FIRST
DIVISION
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - DANILO JOCSON y BAUTISTA, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 169875 Present: PUNO, C.J.,
Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA,
and LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, JJ. Promulgated: December 18, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
PUNO, C.J.:
On appeal are the Decision[1]
dated April 29, 2005 and the Resolution[2]
dated September 13, 2005 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00245. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of
the
On the evening of August 7, 2002, an informant
reported to the office of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit,
Accused-appellant Jocson was charged with violations
of Sections 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, in two separate Informations:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 66034
That on or about the 7th
day of August 2002 in Caloocan City, M.M. and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver
to one PO1 JOSEPH DELOS SANTOS, who posed as buyer, 0.05 gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), for One Hundred Pesos with SN UM856594
knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 66035
That on or about the 7th
day of August 2002 in Caloocan City, M.M. and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control four (4) pcs. of heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) with a total
weight [of] 0.19 gram, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
The two criminal cases against
accused-appellant were consolidated, and trial ensued.
Accused-appellant Jocson denied the accusations against
him. He testified that on the night of
his arrest, he was at his residence at
Eleven-year old April Jane Buenaobra, niece of
accused-appellant, corroborated the latter’s testimony. Buenaobra testified that on August 7, 2002,
at around eleven o’clock in the evening, while watching television, her
grandmother answered a knock on the door.
Suddenly, policemen barged into the house, grabbed her uncle and
forcibly took him away.
On April 8, 2003, the
THEREFORE, premises considered and
the prosecution having established to a moral certainty the guilt of Accused
DANILO JOCSON y BAUTISTA of the crimes charged, this Court hereby renders
judgment as follows:
1.
In
Crim. Case No. 66034 for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. 11 of RA 9165, this Court in
the absence of any aggravating circumstance hereby sentences the aforenamed
Accused to LIFE IMPRISONMENT; and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 without
any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency;
2.
In
Crim. Case No. 66035 for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. 11 of same Act, this Court
in the absence of any modifying circumstance hereby sentences common Accused to
a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and
eight (8) months and to pay the fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00),
without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Subject drug in both cases are hereby
declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with
in accordance with law.
x x x x
x x
SO ORDERED.[4]
Accused-appellant Jocson appealed to this Court, with
the following assignment of errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE SELF-SERVING TESTIMONIES OF POLICE OFFICERS RODRIGO ANTONIO
AND JOSEPH DE LOS
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING
THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[5]
This Court, however, referred the
case to the Court of Appeals in conformity with the ruling in People v.
Mateo.[6]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court. It also denied
accused-appellant’s motion for reconsideration.
We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The testimony of SPO1 Delos Santos was spontaneous,
straightforward and categorical.
Further, SPO3 Antonio, back-up security of SPO1 Delos Santos,
corroborated the latter’s testimony on its material points. On the other hand, we find no reason to
believe the denials and self-serving allegation of accused-appellant that his
arrest was concocted out of thin air by the police officers. No evidence was presented to show any
antagonism between him and the police officers to explain why the police
officers allegedly picked on him. Settled
is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is
evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police
officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties.[7] None was presented in the instant case.
Neither will the testimony of his 11-year old niece
exculpate accused-appellant from the crimes charged against him. On cross-examination, April Jane admitted
that her grandmother impressed on her that her uncle was arrested by the police
even when he had done nothing wrong. As
observed by the trial court, April Jane appeared to be a rehearsed
witness. Further, being a close kin of
accused-appellant, her credibility is highly suspect. A portion of her testimony is as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q Are you saying now Madam Witness that you [were] also
discussing this case to (sic) your mother?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you discussed this case, Madam Witness, do I get you
right that they were talking to you with respect [to] how your uncle was
arrested?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, they [were] also discussing to (sic) you that your uncle
has not committed any wrong?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, they were also discussing with you Madam Witness, that
what was done by the policeman is also wrong?
