SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 93408 April 10, 1992

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROLANDO CASTILLO y MARTINEZ, Accused-Appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

REGALADO, J.:

Accused-appellant Rolando Castillo y Martinez was charged on January 10, 1990 in Criminal Case No. 10026-V-90 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, with a violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," as amended, for allegedly having wilfully and unlawfully sold five plastic bags of dried marijuana flowering tops in Valenzuela, Metro Manila on January 9, 1990. ¹chanrobles virtual law library

At the arraignment on January 24, 1990, appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty ²and continuous trial was conducted on January 29, February 7, 14 and 26, and March 2, 5, 7, 9 and 16, 1990.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The prosecution's documented presentation of this case, which is closely in accord with the findings of the court a quo, is as follows:

At about 5:00 p.m. on May 9, 1990, the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Valenzuela Police Station received a tip from an informer that a pusher was selling marijuana at Liwayway St., Marulas, Valenzuela. Pat. Wilfredo Quillan who received the information immediately relayed the same to his superior, P/Sgt. Loreto Rodriguez. Rodriguez formed a "buy-bust" team composed of Pat. Quillan, P/Sgt. Loreto Rodriguez, P/Cpl. Victoriano Mercado, Pfc. Dante Dogoldogol, and Pat. Tamayo and Patag, to apprehend the pusher. Quillan was designated as the "poseur-buyer" (pp. 1-2, tsn, Jan. 29, 1990, Quillan).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The "buy-bust" team prepared P30.00 as marked money, then proceeded to the place mentioned by the informer. There, after appellant was pointed out to them by the informer as the notorious pusher, Pat. Quillan approached appellant and bought P30.00 worth of marijuana from him (pp. 2-3, Ibid.).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After giving appellant the marked money and receiving three tea bags of marijuana, Pat. Quillan announced that he was a policeman and arrested appellant. He retrieved from appellant the marked money. Pat. Quillan then asked if appellant still had any marijuana. Appellant said he had two tea bags left and voluntarily surrendered the same to Pat. Quillan. Appellant was then taken to the Valenzuela police station for booking and investigation (p. 3, Id.). ³chanrobles virtual law library

The defense, on the other hand, presents this version of the antecedent facts:

The accused is 23 years old, married, and a tinsmith by occupation earning P90.00 a day as such. He is also a member of Kabataang Barangay (TSN, March 2, 1990, p. 6). On January 9, 1990, between 12:00 noon and 6:30 o'clock in the afternoon, he was in Quiapo as he is a devotee of the Black Nazarene of Quiapo. He has been such since 1979. As in the previous years, he was one of the devotees who carried the shrine during the procession.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At about 6:00 o'clock that afternoon, after carrying the Black Nazarene barefoot for 4 hours (Ibid, p. 5), he took a ride home, arriving at BBB, Marulas, Valenzuela, his place of residence, about forty-five minutes later. Because his feet were aching, he stopped for some refreshments and a little rest at a store three Meralco posts away from his house at
Liwayway St.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

While he was seated facing the store, a jeep stopped behind him and Pat. Wilfredo R. Quillan alighted therefrom. Thereupon, Pat. Quillan arrested him, allegedly for drug pushing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

At the time of the arrest when the accused was asking what he was being arrested for, he saw somebody inside Pat. Quillan's jeep who was pointing at him. Later, he found out that the man's name is Elmer Mapa. Elmer Mapa was in the company of Pat. Dogoldogol and many others inside the jeep.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Pat. Quillan forced the accused to admit possession of the marijuana the former was holding but which the latter claims to have come from Elmer Mapa.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The accused vehemently denies that Pat. Quillan bought 3 teabags of marijuana from him, nor that he ever surrendered to Pat. Quillan two more bags of the same. (Ibid, p. 3). He has no I.D. because when he was apprehended, it got lost along with his P1,000.00 which was taken by Pat. Quillan (p. 8, Ibid., p. 4, TSN, March 5, 1990)chanrobles virtual law library

The accused is very familiar with Pat. Quillan as the latter, as well as Pat. Dogoldogol, frequently patrol their (accused's) place. Accused also used to see these policemen at the Municipal Hall in connection with the errands he used to run for the President of Kabataang Barangay (pp. 6-7, TSN, March 2, 1990).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The accused, together with Elmer Mapa, who was apprehended allegedly for possession of cough syrup was brought to the police precinct. Elmer Mapa was released after paying P500.00, while the accused was detained for failure to cough up P20,000.00 grease money demanded by Pat. Quillan. The accused did not file any charges against Pat. Quillan because he was afraid as he had already been hit and hurt with a piece of yantok (p. 8, Ibid.).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

An eyewitness, Rolando Obugan, a barangay tanod in the same community, testifying for the accused testified that he saw the entire arrest incident. He corroborated the story of the accused on all material points.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

