SECOND
DIVISION
|
RONNIE AMBAIT y SAURA, Petitioner, -
versus - THE
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE |
G.R.
No. 164909 Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio
Morales, Tinga, VELASCO,
JR., and BRION,
JJ. Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
April
30, 2008 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING,
J.:
This
is an appeal to reverse and set aside the Decision[1]
dated
On
Petitioner had been found, on
Affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of
Appeals predicated its judgment on the following facts.
On October 13, 1995 just before midnight, Bacolod City PNP
Chief Inspector Pedro Merced, SPO2 Freddie Natividad and SPO1 Arthur Yusay were
on routine police patrol when an informant codenamed “Savio” tipped
them that a certain Teddy Sta. Rita[8]
of San Patricio, Banago District, Bacolod City was committing certain illegal
activities within his residence.
The patrol proceeded to the place reported by the informant. It was learned that the dwelling place
was owned by one Nelia[9]
Sta. Rita.[10]
Having
been informed that petitioner Ronnie Ambait maintained an illegal gambling
operation in the said house, the policemen conducted a surveillance and
stake-out operation. Using an
entrapment procedure, the group was expecting the informant to turn-over some jai-alai
paraphernalia and bet collections to petitioner; thereupon they would swoop
down on the latter. As the
policemen watched the informant hand over the tally sheet and bet collections
to a certain Barry, the latter handed the paraphernalia to petitioner who was
sitting behind a table with an open compartment.[11] The policemen thereafter entered the
house and found three persons namely, petitioner, Teddy Sta. Rita and a Eufran
Serfino. Noticing a bulge in
petitioner’s pocket, SPO2 Natividad asked him to stand up and empty his
pocket. Petitioner let out a brown
coin purse containing a small sachet.
SPO1 Yusay then frisked petitioner and found a .38 caliber revolver and
three live ammunitions. Gambling
paraphernalia and bets amounting to P1,799 were found on the table.[12]
Thereafter,
Informations against petitioner were filed as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 95-17377:
x x x x
That on or about the 13th day of October,
1995, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the herein accused, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously keep, possess, hold and carry in his possession one (1)
Revolver Caliber .38 Smith and Wesson (homemade) without Serial Number with
three (3) rounds of live ammunitions without license and/or authority duly and
legally issued and obtained for that purpose, in violation of the
aforementioned law.
Act
contrary to law.[13]
In Criminal Case No. 95-17378:
x
x x x
That on or about the 13th day of October,
1995, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the herein accused not being lawfully authorized to possess,
prepare, administer or otherwise use any regulated drug, did, then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his
custody one (1) small sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known
as shabu, weighing more or less 0.10 gram without the corresponding license or
prescription therefor.
Act contrary to law.[14]
During trial, SPO4 Vicente Jalocon of the Firearms and
Explosive Unit of the Bacolod City PNP testified that petitioner was not a
registered firearm holder and
had no license to possess any firearm.[15] Forensic chemist Rhea Villavicencio of the Bacolod City
PNP, another prosecution witness, testified that on
On
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (a) finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of P.D. 186[6], and sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and a
fine of P15,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 17377; and (b) finding the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 16, Art. III
of RA 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179 and RA 7659, and is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of prision correc[c]ional, ranging from six (6) months and one (1)
day to two (2) years and four (4) months, as minimum to four (4) months and
[one] (1) day to six (6) years, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.[17]
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision, the same is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[18]
A
motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was also denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioner
cites the following grounds for the allowance of the petition:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES DESPITE THE
GLARING INCONSISTENCIES AND IMPROBABILITIES THEREIN.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING
THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON
RECORD.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING
THAT THE GUN, LIVE AMMUNITIONS AND SHABU THAT WERE CONFISCATED FROM
PETITIONER ARE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING
THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE GUN, AMMUNITIONS AND SHABU FROM
PETITIONER WAS INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST AND THE SEIZURE WAS MADE IN PLAIN
VIEW.
V.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
ADOPTING THE THEORY THAT PETITIONER WAS CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO OF
THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING.
VI.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
EXONERATING PETITIONER OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN VIEW OF THE
AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. [NO.] 8294.
