FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee, - versus - RANDY
MAGBANUA alias “BOYUNG” and WILSON
MAGBANUA, Accused-appellants. |
G.R. No. 170137
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CORONA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, and BERSAMIN,
JJ. Promulgated: August
27, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D
E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from the
September 28, 2005 Decision[1] of
the Court Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01063, affirming the February 7,
2003 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 59 (RTC) in Criminal Case No.
99-1569, convicting accused-appellants Randy Magbanua (Randy) and Wilson
Magbanua (Wilson) for violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6425; sentencing them to reclusion
perpetua, and ordering each of them to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P500,000.00).
In an
Information[3] dated
December 8, 1999, accused-appellants were charged with illegal possession of four
bricks of marijuana as follows:
That on or about the 26th
day of November 1999 in front of KC 1, Mac-Arthur Hi-way, Brgy. Dau,
Municipality of Mabalacat, province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, RANDY P.
MAGBANUA and WILSON P. MAGBANUA, conspiring, confederating together and
mutually helping one another, without any authority of law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and
control four (4) bricks of marijuana fruiting tops weighing THREE KILOS (3
kilos) and NINE HUNDRED TEN AND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS
(910.0276) of a gram, a prohibited drug.
Upon
arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and trial ensued thereafter.
On February 7, 2003, the RTC
rendered a judgment of conviction.
xxx
[O]n November 26, 1999 at around 11:50 o’clock in the morning, SPO1 Alberto M.
Javier, Jr., upon instruction of P/S Insp. Jorge Bustos, was conducting traffic
in front of KC 1,
Immediately
thereafter, the apprehending officers turned over to their office the lightly
tinted car, a Tanita weighing scale found on the dash board (Exhibit G), a
cellular phone, and accused Randy and Wilson Magbanua for possession of
suspected marijuana. PO2 Cordero, being
the Duty Investigator then, conducted the investigation. The bricks of marijuana, which were
confiscated from the car, were brought to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory for an examination. Said
bricks were found to have a total weight of 3.766 kgs. and are positive for
marijuana, a prohibited drug. Both
accused implicated a Japanese national as their financier.
Forthwith,
a follow-up investigation on Uehara Mikio, a Japanese national, was conducted
and led by P/C Insp. Lamberto P. Ocampo, P/C Insp. Danilo C. Maniti and P/Insp.
Jorge Antonio P. Bustos. At 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of November
26, 1999, the police elements and the Magbanua brothers, armed with a Travel
Order, went to
PO2
Cordero and SPO1 Javier executed an Affidavit of Arrest (Exhibit D), and PO2
Cordero, an Investigation Report (Exhibit C).
SPO3 Eduardo T. Raquidan filed a Criminal Complaint dated November 29,
1999 against the two accused and Uehara Mikio before the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Mabalacat, Pampanga.
Later on, the case was dismissed against Uehara only for lack of
jurisdiction. On November 29, 1999, the
confiscated bricks of marijuana were brought to the Philippine National Police
Crime Laboratory in
Edgardo
S. Reyes, the owners of the Toyota Corolla XL car with plate no. ULR-467, rents
out his car to Antonio and Rose Palces, the owners of a rent-a-car shop. In December 1999, Reyes went with Palces to
Mabalacat, Pampanga and was able to ask for the release of his car from
impoundment for a drug case upon execution of an affidavit of undertaking.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds accused RANDY P.
MAGBANUA alias “BOYUNG” and WILSON
P. MAGBANUA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of
Section 8, Article III[4] of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and hereby sentences each of them to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand pesos (P500,000.00) each, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Upon filing of a Notice
of Appeal, the RTC elevated the records of the case directly to this Court. In the Resolution dated February 11, 2004, the
Court accepted the appeal and required the parties to file their respective
briefs. However, pursuant to the ruling
in People v. Mateo,[5] promulgated on
July 7, 2004, the case was transferred to the CA.
On September 28, 2005, the
CA rendered the herein challenged Decision affirming the decision of the RTC thus:
xxx There
is no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of marijuana was proven
beyond reasonable doubt since the accused-appellants knowingly possess the said
prohibited drug as it was found at the back seat of the car, without legal
authority. The four (4) bricks of dried
suspected marijuana found in the accused-appellants’ possession, upon
laboratory examination, were positively identified as marijuana, a prohibited
drug.
The
incriminatory evidence on record adequately established the accused-appellants’
guilt beyond moral certainty for the possession of marijuana.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal
is DISMISSED. Costs against the accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
In their respective
briefs, the prosecution and the defense presented conflicting versions of the
facts of the case.