He met the accused at about 12:00 noon of January 9, 1990 who told him that he (accused) would be going to Quiapo by reason of the latter's devotion to the Black Nazarene. The accused was wearing white T-Shirt with the picture of the Black Nazarene printed on it.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The accused was drinking soft drinks at the time he was arrested at about 7:00 o'clock in the evening. He was only 8 feet away from the scene of the arrest. No buy-bust operation took place. The accused was simply taken by the police. He (witness) had not heard that the accused was selling marijuana. He did not see any marijuana at the time of the arrest. (p. 3, TSN, March 7, 1990). ⁴chanrobles virtual law library

Forensic chemist Raquel P. Angeles of the National Bureau of Investigation testified that the five teabags reportedly seized from appellant and presented as evidence by the prosecution, after being subjected to microscopic, chemical and chromatographic examinations, gave positive results for marijuana. This is attested to by the certification she issued and Dangerous Drugs Report No. DDM-9D-48 of their office, both dated January 10, 1990. ⁵chanrobles virtual law library

After trial, the court below promulgated its decision, dated March 19, 1990, ⁶finding the accused guilty of the crime charged, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00 and the costs, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and crediting him with the entire period of his preventive imprisonment. ⁷chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant now comes to us for the reversal of the aforequoted judgment, faulting the trial court (1) for allegedly giving undue weight to the improbable, inconsistent and contradictory testimonies of prosecution witnesses Wilfredo Quillan and Dante Dogoldogol; (2) in not giving due consideration to appellant's defense of denial; and (3) in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt despite the insufficiency of evidence against him. ⁸chanrobles virtual law library

Once again, as in most criminal cases, the controversy here is reduced to one essentially of credibility, a weighing of the evidence of the prosecution against that of the defense. In this regard, the consistent teaching of our jurisprudence is that the findings of the trial court are given weight and the highest degree of respect by the appellate court. ⁹chanrobles virtual law library

It is an entrenched rule founded on the fact that the matter of assigning value to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed by the trial judge, who, unlike appellate magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the declarant's demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position to discriminate between the true and the false. ¹⁰Deviation from the rule is allowed only when the circumstances of the case show that the trial court has overlooked facts which will substantially alter the results of its adjudication ¹¹We perceive nothing in this case which would warrant such diversion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Pat. Quillan's testimony, on direct and cross-examination, categorically established the material points of the People's case against appellant, thus:

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

Q How about the 3 teabags?chanrobles virtual law library

A These are the 3 teabags which I bought from the accused, and the specimen(s) bear my initials (referring to F-2 to F-4).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And the 2 teabags were marked F-6 and F-7. Why do you say that these are the same teabags bought by you and recovered by you?chanrobles virtual law library

A This Exh. A I bought from the accused with my initial WRQ.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

Q Why do you say that these were recovered by you?chanrobles virtual law library

A This Exh. B are the same teabags which I recovered from the accused.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Why do you say so?chanrobles virtual law library

A Because I have placed my markings WRQ.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

Q Pat. Quillan, you said that you bought how many teabags from the accused? chanrobles virtual law library

A 3 teabags of marijuana.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Did you make it clear from him when you said that you were buying 3 teabags?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir,chanrobles virtual law library

Q How did you say that?chanrobles virtual law library

A I told him, Boy Piso, pagbilhan nga ng 3 teabags ng marijuana sa halagang P30.00.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What did he tell you?chanrobles virtual law library

A He asked me if I have P30.00, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And in what place were you talking at the time you said you bought 3 teabags of marijuana?chanrobles virtual law library

A In a store at Liwayway St., sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q What particular time of the day was that?chanrobles virtual law library

A Around 7:30 p.m., sirchanrobles virtual law library

Q And do you know how much one teabag of marijuana cost (s)chanrobles virtual law library

A P10.00, sirchanrobles virtual law library

Q How long did you talk to the suspect in this case when you said you bought 3 teabags of marijuana from him?chanrobles virtual law library

A Few minutes only, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q How many minutes?chanrobles virtual law library

A About 3 minutes, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q And did he get from you the 3 P10.00 as you said?chanrobles virtual law library

A Yes, sir, and then he handed the 3 teabags of marijuana.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

COURT:chanrobles virtual law library

Q What about the 2 teabags?chanrobles virtual law library

A He surrendered the 2 teabags, ma'am. He said there is nothing more left except the 2 teabags.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Q Why did he surrender?chanrobles virtual law library

A Because I introduced myself as a policeman. ¹²

Pfc. Dante Dogoldogol amply corroborated ¹³ the foregoing narration of Pat. Quillan which likewise tallied with the "Sinumpaang Salaysay" ¹⁴ executed by the latter on January 9, 1990. The testimonies of said apprehending officers were straightforward and consistent. As expressly observed by the trial court, Quillan's demeanor was unchanged by anger or spite even in the face of the accusation of the defense that he demanded grease money from appellant. ¹⁵chanrobles virtual law library

