July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 172828 : July 28, 2010] FRANCIS SANTIAGO Y CAPISTRANO - VERSUS - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 172828 : July 28, 2010]
FRANCIS SANTIAGO Y CAPISTRANO - VERSUS - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 July 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 172828: FRANCIS SANTIAGO y CAPISTRANO - versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Before the Court is an appeal by certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 19 January 2006 and Resolution[3] dated 31 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 21635. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision dated 7 November 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 114.
On 6 July 1996 at around 9 o'clock in the morning, Senior Inspector Julius Mana (Insp. Mana) of the Eastern Narcotics District Office, Pasig City received a personal report from a male civilian informant about the alleged drug pushing activities of appellant Francis Santiago y Capistrano (Santiago). After informing Chief Superintendent Edgardo Mendoza (Supt. Mendoza), Insp. Mana ordered PO3 Manuel Tuliao (PO3 Tuliao) and SPO2 Mabini Rosale (SPO2 Rosale) to conduct a surveillance. The next day, the two officers together with the informant proceeded to the home address of Santiago at 1702 Tramo St. Pasay City. The informant introduced PO3 Tuliao, as poseur-buyer, to Santiago. PO3 Tuliao then proposed to buy 50 grams of shabu for P800 per gram instead of Santiago's usual price of P1,000 per gram. Santiago told PO3 Tuliao to come back the next day to meet his partner, a certain Boy Valerio (Valerio). The following day, PO3 Tuliao and the informant went back to Santiago's house and met Valerio. However, they did not come into any agreement with regard to the price. They were told once again to go back the next day to complete the sale.
On 9 July 1996, Supt. Mendoza formed an entrapment operation composed of a six-person team led by Insp. Mana with Insp. Culili as assistant team leader, PO3 Tuliao as poseur-buyer, SPO2 Rosale as back-up and SPO2 Reboledo and SPO2 Palma as perimeter guards. PO3 Tuliao placed markings on five P100 bills positioned on top of the boodle money approximating the thickness of P50,000. At 9 o'clock in the morning, the exchange took place. Valerio handed over the 51.10 grams of shabu to Santiago, who in turn passed it on to PO3 Tuliao. PO3 Tuliao then gave the buy-bust money to Santiago. Thereafter, SPO2 Rosale immediately arrested Santiago while Valerio escaped. SPO2 Rosale recovered not only the buy-bust money but also a black box containing more shabu weighing 104 grams from Santiago's pocket.
Two separate informations[4] against Santiago for violation of Sections 15 and 16, Article III, in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425 (RA 6425), or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, were filed with the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 114. At the arraignment, Santiago pleaded not guilty in both cases and gave the defenses of denial and alibi.
The prosecution presented two witnesses: PO3 Tuliao and SPO2 Rosale. The defense, on the other hand, presented four witnesses: (1) the accused Santiago; (2) Santiago's mother, Jovita, who testified that there was no buy-bust operation; (3) Barangay Chairman Freddie Rillo (Rillo) who stated that Jovita filed a complaint alleging that her son was abducted by five men; and (4) Santiago's neighbor, Ronillo Soriano (Soriano) who testified that police officers dressed in civilian clothes passed by his house to ask for directions going to Santiago's house.
In its Decision dated 7 November 1997, the RTC found Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal in both cases, for violating Sections 15 and 16, Article III, in relation to Section 20 of RA 6425. In Criminal Case No. 96-8958, Santiago was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as maximum. In Criminal Case No. 96-8959, Santiago was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.
The RTC found that the testimonies of the police officers were affirmative accusations and the denial of Santiago was a negative evidence of alibi. The RTC stated that an affirmative testimony has a greater value than a negative one. The witnesses of Santiago were lacking in qualification as to their accessibility to facts and information of the actual incident - Rillo and Soriano were not eyewitnesses since the former testified only on his receipt of Jovita's complaint while the latter on what he observed and heard in the neighborhood before the incident. Jovita's testimony was less believable, being the mother of the accused. The RTC reasoned that denial or defense of alibi is considered the weakest of defenses.
The RTC added that the testimonies of the police officers were positively credible, spontaneous, probable and entirely in accord with human experience. They testified in a clear and straightforward manner which bear the earmarks of truth. Thus, being law enforcers, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit under a legal presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in the absence of clear evidence of improper motive to testify falsely for vengeance or to exact money or other consideration.
