Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. Nos.

158613-14 February 22, 2 6

EMM!NUE" T. PONTE#OS, Petitioner, vs. OFF$CE OF T%E OM&U'SM!N a() REST$TUTO !*U$NO, Respondents. D !ISION P!NG!N$&!N, CJ.: The !onstitution and the O"buds"an #ct of $%&% have endo'ed the Office of the O"buds"an (OM)* 'ith a 'ide latitude of investi+ator, and prosecutorial po'ers -- virtuall, free fro" le+islative, e.ecutive or /udicial intervention -- in order to insulate it fro" outside pressure and i"proper influence. 0nless tainted 'ith +rave abuse of discretion, the /ud+"ents and orders of the OM) shall not be reversed, "odified or other'ise interfered 'ith b, this !ourt. The !ase )efore us is a Petition for !ertiorari$ under Rule 12 of the Rules of !ourt, assailin+ the Februar, $%, $%%% 3oint Resolution,4 Ma, 4$, 4554 Revie' and Reco""endation6 and March $7, 4556 Order7 of the valuation and Preli"inar, Investi+ation )ureau of the OM). The challen+ed Resolution disposed as follo's8 9:; R FOR , pre"ises considered, the follo'in+ are respectfull, reco""ended, thus8 <$. That an Infor"ation for stafa (one count* be filed a+ainst respondent MM#N0 = T. PONT 3OS before the Re+ional Trial !ourt of >ue?on !it,@ <4. That an Infor"ation for Direct )riber, be filed a+ainst respondent #tt,. MM#N0 = T. PONT 3OS before the Re+ional Trial !ourt of >ue?on !it,@ <6. That an Infor"ation for 0nauthori?ed Practice of Profession in violation of R.#. 1A$6 be filed a+ainst #tt,. MM#N0 = T. PONT 3OS before the Metropolitan Trial !ourt of >ue?on !it,@ and <7. That the co"plaint a+ainst Director :I=FR DO I. IMP RI#= and ROD RI!B NCO be dis"issed for insufficienc, of evidence@ and

<2. That respondent !#RM N!IT# #TOS D. R0IE be e.tended i""unit, fro" cri"inal prosecution in accordance 'ith Section $A of R.#. 1AA5 and be utili?ed as a state 'itness.F92 The Revie' and Reco""endation disapproved #ssistant !it, Prosecutor De Cu?"anFs reco""endation to a"end the Infor"ation for estafa b, includin+ #tos as a co-accused@ 'hile the Order denied reconsideration. The Facts So"eti"e in $%%&, Restituto P. #Guino filed an #ffidavitH!o"plaint before the O"buds"an a+ainst ""anuel T. Ponte/os (arbiter*, :ilfredo I. I"perial (re+ional director* and !ar"encita R. #tos (le+al staff*, all of the" officials of the ;ousin+ and =and 0se Re+ulator, )oard (;=0R)*, and RodericI N+o, a private individual.1 #Guino accused Ponte/os and #tos of conspirin+ to e.act "one, in e.chan+e for a favorable decision of a case a+ainst RodericI N+o then pendin+ in the ;=0R). ;e further averred that Ponte/os acted as his counsel durin+ the ti"e 'hen the latter 'as the hearin+ officer of the case.A Moreover, #tos alle+edl, received P$5,555 in checI, 'hich 'as part of the consideration for a favorable decision. I"perial 'as i"plicated as an alle+ed acco"plice.& Durin+ preli"inar, investi+ation, the follo'in+ docu"ents 'ere adduced8 9a. #ffidavit-co"plaint of Restituto P. #Guino, dated $7 #u+ust $%%& 'hereb, the co"plainant narrated at len+th the char+es a+ainst respondents@ 9b. #ffidavit of Ruth #del in corroboration of Mr. #GuinoFs affidavit@ 9c. #nother affidavit of Mr. Restituto P. #Guino 'herein he revealed the "onths and dates 'here he had "eetin+s 'ith #tt,. Ponte/os and !ar"en #tos at #lps Restaurant, RacIs Restaurant, =ittle >uiapo (>.!.* and !ho'Iin+ Restaurant@ 9d. #nother affidavit of Ruth #del, 'herein the affiant revealed that Ms. !ar"en #tos received P$5,555.55 in checI and had it encashed@ 9e. #ffidavit of Ro'ena #lcovindas corroboratin+ #delFs affidavit@ 9f. # cop, of the encashed checI sho'in+ Ms. #tos si+nature at the bacI of the checI@ 9+. !opies of several drafts of decision and petitions either prepared in hand'ritin+ of #tt,. Ponte/os or in t,pe'ritten for" 'ith corrections fro" #tt,. Ponte/os in his hand'ritin+@ 9h. N)I .a"ination Report revealin+ that the sa"ples and Guestioned docu"ents 'ere authored b, one person (#tt,. Ponte/os* . . ..