We have ruled that credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, there being no evidence to the contrary. ¹⁶ More so is this true in the present case where the buy-bust operation was methodically done, with surveillance operations transpiring for more or less one hour before the apprehension of the accused. The procedure adopted by the police officers in this case therefore jibes with the application of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties. ¹⁷chanrobles virtual law library

It is appellant's submission that he would not have sold marijuana to Pat. Quillan whom he knew to be a law enforcer. He further alleges that it is hardly believable for him to sell marijuana cigarettes to a buyer he does not know. ¹⁸ In light of our judicial experience and pronouncements, these contentions cannot but be rejected.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Time and again, we have ruled that the liability of appellant lies not on the existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, but on their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the marijuana leaves. ¹⁹ In real life, pushers, especially small-quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to customers, be they strangers or not, who have the price of the drug. ²⁰ Drug pushers have become increasingly casual about their activities and less cautious about isolated transactions like the one at bar. ²¹It is not, therefore, unusual or improbable for a drug pusher to sell to a total stranger. ²²chanrobles virtual law library

Of late, we have likewise observed the practice of appellants raising the defense that, since they know that the prosecution witnesses are police officers, it is improbable that they would sell marijuana to them. As we have heretofore pointed out, aside from lack of corroboration, such a pretense is a matter that can be so easily contrived, since all that the malefactor has to do is to affect supposed knowledge of the identity of the peace officer and then seek refuge in that self-serving contention. ²³ This is a stratagem that does not impress us.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In response to appellant's query as to why Pat. Quillan was so sure that he was selling marijuana by the teabags, ²⁴suffice it to say that Quillan is an experienced operative having been assigned to the Anti-Narcotics Unit of the Valenzuela Police Station since 1985. ²⁵Obviously availing of his experience, he won the confidence of appellant by addressing him with a show of familiarity in this manner: "Boy Piso, pagbilhan nga ng 3 teabags ng marijuana sa halagang P30.00." ²⁶Since appellant was addressed by name and Quillan did not look like a policeman, this further explains why he unhesitatingly sold marijuana to Quillan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is also not incredible that appellant readily yielded two more teabags of marijuana upon having been asked by Pat.Quillan whether he still has marijuana in his house. It will be noted that appellant surrendered the remaining teabags while being frisked by the law enforcers. ²⁷As appositely noted by the Solicitor General, after failing in his initial attempt to escape and knowing that he would be subjected to a body search, appellant must have thought it best to surrender what was left of his marijuana supply, ²⁸ evidently because further resistance or manipulations would be unavailing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appellant's defense of denial was completely refuted by the officers and their uncontradicted testimony of his participation in the unlawful transaction. ²⁹ Since he could not point to any ill motive of his arrestors in apprehending him, nor any grudge that would impel them to implicate him in the charge, such identification should be given weight since witnesses would not falsely impute to the accused a serious criminal offense if it is not the untarnished truth. ³⁰chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant's testimony is also flawed by its apparent inconsistency with common human experience. He claims that because his feet were aching, he stopped for some refreshment and a little rest at a store which was three electric posts away from his house at Liwayway Street. While he was seated facing the store, a jeep stopped behind him and Pat. Wilfredo R. Quillan alighted therefrom. Thereupon, Pat. Quillan arrested him, allegedly for drug pushing. ³¹We quote with approval the observation of the trial court on the matter:

. . . Likewise, with the unrebutted evidence of the prosecution that the accused is a "talamak na pusher," . . . the Court believes that there is here a case of entrapment. For what was the accused doing in that store, seated alone, instead of going directly to his house after the (4) hour procession at Quiapo where he allegedly carried the Black Nazarene? A few more meters walk to his house would not be that too tiring (sic) and an extreme sacrifice for his alleged tired feet, especially when it would be more in the exercise of common sense that he would rather go direct home and lie down to give himself the much needed rest. . . . ³²chanrobles virtual law library

Moreover, appellant admitted having been seated in the jeep on his way home. ³³ The journey from Quiapo to Valenzuela of almost an hour was long enough to give him a breather from the long and tiring Black Nazarene procession, enough to dispense with the necessity of his still stopping to rest at the store on Liwayway Street before, and instead of, proceeding to his house.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appellant also claims having in his pocket P1,000.00 when he went to and as he mingled with the crowd in Quiapo. ³⁴ Again, this is improbable, if not incredible. No reasonably sensible man would bring with him such an amount, for no purpose at all, during a Black Nazarene procession where thousands of devotees brave the heat and the multitude just to join the Catholic faithful in paying homage on that occassion. It is of general knowledge that in that religious celebration, one has to contend with a large closely-packed and moving horde, where pickpockets and opportunists abound and take advantage of the melee, as perceptively explained by the lower court in disbelieving appellant's claim that he had the alleged amount. ³⁵chanrobles virtual law library

