622 October 19, 1994 - CATALINO ALGIRE, ET AL. v. REGALADO DE MESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 103801-02 October 19, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRVING D. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 110079 October 19, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO C. ZAFRA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-888 October 24, 1994 - ROGER S. PADILLA v. ROBERTO V. ZANTUA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111717 October 24, 1994 - NENITA BIENVENIDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114046 October 24, 1994 - HONORATO GALVEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104321 October 25, 1994 - MERCEDES M. BONOTAN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-849 October 26, 1994 - CARAM RESOURCES CORP., ET AL. v. MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS

  • G.R. Nos. 104737-38 October 26, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO L. RUELO

  • G.R. No. 111952 October 26, 1994 - JULIO TAPEC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112576 October 26, 1994 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-878 October 27, 1994 - GALAN REALTY CO., INC. v. LUIS J. ARRANZ

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1052 October 27, 1994 - ENRICA B. AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. CANDIDO R. BELMONTE

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-1216 October 27, 1994 - JEFFREY D. BONGCARON v. CARLITO A. EISMA

  • G.R. No. 109216 October 27, 1994 - PACITA TING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110504 October 27, 1994 - PROVIDENT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98395 October 28, 1994 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108713 October 28, 1994 - ANGELITO OLAYBAR, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110990 October 28, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALLAN JUNIO Y. CORTEZ