9i. #nother affidavit dated $2 Februar, $%%%, of J!Ko"plainant #Guino, 'herein he "entioned the places and dates of supposed "eetin+s 'ith Ponte/os and #tos as 'ell as the a"ounts received b, the" in e.chan+e of le+al services andHor favor pro"ised.9% The respondents filed separate !ounter-#ffidavits to refute the char+es.$5 The, clai"ed that the "eetin+s "entioned b, #Guino did not taIe place. Neither did the, receive an, "one, fro" hi".$$ Ponte/os added that there 'ere three cases involvin+ #Guino. The first one, R M-&124 'as filed in $%%2 a+ainst #Guino b, bu,ers of lots in a subdivision 'hich he alle+edl, failed to develop. The second one, R M-%241 'as filed b, #Guino a+ainst ;a""ercon Inc. (alle+edl, o'ned b, RodericI N+o* for revocation of re+istration and license. The third case, R M-%&$A 'as filed b, #Guino a+ainst ;a""ercon for specific perfor"ance or rescission of contract.$4 Ponte/os decided the first and third cases a+ainst #Guino. The second case, handled b, I"perial, 'as also decided a+ainst #Guino. It 'as alle+edl, i"plausible to side 'ith #Guino, 'ho lost all of the cases.$6 I"perial denied all linIs to the e.tortion alle+edl, perpetrated b, Ponte/os and #tos. Moreover, he could not have shared 'ith the alle+ed pa,-off "one, +iven in 3anuar, $%%&, because he decided the case as far bacI as Septe"ber $%%A.$7 #tos /ustified receipt of the P$5,555 fro" #Guino, clai"in+ that it 'as pa,"ent for ha"s and cold cuts ordered in Dece"ber $%%1 and 3anuar, $%%A b, Ruth #del, one of the affiants.$2 In support of this defense, she sub"itted 3oint-#ffidavits of her office"ates and nei+hbors confir"in+ her business activities.$1 SubseGuentl,, #tos issued t'o #ffidavits 'here she retracted her ori+inal defense.$A She encashed the checI alle+edl, to acco""odate Ponte/os, 'ho 'as her boss. She also recounted attendin+ at least four "eetin+s 'ith Ponte/os, #Guino and #del durin+ 'hich Ponte/os offered le+al services to #Guino and discussed #GuinoFs pendin+ cases.$& Rulin+ of the Overall Deput, O"buds"an The Overall Deput, O"buds"an found probable cause a+ainst Ponte/os for the cri"es of estafa, direct briber, and ille+al practice of profession in violation of R# 1A$6. There 'as estafa because Ponte/os alle+edl, "ade false pretenses to #Guino in order to receive P42,555.$% ;e supposedl, assured the cancellation of ;a""erconFs license to sell and re+istration certificate, not'ithstandin+ the contrar, decision issued b, I"perial.45 Ponte/os 'as +uilt, of direct briber, for de"andin+ and receivin+ P$55,555 fro" #Guino in e.chan+e for a favorable decision.4$ Further, Ponte/os should be char+ed 'ith unauthori?ed practice of la' for providin+ le+al services to #Guino and receivin+ liti+ation e.penses.44 ;e purportedl, prepared the pleadin+s that #Guino sub"itted@ these pleadin+s 'here confir"ed b, the N)I to have been authored b, hi".46

