Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > July 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 174772 : July 04, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VERSUS MARIA MILA BAG ONA-CONTADO AND ABE SOLORIO Y ONADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 July 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 174772 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus MARIA MILA BAG ONA-CONTADO and ABE SOLORIO y ONADO, accused-appellants. 

On appeal is the June 21, 2006 Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision^[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 95, finding appellants Maria Mila Contado and Abe Solorio guilty of violation of Section 4 and Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Appellants were charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana and pleaded not guilty to the charges upon arraignment.^[3]

At the trial, the prosecution presented the following version of the facts: On June 22, 2001, a male informant reported to the Dangerous Drugs Enforcement Group in Camp Karingal, Quezon City that a certain "Marlyn" was selling marijuana at Pook Dagohoy, U.P. Campus, Quezon City. As the team of PO3 Leonardo Ramos had earlier conducted a surveillance operation in the area on the activities of Marlyn and a certain "Temiong", P/Supt. Ronaldo Mendoza immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. P/Sr. Insp. Aleta Astronomo was designated as poseur-buyer.^[4]

The team arrived at the U.P. Campus at around 7:20 in the evening. Astronomo and the informant waited at the corner of St. Francis and Fatima Streets near the U.P. dormitory and a sari-sari store, while the others positioned themselves nearby. At around 9:00 in the evening, Marlyn arrived with two male companions. When the informant introduced Astronomo as a buyer of marijuana, Marlyn asked how much she wanted to buy. Astronomo replied she would buy P500 worth of marijuana as she handed the marked money to Marlyn. At that, Marlyn's companion, Temiong, gave Astronomo a small blue plastic bag which came from a red-and-white plastic bag held by Abe Solorio. Astronomo verified the contents of the blue plastic bag and then signaled the other policemen that the transaction had been consummated.^[5]

Immediately, the police officers responded, causing a brief commotion. Astronomo arrested Marlyn, who was later identified as Maria Mila Bag Ona-Contado, while PO3 Ramos held Solorio. Temiong, meanwhile, managed to escape.^[6] 

Solorio and Contado were then taken to Camp Karingal for investigation. They recovered the P500 buy-bust money from Contado, while the red-and-white plastic bag containing four bricks of marijuana was seized from Solorio. Astronomo turned over the blue plastic bag containing the marijuana which she was able to buy from Contado.^[7] Pursuant to a request for laboratory examination, Forensic Chemical Officer P/Insp. Leonard T. Arban of the PNP Crime Laboratory-conducted an examination on the seized items, which yielded positive results to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.^[8]

For the defense, appellant Abe Solorio testified that he is a vegetable vendor along Manggahan, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. He stays in a house in Katuparan St., Commonwealth, Quezon City, which has two rooms on the second floor. One room is rented by him and his family, while the other is occupied by Contado. The ground floor meanwhile is occupied by Temiong, who supplies him with vegetables.^[9]

On June 22, 2001, at around 8:30 in the evening, he was inside his room cleaning vegetables which they will sell the next day. He heard knocking at the door and when he opened it, two men asked him where Temiong resides. He answered that Temiong stays at the room downstairs. Suddenly, several persons entered and searched the entire house. He and Contado were then brought down from their rooms and taken to Camp Karingal where the group of Astronomo forced them to admit that they owned the marijuana taken from Temiong's room.^[10]

Appellant Maria Mila Contado, for her part, narrated that on June 22, 2001, at around 8:30 in the evening, she was in her room at No. 141 Katuparan St., Commonwealth, Quezon City. She heard knocking on the main door of the house and noise coming from the living room, but she just ignored it. She also heard some people looking for Temiong. Later, somebody knocked at her door and when she opened it, policemen asked her the whereabouts of Temiong. They ordered her to step out of the room and go downstairs. Then, she and Solorio were brought to the police station. At the station, the policemen told her that if she reveals where Temiong could be found, they would be released.^[11] 

The RTC rendered a decision convicting appellants of selling 42.54 grams of marijuana and sentencing each of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum, to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum. They were likewise found guilty of illegal possession of 3,826.24 grams of marijuana and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC further ordered them to pay a fine of P1 million each.

Both appellants appealed the RTC decision to the CA but the CA denied their appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA agreed that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal sale and possession of prohibited drugs. The CA gave credence to the testimony of Astronomo who positively identified Solorio and Contado as the persons who sold her P500 worth of marijuana, and who were also in possession of four more bricks of marijuana.

Appellants are now before this Court, essentially questioning the credibility of P/Sr. Insp. Astronomo and arguing that her testimony was full of inconsistencies. Appellants also point out that there was no surveillance conducted on the area prior to the buy-bust operation and the buy-bust operation was conducted without coordination with the U.P. Campus Police. Further, they contend that it is contrary to human experience for them to carry such a huge quantity of illegal drugs in public where they could be seen by anybody.

We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find that neither the RTC nor the CA committed any reversible error in finding appellants guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana.

It has been consistently held that in criminal cases the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe them on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. This deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses is consistent with the principle that when the testimony of a witness meets the test of credibility, that alone is sufficient to convict the accused. This is especially true when the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed by the appellate court as in this case.^[12] Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses.

Indeed, we find the testimony of P/Sr. Insp. Astronomo credible, straightforward, and consistent in its material points. We agree with the RTC and the CA in finding that she testified in a categorical manner as to how appellants were arrested through a buy-bust operation. She positively identified appellants as the ones who sold her marijuana which was contained in a blue plastic bag. Aside from the marijuana that appellants sold her, she testified that four more bricks of marijuana placed in a red-and-white plastic bag were also recovered from the appellants. While Astronomo may have been confused as to the names of the streets where the operation actually took place, we must consider that such fact pertains to minor matters only and does not detract from her credibility since the same is not an essential element of the crimes charged. Moreover, being a police officer, she is presumed to have performed her duties in a regular manner, there being no evidence to show that she had any ulterior motive to testify falsely against appellants or to implicate them if they were not involved in the crime.

With regard to appellants' contention that no prior surveillance was conducted nor any coordination with the U.P. Campus Police was made, the same would not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation as there is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The absence of evidence of a prior surveillance does not affect the regularity of a buy-bust operation, especially when, like in this case, the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the scene by their informant.^[13] At any rate, whether there was or there was no prior surveillance or coordination with the U.P. Campus Police, the same would not matter considering that appellants were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing and selling marijuana.

Finally, we find no merit in appellants' assertion that for them to carry such huge quantity of marijuana in public is contrary to human experience. In many cases, drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law.^[14]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The June 21, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01619 is AFFIRMED in toto.

Costs against appellants.

SO ORDERED." PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1227 dated 30 May 2012.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---