Appellant's allegations that he was tortured and divested of his money by the apprehending officers ³⁶does not deserve any consideration. He utterly failed to substantiate the same and, if it were true, there could be no reason why he, either by himself or through his relatives, did not file any criminal or administrative charges against the erring police officers. ³⁷chanrobles virtual law library

The attempted corroboration through the testimony of defense witness Rolando Obugan falls far short of its intended purpose. Obugan claimed that he saw appellant at about 12:00 noon of January 9, 1990 and he learned that the latter was joining the procession for the Black Nazarene. The next time he saw appellant was at 7:00 P.M. of the same day when the latter was in a store around eight meters away. When asked what appellant was doing there, Obugan could only answer with uncertainty: "I think he was drinking soft drinks in the store at that time, sir." ³⁸ Considering the darkness of the night and the distance involved, even assuming the truth of his presence at the scene, he could not have definitely or known what precisely transpired between appellant and Pat. Quillan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Concluding, we digress to express our approval of the comparative dispatch with which this case has been handled, from the investigative through the prosecutorial and judicial stages, until the same was ready for our adjudication, all with provident care and concern for the procedural and evidentiary safeguards of our criminal justice system. The constitutional rights of appellant to speedy and impartial trial have been scrupulously observed and, at the same time, the authorities have acted in line with the penological theory that fair and expeditious dispensation of justice is a major deterrent against crime.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On the foregoing disquisition and considerations, we are thoroughly convinced that the guilt of accused-appellant Rolando Castillo y Martinez for the offense charged has been duly proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the court a quo did not err in its verdict and pronouncements.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.

Endnotes:

1 Original Record, 1.chanrobles virtual law library

2 Ibid., 6.chanrobles virtual law library

3 Brief for the Appellee, 4-5; Rollo, 73.chanrobles virtual law library

4 Brief for the Appellant, 4-6; Rollo, 47.chanrobles virtual law library

5 Rollo, 57; Exhibits D and E, Folder of Exhibits, 3-4.chanrobles virtual law library

6 Per Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong.chanrobles virtual law library

7 Original Record, 59.chanrobles virtual law library

8 Brief for the Appellant, 1; Rollo, 44.chanrobles virtual law library

9 People vs. Caraig, G.R. No. 91162, October 3, 1991.chanrobles virtual law library

10 People vs. Baluyot, 170 SCRA 569 (1989).chanrobles virtual law library

11 People vs. Turla, 167 SCRA 278 (1988).chanrobles virtual law library

12 TSN, February 14, 1990, 2-3.chanrobles virtual law library

13 Ibid., February 26, 1990, 2-6.chanrobles virtual law library

14 Exhibit G, Folder of Exhibits, 5-6.chanrobles virtual law library

15 Rollo, 58.chanrobles virtual law library

16 People vs. Napat-a, 179 SCRA 403 (1989).chanrobles virtual law library

17 People vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 93852, January 24, 1992.chanrobles virtual law library

18 Brief for the Appellant, 6-7; Rollo, 49-50

19 People vs. Tejada, 170 SCRA 497 (1989); People vs. Rodriguez, 172 SCRA 742 (1989).chanrobles virtual law library

20 People vs. Odicta, 197 SCRA 158 (1991).chanrobles virtual law library

21 People vs. Bernardino, 193 SCRA 448 (1991).chanrobles virtual law library

22 People vs. Cina, 190 SCRA 199 (1990),

23 People vs. De Jesus, supra, Fn. 18.chanrobles virtual law library

24 Brief for the Appellant, 7; Rollo, 50.chanrobles virtual law library

25 TSN, January 29, 1990, 1-2.chanrobles virtual law library

26 Ibid., February 14, 1990, 3,

27 Ibid., February 26, 1990, 4.chanrobles virtual law library

28 Brief for the Appellee, 14; Rollo, 73.chanrobles virtual law library

29 TSN, February 14, 1990, 5; TSN, February 26, 1990, 3.chanrobles virtual law library

30 People vs. Caraig, supra, Fn. 9.chanrobles virtual law library

31 Brief for the Appellant, 4; Rollo, 47.chanrobles virtual law library

32 Rollo, 18.chanrobles virtual law library

33 TSN, March 2, 1990, 5.chanrobles virtual law library

34 Ibid., Id., 8.chanrobles virtual law library

35 Rollo, 18.chanrobles virtual law library

36 TSN, March 2, 1990, 7-8,

37 Ibid., March 5, 1990, 3-4.chanrobles virtual law library

38 Ibid., March 7, 1990, 3.