The Overall Deput, O"buds"an ruled that #tos should be e.tended i""unit, fro" cri"inal prosecution and dischar+ed as state 'itness.47 #ccordin+ to hi", #tos 'as "erel, a subordinate 'ho could have acted onl, upon the proddin+ of Ponte/os. #lso, her testi"on, 'as necessar, to build a case a+ainst Ponte/os.42 On 3une 4$, $%%%, then O"buds"an #niano #. Desierto issued a Resolution e.tendin+ i""unit, to #tos on the condition that she 'ould appear and testif, a+ainst Ponte/os in accordance 'ith the #ffidavits she sub"itted durin+ the preli"inar, investi+ation.41 The Resolution noted that #tosF testi"on, 'as e.tre"el, necessar, to prove the offenses char+ed a+ainst Ponte/os and that the available evidence sho'ed that, bein+ a "ere clerI, she did not appear to be the "ost +uilt,.4A The cri"inal cases for estafa and direct briber, a+ainst Ponte/os 'ere filed before the Re+ional Trial !ourt of >ue?on !it,.4& On Ma, $6, $%%%, Ponte/os filed a Motion for Reinvesti+ation4% to be conducted b, the !it, Prosecutor 'ithout re"andin+ the case to the O"buds"an. The prosecution had no ob/ection. Thus, hearin+ of the case 'as held in abe,ance pendin+ the outco"e of the reinvesti+ation.65 #ssistant !it, Prosecutor Ma. Teresa . De Cu?"an conducted the reinvesti+ation and thereafter reco""ended to a"end the Infor"ation for estafa to include #tos as co-accused. #ccordin+ to her, the po'er to +rant i""unit, pertains solel, to the courts, not to the prosecution 'hich can onl, reco""end.6$ The Overall Deput, O"buds"an disapproved De Cu?"anFs report in the Ma, 4$, 4554 Revie' and Reco""endation. The March $7, 4556 Order denied reconsideration. Thereafter, Ponte/os filed this Petition.64 The Issues Petitioner raises the follo'in+ issues8 9$. :hether or not the O"buds"an erred in not declarin+ that petitioner 'as denied due process 'hen to this date he 'as never officiall, furnished a cop, of the #ffidavit dated $& Februar, $%%% of Ms. #tos a"ountin+ to lacI of or e.cess of /urisdiction@ 94. :hether or not proceedin+s before the O"buds"an 'as tainted 'ith ill "otives a"ountin+ to lacI of or e.cess of /urisdiction@ 96. :hether or not the O"buds"an co""itted +rave abuse of discretion a"ountin+ to lacI of or e.cess of /urisdiction 'hen it +ranted an i""unit, to Ms. #tos to beco"e a state 'itness on al"ost the sa"e date the #ffidavit 'as e.ecuted and sub"itted@ 97. :hether or not the O"buds"an erred in sin+lin+ out petitioner for cri"inal prosecution a"ountin+ to lacI of or e.cess of /urisdiction@

92. :hether or not the O"buds"an erred in +ivin+ 'ei+ht to the #ffidavit dated $& Februar, $%%% of Ms. #tos despite an earlier affidavit 'hich totall, contradicts her aver"ents therein.966 The !ourtFs Rulin+ The Petition is un"eritorious. First Issue8 Findin+ of Probable !ause Probable cause is defined as such facts and circu"stances that 'ould en+ender a 'ell-founded belief that a cri"e has been co""itted and that the respondent is probabl, +uilt, thereof and should be held for trial.67 Its deter"ination durin+ a preli"inar, investi+ation is a function left to the +overn"ent prosecutor, 'hich in this case is the OM).62 #s a rule, the courts do not interfere 'ith the OM)Fs e.ercise of discretion in deter"inin+ probable cause unless there are co"pellin+ reasons.61 This polic, is based on constitutional, statutor, and practical considerations. The !onstitution and R# 1AA5 (the O"buds"an #ct of $%&%* +rants the OM) 'ith a 'ide latitude of investi+ator, and prosecutorial po'ers that is virtuall, free fro" e.ecutive, le+islative or /udicial intervention, in order to insulate it fro" outside pressure and i"proper influence.6A ;o'ever, there are certain instances 'hen this !ourt "a, intervene in the prosecution of cases. )rocIa v. nrile6& cited so"e of these e.ceptions, as follo's8 ($* 'hen necessar, to afford adeGuate protection to the constitutional ri+hts of the accused@ (4* 'hen necessar, for the orderl, ad"inistration of /ustice or to avoid oppression or "ultiplicit, of actions@ (6* 'hen there is a pre/udicial Guestion 'hich is sub /udice@ (7* 'hen the acts of the officer are 'ithout or in e.cess of authorit,@ (2* 'here the prosecution is under an invalid la', ordinance or re+ulation@ (1* 'hen double /eopard, is clearl, apparent@ (A* 'here the court has no /urisdiction over the offense@ (&* 'here it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution@ (%* 'here the char+es are "anifestl, false and "otivated b, the lust for ven+eance@ and ($5* 'hen there is clearl, no pri"a facie case a+ainst the accused and a "otion to Guash on that +round has been denied.6% The re"ed, to challen+e the OM)Fs orders or resolutions in cri"inal cases is throu+h a petition for certiorari under Rule 12 to this !ourt.75 Crave #buse of Discretion # petition for certiorari is the re"ed, 'hen a +overn"ent officer has acted 'ith +rave abuse of discretion a"ountin+ to lacI or e.cess of /urisdiction, and there is no other plain, speed,, and adeGuate re"ed, in the ordinar, course of la'.7$ Crave abuse of discretion i"plies a capricious and 'hi"sical e.ercise of /ud+"ent tanta"ount to lacI of /urisdiction.74 The e.ercise of po'er "ust have been done in an arbitrar, or despotic "anner b, reason of passion or personal hostilit,. It "ust be so patent and +ross as to a"ount to

