THIRD DIVISION
|
ermin dacles y Oledo, Petitioner, - versus - People of the
Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 171487 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assails the Decision[1] dated
19 August 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 25188 which affirmed
the Decision[2] dated 31
January 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan
City, Branch 120, finding petitioner Ermin O. Dacles guilty of the crime of violation of Section 27,
Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
On
That on or about the 10th day of December,
1998 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, grouping themselves together
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use and sniff and pass
to one another METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, without the corresponding
prescription therefore and knowing the same to be a regulated drug.[3]
When arraigned, petitioner and co-accused
pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution presented three
witnesses: PO2 Jessie Caranto, Senior Inspector
Juanita D. Siason of the Philippine National
Police-Crime Laboratory, and PO3 Romulo Aquino.
Prosecution witness PO2 Jessie Caranto of the
District Intelligence Unit (DIU) Northern Police District Office, Larangay Street, Kaunlaran
Village, Caloocan City, testified that on 10 December
1998 at around 8:30 in the evening, while he and his two co-police operatives,
SPO2 Pascua and PO3 Romulo Aquino, were conducting a surveillance operation along Rubyville Subdivision, Caloocan
City, they noticed a Toyota Tamaraw FX utility
vehicle bearing Plate No. WDP-587 parked along the side of the street. In order for them not to be noticed, they slowly
and cautiously approached the vehicle where they saw five persons engaging in a
pot session. The team introduced
themselves as police officers and then arrested the suspects. PO2 Caranto
gathered the two small transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance believed to be shabu, including drug paraphernalia such as
aluminum foil, tubo
or pipe and a disposable lighter obtained from the suspects. The suspects and the vehicle were brought to
the police headquarters at
PO3 Romulo Aquino, a member of
the team conducting surveillance operation in Sta. Quiteria,
Upon examination by the forensic analyst,
Senior Inspector Juanita D. Siason of the Philippine
National Police-Crime Laboratory, the contents of the two plastic heat-sealed
transparent sachets were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu.”
The prosecution dispensed with the testimony
of SPO2 Marlon Orquia and in lieu thereof, it entered
into stipulations with the counsel of the accused the following facts: (1) that
SPO2 Marlon Orquia was the investigator of the case;
and (2) that SPO2 Orquia was the one who prepared the
letter requesting a forensic examination of the contents of the two plastic
sachets.[5]
The defense, on the other hand, presented
Federico Cleofas, Virgilio
Cardenas and appellant Ermin Dacles. All of them put up a defense of denial and
frame-up.
Accused Federico Cleofas
(Federico) testified that at around 7:30 in the evening of 10 December 1998,
while he was in the store of his nephew located inside Rubyville
Subdivision, Caloocan City, drinking a bottle of softdrink and having a chat with his nephew, a Toyota Tamaraw FX which was driven by accused Marcelo Dueñas, arrived.[6] Accused Virgilio
Cardenas and Ermin Dacles
were on board the vehicle together with four armed police officers wearing
civilian clothes. As the policemen
alighted from the vehicle and were going to his direction, Federico, scared of
the unfamiliar-looking policemen, ran towards the house of his childhood buddy
named Aboy,
also a police officer, for help. Before
the pursuing police officers could arrest Federico, Aboy
took him under his care. After the
police officers and Aboy
introduced themselves to each other, Aboy allowed the arresting officers to take with them his
friend with the assurance that Federico would not be hurt.[7] Federico was then escorted to the Tamaraw FX where he was handcuffed.[8] The arresting officers thereafter asked him
of the exact location of his house, but before they arrived at the site
Federico indicated, the police officers punched him in the abdomen, suspecting
that he was lying about the exact location of his house. Federico also testified that SPO2 Pascua tried to exact from him Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00)
and Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) from Ermin
Dacles and Virgilio
Cardenas. When Federico told the police
officers that he had no money, PO2 Aquino hit him on
the head with a batuta.[9] Thereafter, they were brought to Valenzuela,
specifically P20,000.00 in exchange for Federico’s
liberty.[10] After the call, they boarded the Tamaraw FX and, while on their way, the police officers
picked up accused Ma. Fe Mendoza before finally proceeding to the police
station.[11] When Federico was physically examined by a
physician, he did not divulge to the doctor that he had a contusion in the head
caused by the batuta.
Virgilio Cardenas (Virgilio)
also denied the allegations of the prosecution.