VII.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE
PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[19]
Simply
put, the issues for disposition are:
(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses? and (2) Was the evidence seized admissible in
evidence?
On
the first issue, petitioner avers that the court a quo erred in giving
full faith and credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which are
replete with inconsistencies and discrepancies. Respondents counter that the
inconsistencies were minor details which do not impair the credibility of the
witnesses.
We
reiterate the doctrine that the trial court’s assessment of a
witness’ credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of
palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.[20] As a rule, the findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the
highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any clear showing
that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some weighty and substantial
facts or circumstances that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial
court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence.[21] Well-settled is the rule that findings
of trial courts which are factual in nature and which revolve on matters of credibility
of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a
gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and
unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[22] Moreover, having been affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, the trial court’s findings carry even more weight. In the appeal before us, we find no
reason to deviate from the rule.
Moreover,
the inconsistencies mentioned by the petitioner can be characterized as
minor. Petitioner points to alleged
inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of SPO2 Natividad and SPO1
Yusay who, on the one hand, testified that they confined their search and
seizure operation on the ground floor of the house, and that the unlicensed gun
and the shabu were taken from the petitioner; and the testimony of Chief
Inspector Merced who, on the other hand, testified that the raiding team went
up the second floor of the house then came down with sachets of shabu. We agree with the Court of Appeals that
such inconsistencies are minor matters and that the testimonies dovetail on
material points.[23] The inconsistency does not impugn the
fact that the gun, ammunition and shabu were all recovered and retrieved
from the petitioner when he was confronted and frisked at the ground
floor. Minor inconsistencies, far
from detracting from the veracity of the testimony, even enhance the
credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that the testimony
was contrived or rehearsed.[24]
On
the second issue, petitioner contends that the conduct of the police officers
cannot be justified under the exception to the rules against warrantless search
and seizure. Respondents counter
that the evidence were seized as a result of a lawful search and seizure made
in plain view and as an incident to a lawful arrest of petitioner who was
caught in flagrante delicto committing the crime of illegal gambling.
The
police officers led by Chief Inspector Merced conducted a lawful entrapment
operation on the petitioner who was reportedly the operator of the said illegal
gambling operation. Police officers
arrested petitioner while petitioner’s companions got away. When SPO2 Natividad noticed a
conspicuous bulge in the petitioner’s pocket, he asked him to show its
contents. Petitioner yielded a
brown coin purse which contained a sachet of shabu. After a frisking made on the person of
the petitioner, an unlicensed gun with three
bullets were also confiscated.
Patently, the warrantless search and seizure of the unlicensed
gun, ammunition and shabu was lawfully made in plain view and as an
incident to a lawful arrest.[25]
The
interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. The recognized exceptions established by
jurisprudence are (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3)
customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk
situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.[26]
Patently,
the warrantless search and seizure of the incriminating objects found in the
possession of petitioner falls under the exceptions enumerated. Therefore, their admissibility in
evidence cannot be questioned.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest 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.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, 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 Chief Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 73-85. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Noel G. Tijam concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4] Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for Relevant Purposes, done on June 29, 1983.
[5] SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. – The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription.
[6] An Act Further Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act Numbered Sixty-Four Hundred and Twenty-Five, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes, approved on March 2, 1982.
[7] An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes, approved on December 13, 1993.
[8] Also known as “Teddy De Arroz” in other parts of the records.
[9] Also known as “Nelly” in other parts of the records.
[10] Rollo, p. 75.
[11]
[12]
[13] Records (Criminal Case No. 95-17377), p. 2.
[14] Records (Criminal Case No. 95-17378), p. 1.
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] Rollo, p. 65-A.
[18]
[19]
[20] People v. Oliver, G.R.
No. 123099,
[21] People v. Fabia, G.R.
No. 134764,
[22] People v. Mirafuentes,
G.R. Nos. 135850-52,
[23] Rollo, p. 83.
[24] People v. Bustamante,
G.R. Nos. 140724-26,
[25] People v. Elamparo, G.R. No. 121572, March 31, 2000, 329 SCRA 404, 413, held that objects inadvertently falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence, citing People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 710-711.
[26] People v.