an evasion of positive dut, or a virtual refusal to perfor" the dut, en/oined or to act at all in conte"plation of la'.76 Petitioner theori?es that the OM) resolved the !o"plaint a+ainst hi" for reasons other than the "erits of the case. ;e specificall, char+es ;=0R) !o""issioner Teresita Desierto, the spouse of O"buds"an Desierto, as the 9unseen hand9 behind the filin+ of the cri"inal cases.77 !o""issioner Desierto alle+edl, harbored resent"ent a+ainst hi" for si+nin+ a Manifesto72 issued b, so"e la',ers in the ;=0R).71 ;e also recalls !o""issioner Desierto threatenin+ hi" if he did not resi+n fro" the ;=0R). Thus, he concludes that the proceedin+s before the OM) 'ere tainted 'ith ill "otives.7A :e cannot accept petitionerFs ar+u"ents. The !ourt observes that his ar+u"ents are "erel, con/ectures bereft of an, proof. ;e presented absolutel, no evidence of an, irre+ularit, in the proceedin+s before the OM). There 'as no sho'in+ that !o""issioner Desierto interfered in an, "anner in the proceedin+s before the OM). Other than petitionerFs bare assertions, there 'as also no proof that !o""issioner Desierto bore a +rud+e a+ainst Ponte/os. Petitioner failed to substantiate his alle+ation of +rave abuse of discretion. On the other hand, there 'as sufficient evidence to support the findin+ of probable cause. vidence presented durin+ the preli"inar, investi+ation en+ender a 'ell-founded belief that cri"es have been co""itted and that Ponte/os is probabl, +uilt, thereof for 'hich he should be held for trial. The !ourt is therefore precluded fro" interferin+ in the OM)Fs discretion to file the cri"inal cases a+ainst petitioner. To be sure, +reat respect "ust be accorded to the OM)Fs e.ercise of its constitutionall, "andated functions. 0nless clearl, sho'n to have been issued 'ith +rave abuse of discretion, these /ud+"ents are not interfered 'ith. Second Issue8 I""unit, fro" Prosecution The decision on 'hether to prosecute and 'ho" to indict is e.ecutive in character.7& It is the prosecution that could essentiall, deter"ine the stren+th of pursuin+ a case a+ainst an accused. The prosecutorial po'ers include the discretion of +rantin+ i""unit, to an accused in e.chan+e for testi"on, a+ainst another. Thus, Mapa v. Sandi+anba,an7% e.plained8 9The decision to +rant i""unit, fro" prosecution for"s a constituent part of the prosecution process. It is essentiall, a tactical decision to fore+o prosecution of a person for +overn"ent to achieve a hi+her ob/ective. It is a deliberate renunciation of the ri+ht of the State to prosecute all 'ho appear to be +uilt, of havin+ co""itted a cri"e. Its /ustification lies in the particular need of the State to obtain the conviction of the "ore +uilt, cri"inals 'ho, other'ise, 'ill probabl, elude the lon+ ar" of the la'. :hether or not the delicate po'er should be e.ercised, 'ho should be e.tended the privile+e, the ti"in+ of its +rant, are Guestions addressed solel, to the sound /ud+"ent of the prosecution. The po'er to prosecute includes the ri+ht to deter"ine 'ho shall be prosecuted and the corollar, ri+ht to decide 'ho" not to prosecute.925