He testified that on
Ermin Dacles (Ermin) declared that in the evening of P50,000.00. For his part, Ermin
replied he had no money.[18]
After weighing the evidence presented
by the parties, the RTC was of the belief that the prosecution mustered the
requisite quantum of evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner and other
accused of the crime charged. It gave
full credence to the version of the prosecution and brushed aside the defenses
of denial and frame-up interposed by the appellant and his companions. Thus, it convicted all of them of the offense
charged and imposed upon them the indeterminate penalty of 6 months and 1 day
as minimum to 6 years as maximum, and to
pay the fine of P100.00 each, viz:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused
ERMIN DACLES y OLEDO, VIRGILIO CARDENAS y GERCAN, MARCELINO DUEÑAS y YABUT,
FEDERICO CLEOFAS y MATEO and MA. FE MENDOZA y PASCUAL GUILTY of the offense
charged and sentencing them to suffer a penalty of six (6) months and one (1)
day as minimum to six years each as maximum of prision correccional.
The Court orders all the accused to pay P100.00
each as fine to OCC, RTC,
Only petitioner Ermin
Dacles and Federico Cleofas
filed a notice of appeal.[20] The RTC ordered the transmittal of the entire
records of the case to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, on P100.00. The dispositive
part of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION by REDUCING the penalty to six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional,
as maximum, and DELETING the fine of P100.00.[22]
On
Hence, the instant petition filed by Ermin Dacles.
In his Memorandum, the petitioner raises
a single issue:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 27, ARTICLE IV OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
6425.[23]
Petitioner faults the RTC and the
Court of Appeals in giving full credence to the testimony of PO2 Caranto who testified that he saw petitioner and his companions
engaged in a pot session. Petitioner
stresses that PO2 Caranto’s testimony should not have
been believed since said testimony was not even corroborated by prosecution
witness PO2 Romulo Aquino. Petitioner argues that the RTC and the Court
of Appeals cannot use the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions in convicting petitioner since the said principle cannot
prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. He insists that although the defense of alibi
and denial are weak, it is still the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to support a judgment of conviction.
He also maintains that he deserves an
acquittal since there exists a doubt as to whether the items confiscated from
them, assuming arguendo
that the prosecution’s theory were true, were the same specimens submitted for laboratory
examination and which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. According to petitioner, there is a
possibility that switching of evidence could occur and that the specimens
seized from them were not the same items subjected to laboratory examination.
The Office of the Solicitor General
avers that the questions involving the alleged testimonial veracity or
credibility are inappropriate in the instant petition as only questions of law
may be raised in a petition for review.
It also assails appellant’s belated attempt of raising as an issue for
the first time the identity of the confiscated items. It states that the identity of the shabu should have
been questioned at the trial stage to afford the prosecution reasonable opportunity
to meet such objection. Since this issue
was not raised before the RTC nor before the Court of Appeals, appellant cannot
raise the same before this Court.
We deal first with the argument
raised by the Office of the Solicitor General that it is too late for
petitioner to raise the issue on the identity of the confiscated shabu. The long-standing precept is that an appeal
in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review. [24] The reviewing tribunal can correct errors
though unassigned in the appeal, or even reverse the trial court’s decision on
grounds other than those the parties raised as errors.[25]
In People v. Dorimon,[26]
appellant was convicted by the trial court of the crime of Illegal Possession
of Firearm. On appeal before the Court,
appellant failed to raise the issue of failure of the prosecution to prove his
non-possession of a license to possess a firearm. Notwithstanding this, the Court took
cognizance of the issue. Likewise, in People v. Galigao,[27]
appellant was found by the trial court guilty of rape on three counts. On automatic review, appellant raised for the
first time before the Court the defense of insanity. The Court addressed the issue consistent with
the dictum that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for
review and the reviewing court may correct errors even if they have not been
assigned. With these cases as
guideposts, petitioner is legally allowed to raise an issue which was not
raised before the RTC or the Court of Appeals.
Despite this ruling, however, the Court finds no compelling reason to
acquit petitioner in the instant case.
The bone of contention in this case
is the credibility of the parties and their witnesses. This Court will not disturb the judgment of
the trial court in assessing the credibility of the witnesses, unless there
appears in the records some facts or circumstances of weight and influence
which have been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted
by the trial court. This is because the
trial judge has the unique opportunity, denied to the appellate court, to
observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under
direct and cross-examination. In this
case, the evidence in the records fully supports the trial court’s finding that
petitioner violated Section 27, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425. Petitioner and his companions were sniffing shabu inside the Tamaraw FX parked in a street inside Rubyville
Subvidivision. PO2 Jessie Caranto
was able to observe from a distance of two meters what petitioner and his
cohorts were doing inside the vehicle, as the vehicle had transparent glass
windows and considering that the vehicle was parked within five meters of a lit
Meralco post. When
PO2 Caranto and his companions took custody of the
suspects, they obtained from the latter two sachets of shabu and the paraphernalia used
in the pot session. PO2 Caranto unwaveringly narrated the incident as follows:
A: When
we conducted a surveillance at Rubyville Subdivision,
Q: Where
is this located?