While the
prosecution stood by the facts as found by the RTC, accused-appellants claimed
that the RTC and the CA erred in convicting them because their guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even as
they admitted that the marijuana was
seized from the vehicle with them on board, they denied having knowledge of its
existence. They offered a different
version of the facts of the case.
According to
accused-appellants, the marijuana
belonged to a Japanese national, a certain Uehara Mikio. On November 26, 1999, Randy, who then worked
as a driver for a rent a car service company, asked his brother Wilson to
accompany him to Angeles, Pampanga to fetch a certain Mr. Tamayama, a Japanese
national, and his Filipina companion at the America Hotel. Tamayama carried a black bag which
accused-appellants placed at the trunk of the car. The party drove to the duty-free shop in
Clark. After an hour, Tamayama and the
girlfriend told accused-appellants to proceed to Paco Park Hotel where Uehara
will pick up the bag from them. On their
way to P300,000.00. Thereafter Uehara handed P150,000.00,
a Rolex watch, a racket and a diamond ring to Major Ocampo.[6] P/C Insp. Lamberto Ocampo took part in the
follow-up operations after the arrest of the accused-appellants. The latter were directed to call up the
Japanese national who told them to buy marijuana. Wilson saw the arrest of the Japanese
national at the Paco Park Hotel in Ermita, Manila.[7]
Accused-appellants
contend that the CA committed reversible error in affirming the judgment of
conviction of the RTC which relied heavily on the allegedly inconsistent,
contradictory and implausible testimonies of prosecution witnesses SP01 Alberto
Javier (SPO1 Javier) and P02 Noel Cordero.
Accused-appellants
point to the inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witness SPO1 Javier. SPO1 Javier testified that when accused-appellants
alighted from the vehicle, he found four (4) bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper, a weighing scale and a cellular
phone. He identified the bricks of marijuana thru his initials.[8] However, on cross-examination, the same
witness stated that he saw the weighing scale only when the same was brought to
their office.[9] Likewise, SPO1 Javier denied placing his
initials on the bricks of marijuana,
and only saw the initials when the marijuana
was presented in court.[10] Accused-appellants contend that if SPO1 Javier
only saw the initials during the trial of the case, he could not have identified
the specimens presented in court as the ones confiscated from
accused-appellants.
According to accused-appellants,
the two police officers could not agree as to how they were able to discover
the presence of marijuana inside the
vehicle. SPO1 Javier stated that it was
PO2 Cordero who first approached the vehicle, ordered the accused-appellants to
step down from the vehicle and then they smelled something in the car. On the other hand, PO2 Cordero testified that
it was SPO1 Javier who approached the vehicle and when the window was opened,
that was the time they smelled something leading them to conduct an inspection
inside the vehicle. Moreover, the trial
court took into consideration the admission of the existence of bricks of marijuana and that these were found
inside the car in arriving at its decision.
However, accused-appellants argued that it was still incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
We are not
persuaded.
Contrary to accused-appellants’
assertion, there is no real inconsistency between the testimonies of SPO1
Javier and PO2 Cordero.
While SPO1
Javier testified that aside from the marijuana,
they also found a weighing scale inside the car, there is nothing on record
that SPO1 Javier categorically stated that the same was found simultaneously
with the marijuana. The testimonies of SPO1 Javier and PO2 Cordero
were consistent in that they saw the weighing scale when it was brought inside
their office.[11]
We find of
little significance the fact that SPO1 Javier was not the one who placed his
initials on the confiscated marijuana.
PO2 Cordero explained that he was the
one who placed his and SPO1 Javier’s initials on the marijuana because he was the one tasked as the investigating
officer even though SPO1 Javier was with him at the time the marijuana was discovered at the backseat
of the car.[12] At any rate, during trial, SPO1 Javier easily
identified the marijuana which had
their initials affixed by PO2 Cordero.[13]
The two police
officers also consistently testified that it was PO2 Cordero who flagged down
the car and was the first to approach accused-appellants’ car since it went
past SPO1 Javier after Wilson ignored SPO1 Javier’s halt signal to give way to
crossing pedestrians. Thereafter, SPO1
Javier approached PO2 Cordero to assist him.
The police officers smelled the aroma of marijuana after
The alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the two (2) police officers pointed out
by the accused-appellants are not material but relate only to minor
matters. What is essential in a
conviction for violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended,
is that the possession of the prohibited drug must be duly established.