Santiago filed an appeal with the CA.
The CA affirmed with modification the RTC's decision. The CA modified the penalty in Criminal Case No. 96-8958, sentencing Santiago to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum for violation of Section 15, RA 6425.[5]
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether the appellate court erred in convicting appellant Santiago.
The petition lacks merit.
Santiago insists that the judgment of conviction made by the RTC and the CA relied heavily on the prosecution evidence which showed that the police committed a clear case of instigation. Santiago stated that he was cajoled by the police officers to produce the prohibited drugs. At the very least, Santiago submits that he must only be held liable as an accomplice since Valerio was the real pusher and Source of the prohibited drugs.
The CA thoroughly reviewed the evidence submitted by Santiago and came up with the following findings �
Time and again, we ruled that a defense of denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is self-serving, merits no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[8] Thus, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the CA and find no reversible error in the present case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 19 January 2006 and Resolution dated 31 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21635 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (Nachura, J., no part; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 26 July 2010.
G.R. No. 172828: FRANCIS SANTIAGO y CAPISTRANO - versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Before the Court is an appeal by certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated 19 January 2006 and Resolution[3] dated 31 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 21635. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision dated 7 November 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 114.
On 6 July 1996 at around 9 o'clock in the morning, Senior Inspector Julius Mana (Insp. Mana) of the Eastern Narcotics District Office, Pasig City received a personal report from a male civilian informant about the alleged drug pushing activities of appellant Francis Santiago y Capistrano (Santiago). After informing Chief Superintendent Edgardo Mendoza (Supt. Mendoza), Insp. Mana ordered PO3 Manuel Tuliao (PO3 Tuliao) and SPO2 Mabini Rosale (SPO2 Rosale) to conduct a surveillance. The next day, the two officers together with the informant proceeded to the home address of Santiago at 1702 Tramo St. Pasay City. The informant introduced PO3 Tuliao, as poseur-buyer, to Santiago. PO3 Tuliao then proposed to buy 50 grams of shabu for P800 per gram instead of Santiago's usual price of P1,000 per gram. Santiago told PO3 Tuliao to come back the next day to meet his partner, a certain Boy Valerio (Valerio). The following day, PO3 Tuliao and the informant went back to Santiago's house and met Valerio. However, they did not come into any agreement with regard to the price. They were told once again to go back the next day to complete the sale.
On 9 July 1996, Supt. Mendoza formed an entrapment operation composed of a six-person team led by Insp. Mana with Insp. Culili as assistant team leader, PO3 Tuliao as poseur-buyer, SPO2 Rosale as back-up and SPO2 Reboledo and SPO2 Palma as perimeter guards. PO3 Tuliao placed markings on five P100 bills positioned on top of the boodle money approximating the thickness of P50,000. At 9 o'clock in the morning, the exchange took place. Valerio handed over the 51.10 grams of shabu to Santiago, who in turn passed it on to PO3 Tuliao. PO3 Tuliao then gave the buy-bust money to Santiago. Thereafter, SPO2 Rosale immediately arrested Santiago while Valerio escaped. SPO2 Rosale recovered not only the buy-bust money but also a black box containing more shabu weighing 104 grams from Santiago's pocket.
Two separate informations[4] against Santiago for violation of Sections 15 and 16, Article III, in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425 (RA 6425), or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, were filed with the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 114. At the arraignment, Santiago pleaded not guilty in both cases and gave the defenses of denial and alibi.
The prosecution presented two witnesses: PO3 Tuliao and SPO2 Rosale. The defense, on the other hand, presented four witnesses: (1) the accused Santiago; (2) Santiago's mother, Jovita, who testified that there was no buy-bust operation; (3) Barangay Chairman Freddie Rillo (Rillo) who stated that Jovita filed a complaint alleging that her son was abducted by five men; and (4) Santiago's neighbor, Ronillo Soriano (Soriano) who testified that police officers dressed in civilian clothes passed by his house to ask for directions going to Santiago's house.
In its Decision dated 7 November 1997, the RTC found Santiago guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal in both cases, for violating Sections 15 and 16, Article III, in relation to Section 20 of RA 6425. In Criminal Case No. 96-8958, Santiago was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, as maximum. In Criminal Case No. 96-8959, Santiago was sentenced to suffer the penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum.