A: At Rubyville Subdivision,
Q: Now,
you mentioned about one Tamaraw FX Van WDP-587, what
is this Tamaraw FX doing?
A: There
were unidentified male persons on board that Tamaraw
FX engaged in pot session sir.
Q: The
first time you saw this van or this Tamaraw FX
vehicle, where were you Mr. Witness?
A: I am
near the Tamaraw FX maybe two (2) meters away, sir.
x x x x
Q: This Tamaraw FX has glasses on the sidings?
A: Transparent,
sir.
Q: So you
can easily identify the persons inside the Tamaraw
FX?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x
Q: What
did you do when you saw the parked Tamaraw FX?
A: We
introduced ourselves as law men and assigned at the
x x x x
Q: With
this two (2) meters distance, what were these persons doing at that time?
A: x x x they were using drugs known
as shabu.
x x x x
Q After
seeing the persons sniffing the prohibited drugs you mentioned, what did your team
do next?
A: We
arrested them x x x.
x x x x
Q: And
what did they do?
A: They
opened the door of the vehicle sir.
Q: And
after they opened the vehicle what did you see inside?
A: We saw
the paraphernalias and we confiscated all the
evidence.
x x x x
Q: And, where
did you gather the evidence?
A: Paraphernalias, sir.
Q: Will
you describe these paraphernalias Mr. Witness?
A: Two
(2) small transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance
suspected to be shabu,
aluminum foil, tubo
or pipe, lighter.
x x x x
Q: So
there are only two (2) plastic sachets allegedly containing shabu?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And you
were the one who retrieved the paraphernalias from
the five (5) persons?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: And
police officers Pascua and Chua what were they doing
then?
A: They
brought the other accused to our office for further investigation.
Q: How
about the vehicle the Tamaraw FX?
A: It is
already impounded, sir.
Q: Were
you able to know the persons brought to your station Mr. Witness?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Will
you tell us the names of these persons if you can remember?
A: I
cannot remember their names, sir.
Q: Can you
recall their faces Mr. Witness?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Can you
identify them if you see them? Are they inside the courtroom this morning?
A: Yes,
sir.[28]
On cross-examination, PO2 Caranto described the relative positions of the suspects
inside the vehicle when they were arrested:
Q: Mr.
Witness can you tell us who were [seated] at the back, in the middle and front
portion of the vehicle?
A: The
four of them and the other one is the driver. Ermin Dacles is [seated] at the middle portion of the vehicle.
Q: What
about
A: In the
middle portion sir.
Q: What
about Maria Fe Mendoza where was she [seated]?
A: At the
back portion sir.
Q: So what
about Cleofas?
A: I saw
him with Maria Fe Mendoza sir.
Q: So,
what about Dueñas?
A: He is
the driver sir.
Court: Where
did you come from, behind the parked Tamaraw FX or in
front of the parked Tamaraw FX?
A: From
the front portion of the vehicle sir.
Q: And
despite the fact you came from the front side you were [not] noticed by Dueñas in the driver’s seat?
A: No,
sir he was “nakayuko.”
Q: While
you chanced upon the parked Tamaraw FX vehicle and
doing some surveillance who among the accused in this case that you noticed
which lead you to approach the vehicle?
A: The
four (4) of them.
Q: Mr.
Witness, who among the accused did you notice that made you approached the
vehicle?
A: The
four (4) of them were [seated] at the back.
Q: Was the
FX parked in a dark place?
A: It was
lighted sir.
Q: How far
from the Meralco post if there was a Meralco post?
A: About five
(5) meters away.
Q: And will
you describe what was their respective positions?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What
were they doing?
A: “Gumagamit sila.” “May hinihithit na tubo,”
sir.
Q: You
were not noticed when you approached them?
A: No,
sir because they were surprised.[29]
PO3 Romulo Aquino corroborated the testimony of PO2 Caranto that indeed there was a police surveillance
conducted inside Rubyville Subdivision. Although PO3 Aquino
admitted that he was stationed outside the subdivision and therefore was not
with PO2 Caranto when the latter arrested the
suspects, he confirmed that petitioner and his companions were arrested inside
the Rubyville Subdivision. In fact, PO3 Aquino accompanied
the arrested suspects to the police station.