A Yes, sir.[8]
The findings and conclusion of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts
have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. In the process of converting into written
form the statements of living human beings, not only fine nuances but a world
of meaning apparent to the judge present, watching and listening, may escape
the reader of the translated words.[9]
In the
instant case, the police arrested accused-appellant in a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is one
form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of
apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense.[10]
Entrapment has received judicial sanction
when undertaken with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards.[11] Where the criminal intent originates in the
mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a
person, acting as a decoy for the state, or that public officials furnished the
accused an opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is
aided in the commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary
to prosecute him, there is permissible entrapment and the accused must be
convicted.[12] What the law forbids is the inducing of
another to violate the law, the “seduction” of an otherwise innocent person
into a criminal career.[13]
Where the criminal intent originates in
the mind of the state decoy, such as an undercover agent, and the accused is
lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him,
there is instigation, as we call it in our jurisprudence, and no conviction may
be had.[14]
In instigation, the instigator
practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and
himself becomes a co-principal. In
entrapment, the peace officer resorts to ways and means to trap and capture the
lawbreaker in the execution of the latter’s criminal plan.
Instigation is illegal and contrary to public policy. Entrapment is not.[15]
In the case at bar, the details of the transaction
were clearly and adequately shown, viz.: (a) the initial contact between the
poseur-buyer and the pusher; (b) the offer to buy; (c) the promise or payment
of the consideration; and (d) the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the
sale. The initial contact was made
through an informant. On the day of the
operation, the informant approached accused-appellant Jocson, a.k.a. “Manong,”
and introduced him to SPO1 Delos Santos, the poseur-buyer. Delos Santos then offered to buy when he told “Manong,”
“Pare, pabili ng piso.” The sale was consummated after payment and
delivery when SPO1 Delos Santos handed “Manong” the marked 100-peso bill, and “Manong”
took out from his pocket and handed SPO1 Delos Santos a plastic sachet
containing shabu. From the moment SPO1
Delos Santos received the prohibited drug from “Manong,” the illegal sale of
the dangerous drug was consummated.[16] “Manong” was at once apprehended, and four
more sachets of shabu were found in his possession.
Having established that the illegal
sale took place between the poseur-buyer and the seller, the prosecution
likewise presented the dangerous drug, i.e.,
the corpus delicti, as evidence in
court. The illegal substance sold,
including the four other sachets recovered from the pocket of accused-appellant,
was offered as evidence during the trial and properly identified by the
prosecution witnesses. The prosecution also
accounted for the chain of custody of the subject substances. From accused-appellant’s possession, police
officers Delos Santos and Antonio seized the sachets of shabu and turned them
over to Police Investigator Moran who marked the pieces of evidence. Then, Moran turned them over to the NPD crime
laboratory for chemical analysis, where Police Inspector Juanita Sioson, a
Forensic Chemical Engineer, found the white crystalline granules contained in
five heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets to be positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the petition is DENIED and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00245, dated April 29, 2005 and September 13, 2005,
respectively, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
WE CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-13.
[2] CA rollo, p. 129.
[3]
[4] Rollo, p. 30.
[5]
[6] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[7] People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 150624,
[8] CA rollo, pp. 28-29.
[9] People v. Gamiao, G.R. No. 91492,
[10] People
v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, citing People v. Basilgo,
235 SCRA 191 (1994); People v. Yap, G.R. Nos. 98262-63,
January 10, 1994, 229 SCRA 787; People v. Macasa, G.R. No. 105283,
January 21, 1994, 229 SCRA 422.
[11] Supra,
citing People v. Herrera,
247 SCRA 433 (1995); People v. Tadepa,
G.R. No. 100354, May 26, 1995, 244 SCRA 339; People v. Basilgo,
G.R. No. 107327, August 5, 1994, 235 SCRA 191.
[12] Supra,
citing Hoy v. State, 53
[13] Supra,
citing People v. Outten,
147 NE 2d 284, 286, 13 Ill 2d 21 (1958).
[14] Supra,
citing Sorrells v. United
States, 287
[15] People v. Tiu Ua, 96 Phil. 738, 741 (1955).
[16] People
v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028,