The RTC found that the testimonies of the police officers were affirmative accusations and the denial of Santiago was a negative evidence of alibi. The RTC stated that an affirmative testimony has a greater value than a negative one. The witnesses of Santiago were lacking in qualification as to their accessibility to facts and information of the actual incident - Rillo and Soriano were not eyewitnesses since the former testified only on his receipt of Jovita's complaint while the latter on what he observed and heard in the neighborhood before the incident. Jovita's testimony was less believable, being the mother of the accused. The RTC reasoned that denial or defense of alibi is considered the weakest of defenses.
The RTC added that the testimonies of the police officers were positively credible, spontaneous, probable and entirely in accord with human experience. They testified in a clear and straightforward manner which bear the earmarks of truth. Thus, being law enforcers, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit under a legal presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in the absence of clear evidence of improper motive to testify falsely for vengeance or to exact money or other consideration.
Santiago filed an appeal with the CA.
The CA affirmed with modification the RTC's decision. The CA modified the penalty in Criminal Case No. 96-8958, sentencing Santiago to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum for violation of Section 15, RA 6425.[5]
Hence, this petition.
The issue is whether the appellate court erred in convicting appellant Santiago.
The petition lacks merit.
Santiago insists that the judgment of conviction made by the RTC and the CA relied heavily on the prosecution evidence which showed that the police committed a clear case of instigation. Santiago stated that he was cajoled by the police officers to produce the prohibited drugs. At the very least, Santiago submits that he must only be held liable as an accomplice since Valerio was the real pusher and Source of the prohibited drugs.
The CA thoroughly reviewed the evidence submitted by Santiago and came up with the following findings �
x x xIn prosecution proceedings involving illegal possession or sale of prohibited drugs, credence is usually accorded 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, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive on the part of the police officers to falsely ascribe a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the trial court's assessment on the credibility of the apprehending officers, shall prevail over the accused's self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up.[7]
In every prosecution, the guilt of the accused has to be established invariably by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of the crime must be shown to exist and be adequately proven. In People v. Boco, it has been held that what is "material to a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."
The prosecution has convincingly established that during the buy-bust operation, appellant, together with his partner, Boy Valerio handed the shabu to PO3 Tuliao, who posed as a buyer of shabu. PO3 Tuliao handed marked money to appellant as payment for the shabu. Appellant was then arrested right after he handed a pack of shabu to PO3 Tuliao.
x x x
Appellant proffered no [explanation] why the police officers in civilian clothes, who were unknown to him and who never met him either, would single him out or his residence in support of his theory of instigation and extortion.
Contrary to appellant's allegation, there was no evidence adduced as to any ill-motive on the part of the police officers which would affect the credibility of their testimonies. FRANCIS [Santiago] neither knew PO3 Tuliao nor SPO2 Rosale prior to the arrest and that he came to know them only during the buy-bust operation.
It bears stressing that appellant filed no criminal or administrative charges against the police officers for having entered his house without any search warrant and for demanding P100,000 from him for fixing or making arrangement relative to his case. Neither has the defense shown that said police officers were not performing their duty properly when the buy-bust operation was conducted. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the prosecution witnesses, who are all police officers, should therefore stand.
x x x
Appellant maintains that the police officers had no jurisdiction in effecting the arrest for being stationed in Pasig and not in Pasay City. In this regard, it bears noting that the failure of the arresting police officers to comply with police protocol is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case for the reason that the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established.
x x x
We find that appellant was lawfully arrested, caught as he was in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers, x x x[6]
Time and again, we ruled that a defense of denial unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence is self-serving, merits no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimonies of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.[8] Thus, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the CA and find no reversible error in the present case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 19 January 2006 and Resolution dated 31 May 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 21635 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. (Nachura, J., no part; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 26 July 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, pp. 24-43. Penned by Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring.
[3] Id. at 50-51.
[4] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 96-8958 and 96-8959; id. at 25.
[5] Rollo, p. 42.
[6] Id. at 33-40.
[7] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, 4 December 2009, 607 SCRA 377.
[8] People v. Lusabio, Jr., G.R. No. 186119, 27 October 2009, 604 SCRA 565, citing People v. Alviz, G.R. Nos. 144551-55, 29 June 2004, 433 SCRA 164.