The version depicted by the
prosecution, through the testimonies of PO2 Caranto
and PO3 Aquino, could only be described by people who
actually witnessed the event that took place on the night of
As has been repeatedly held, 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, unless there be evidence to the
contrary. Moreover, in the absence of
proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime to petitioner, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over
appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.
This Court, of course, is not unaware
that in some instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting
evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. But the defense of
frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the
presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance
of their official duties. Moreover, the
defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with
disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard
defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
In the case under consideration,
there is no evidence of any improper motive on the part of the police officers
who apprehended petitioner and his companions.
The defense witnesses even admitted that they did not know the
apprehending police officers and that they had no quarrel with said law
enforcers.[30] With this admission by the defense, it is
readily clear that the claim of frame-up is baseless.
A scrutiny of the version of the
petitioner reveals incredulous specifics and details which are far from
ordinary human experience. Also, the
testimonies of the defense witnesses failed to dovetail with each other on
significant points. Petitioner testified
that he did not know Federico Cleofas, nor had he
seen the latter prior to their arrest on
At one point, petitioner averred that
after he and his companions were wrongfully arrested in
Petitioner insists that the shabu confiscated from them was not
established by the prosecution. Records disprove
this. PO2 Caranto positively identified in court the two
plastic sachets containing shabu which were confiscated from petitioner and his
cohorts. Although he did not place his
initials on the sachets of shabu after the confiscation, he was able to identify the
same, since he testified that it was the police investigator who placed
identifying marks thereon; thus:
Q: If I
show you again the two plastic sachets of shabu which you retrieved from
all the accused in this case, will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: I am
showing to you two (2) plastic sachets of shabu, will
you please go over the same and tell us what is the relation of two plastic
sachets to the one you confiscated?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: What is
the relation of this Mr. Witness?
A: This
is the same sir.
Court: Why are
you certain that these are the same you picked up inside the Tamaraw FX?
A: I know
it, the other plastic is longer than the other one.
x x x
x
Q: Now Mr.
Witness just a while ago you were being asked by the Honorable Court whether
you can identify the two (2) sachets as a matter of fact it was presented to
you and you already identified the same?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Do you
confirm to this Honorable Court that you [did] not put any marking?
A: It is
our investigator who placed marking there sir.[35]
Undoubtedly, the identity of the corpus delicti
has been duly established by the prosecution in this case.[36]
We are convinced that in the evening
of
The Court of Appeals imposed on petitioner
the indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional as maximum. In Teodosio v. Court of
Appeals,[37]
which cited People v. Simon,[38]
the Court spelled out the proper penalties for drug-related crimes under Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetua
if the quantity of the drug weighs 750 grams or more. If the drug weighs less
than 250 grams, the penalty to be imposed is prision correccional; from 250 grams to 499
grams, prision mayor; and, from 500 grams to 749
grams, reclusion temporal.
In the instant case, the Reports of
Forensic Analyst Juanita D. Sioson show that the two plastic
sachets contained the total weight of 0.19 gram. Since the quantity of the shabu weighs less
than 250 grams, the proper penalty should be no more than prision correccional. There being neither generic mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances, the penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed in its
medium period. And applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree which is arresto mayor. Thus, the imposition of the penalty of 6
months of arresto mayor, as minimum to 4 years and 2
months of prision correccional
as maximum is proper. No fine is imposable in this case because petitioner’s
penalty is not reclusion perpetua or death.[39]
WHEREFORE, the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 25188 which affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court Caloocan City,
Branch 120, convicting petitioner Ermin Dacles y Oledo for violation of
Section 27, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, and sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate penalty from 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum to 4 years and 2
months of prision correccional
as maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
* Justice
Renato C. Corona was designated to sit as additional
member replacing Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
per Raffle dated
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon with Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Santiago Javier Ranada, concurring; rollo, pp. 68-77.
[2] Penned by Judge Victorino S. Alvaro; rollo, pp. 41-46.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] TSN,
[5] Records, p. 203.
[6] TSN,
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] TSN,
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] TSN,
[17]
[18]
[19] Rollo, p. 46.
[20] Records, p. 360.
[21] Rollo, pp. 68-77.
[22]
[23]
[24] People
v. Jubail, G.R. No. 143718,
[25] People
v. Miranda, G.R. No. 174773,
[26] 378 Phil. 660 (1999).
[27] 443 Phil. 246 (2003).
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31]
[32] TSN,
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35] TSN,
[36] People
v. Miranda, supra note 25 at 568; People
v. Manalo, G.R. No. 107623,
[37] G.R. No. 124346,
[38] G.R. No. 93028,
[39] Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, supra note 37.