As long as the
testimonies of the witnesses corroborate each other on material points, the
minor inconsistencies therein cannot destroy their credibility.[15] Such minor inconsistencies may even
serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their
testimonies are fabricated or rehearsed. Even the most candid of witnesses commit
mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements.[16]
Generally, courts
give full faith and credit to police officers for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner.
Courts cannot simply set aside their testimonies where there is no
showing that the search conducted on the accused-appellants was clearly
violative of their constitutional rights or the said search was a mere ploy to
extort on the part of the police officers.
While on this subject, we declare accused-appellants’ insinuation of
mulcting on the part of Major Ocampo and Major Maniti to be unfounded. As pointed out by the RTC, the confiscation
of Uehara’s jewelry and watch was properly documented by Confiscation Receipts.
The same were later on released to and received by Uehara’s counsel.
Accused-appellants failed to show any motive why the arresting police
officers would falsely impute a serious crime against them. Without such proof and with the presumption
that official duty was performed regularly, the findings of the trial court on
the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over accused-appellants’
self-serving and uncorroborated denial.
Anent the contention that
the absence of a confiscation receipt or inventory of the items confiscated
from them casts doubt as to accused-appellants culpability of the crime charged,
such argument deserves scant consideration.
In the case of Yolly Teodosio y Blancaflor v. Court of
Appeals and People of the Philippines,[17] the
Court belittled the argument that the prosecution’s case was weakened by the
fact that the police officers did not issue a receipt for the confiscated drugs
and declared that issuing such a receipt is not essential to establishing a
criminal case for selling drugs as it is not an element of the crime. Neither is it an element of illegal
possession of prohibited drug.
The
evidence for the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements
necessary to successfully prosecute a case for illegal possession of a prohibited
drug, namely, (a) the accused-appellants were in possession of an item or an
object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (b) such possession was
not authorized by law, and (c) the accused-appellants freely and consciously
possessed said drug.[18] Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as
amended, provides:
SEC.
8. Possession or Use of Prohibited
Drugs. – The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by
law, shall possess or use any prohibited drug subject to provisions of Section
20 hereof.
Under
this Section, the mere possession of any prohibited drug consummates the
crime. The charge of illegal possession
of marijuana was proven beyond
reasonable doubt as it was found at the back seat of the car with
accused-appellants, without legal authority.
The four (4) bricks of dried suspected marijuana found in the accused-appellants’ possession, upon
laboratory examination, were positively identified as marijuana, a prohibited drug.
As long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, the failure to issue a receipt will not render the items
seized/confiscated inadmissible as evidence. As held by the Court in People v. Alvin Pringas,[19] what is of utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Here,
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items involved were
safeguarded. The seized drugs were
immediately marked for proper identification.
Thereafter, they were forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination.
Well-settled is the rule that
prosecutions involving the possession of illegal drugs depend largely on the
credibility of the police officer. This
Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings. Thus, the Court relies heavily on the rule
that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in the
testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court which had the unique
opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct, and manner while
testifying. Hence, its factual findings
are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of
weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misapplied.[20]
Accordingly, the Court
finds and so holds that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming the
decision of the RTC finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
WHEREFORE, the present
appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the CA in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 01063 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Danilo B. Pine (ret.) and Vicente E. Veloso, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-13.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 24-47.
[3] Records, volume I, p. 2.
[4] Should be Article II.
[5] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[6] TSN, April 23, 2002, pp. 2-8.
[7] Record, pp. 93-94.
[8] TSN, June 29, 2000, pp. 6-7.
[9] TSN, July 25, 2000, p. 16.
[10] TSN, July 25, 2000, p. 19.
[11] TSN, July 25, 2000, p. 16; TSN, March 15, 2001, pp. 13, 17.
[12] TSN, January 18, 2001, pp. 3-4.
[13] TSN, June 29, 2000, pp. 6-7.
[14] TSN, July 25, 2000, pp.12-14; TSN, October 26, 2000, pp. 7-10; TSN, March 15, 2001, p. 12.
[15] People
v. Emilio Rabutin, G.R. Nos. 118131-32, May 5, 1997, 272 SCRA 197, 206.
[16] People v. Jose Bulan and Allan Bulan, G.R. No. 143404, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 550, 563-564.
[17] G.R. No. 124346, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 194, 207.
[18] People v. Khor, G.R. No. 126391, May 19, 1999, 307 SCRA 295.
[19] G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 843.
[20] People v. Chen Tiz Chang and Cheng Jung San a.k.a. Willy Tan, G.R. Nos. 131872-73, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 776, 778.