It is constitutionall, per"issible for !on+ress to vest the prosecutor 'ith the po'er to deter"ine 'ho can Gualif, as a 'itness and be +ranted i""unit, fro" prosecution.2$ Note'orth,, there are "an, la's that allo' +overn"ent investi+ators and prosecutors to +rant i""unit,.24 In relation to this, the !ourt has previousl, upheld the discretion of the Depart"ent of 3ustice (DO3*,26 !o""ission on lections (!o"elec*,27 and the Presidential !o""ission on Cood Covern"ent (P!CC*22 to +rant i""unit, fro" prosecution on the basis of the respective la's that vested the" 'ith such po'er. The OM) 'as also vested 'ith the po'er to +rant i""unit, fro" prosecution, thus8 9S !. $A. . . .. 90nder such ter"s and conditions as it "a, deter"ine, taIin+ into account the pertinent provisions of the Rules of !ourt, the O"buds"an "a, +rant i""unit, fro" cri"inal prosecution to an, person 'hose testi"on, or 'hose possession and production of docu"ents or other evidence "a, be necessar, to deter"ine the truth in an, hearin+, inGuir, or proceedin+ bein+ conducted b, the O"buds"an or under its authorit,, in the perfor"ance or in the furtherance of its constitutional functions and statutor, ob/ectives. . . ..921 #ccordin+ to Ponte/os, the OM)Fs authorit, to +rant i""unit, is sub/ect to the 9pertinent provisions of the Rules of !ourt.9 ;e clai"s that the procedural rules allo' the dischar+e of an accused as state 'itness onl, upon confor"it, of the trial court.2A #n infor"ation a+ainst the accused "ust first be filed in court prior to the dischar+e. Moreover, the prosecution could onl, reco""end and propose, but not +rant i""unit,.2& The pertinent provision of the Rules of !ourt reads8 9Sec. $A. Dischar+e of accused to be state 'itness. L:hen t'o or "ore persons are /ointl, char+ed 'ith the co""ission of an, offense, upon "otion of the prosecution before restin+ its case, the court "a, direct one or "ore of the accused to be dischar+ed 'ith their consent so that the, "a, be 'itnesses for the state 'hen after reGuirin+ the prosecution to present evidence and the s'orn state"ent of each proposed state 'itness at a hearin+ in support of the dischar+e, the court is satisfied that8 <(a* There is absolute necessit, for the testi"on, of the accused 'hose dischar+e is reGuested@ <(b* There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense co""itted, e.cept the testi"on, of said accused@ <(c* The testi"on, of said accused can be substantiall, corroborated in its "aterial points@ <(d* Said accused does not appear to be the "ost +uilt,@ and

<(e* Said accused has not at an, ti"e been convicted of an, offense involvin+ "oral turpitude. < vidence adduced in support of the dischar+e shall auto"aticall, for" part of the trial. If the court denies the "otion for dischar+e of the accused as state 'itness, his s'orn state"ent shall be inad"issible in evidence.F92% The !ourt has alread, held that this provision is applicable onl, to cases alread, filed in court.15 The trial court is +iven the po'er to dischar+e an accused as a state 'itness onl, because it has alread, acGuired /urisdiction over the cri"e and the accused.1$ #s stated earlier, the po'er to choose 'ho to dischar+e as state 'itness is an e.ecutive function. ssentiall,, it is not a /udicial prero+ative.14 The fact that an individual had not been previousl, char+ed or included in an infor"ation does not prevent the prosecution fro" utili?in+ said person as a 'itness.16 Section $A of the O"buds"an #ct reGuires confor"it, 'ith the Rules of !ourt. #ccordin+l,, this should be read as reGuirin+ the follo'in+ circu"stances prior to the dischar+e8 ($* absolute necessit, for the testi"on, of the accused sou+ht to be dischar+ed@ (4* no direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense co""itted e.cept the testi"on, of the said accused@ (6* the testi"on, of the said accused can be substantiall, corroborated in its "aterial points@ (7* said accused does not appear to be "ost +uilt,@ and (2* said accused has not an, ti"e been convicted of an, offense involvin+ "oral turpitude. Indeed, there "ust be a standard to follo' in the e.ercise of the prosecutorFs discretion. The decision to +rant i""unit, cannot be "ade capriciousl,. Should there be un/ust favoritis", the !ourt "a, e.ercise its certiorari po'er. In the present case, certiorari is not proper. Ponte/osF alle+ations do not sho', "uch less alle+e, +rave abuse of discretion in the +rantin+ of i""unit, to #tos.17 The OM) considered #tosF position, record and involve"ent in the case prior to the dischar+e.12 Ponte/os also clai"s that he 'as not furnished a cop, of #tosF #ffidavit that connected hi" to the cri"es.11 Since he 'as not afforded the opportunit, to challen+e the assertions in said #ffidavit, his ri+ht to due process had alle+edl, been violated. The alle+ed denial of due process is controverted b, the facts. It appears fro" the records that Ponte/os eventuall, received a cop, of the afore"entioned #ffidavit.1A More i"portantl,, he had challen+ed the #ffidavit in his Motion for Reinvesti+ation1& and reGuest for reconsideration of the Revie' and Reco""endation of the Overall Deput, O"buds"an.1% Ponte/osF contention "ust necessaril, fail because -- as sho'n -- he had the opportunit, to be heard and in fact, availed of it. #s a final note, Ponte/os has "ade it appear that the cri"inal cases filed a+ainst hi" 'ere based on ill "otives. ;is ar+u"ents challen+e the evidence +athered. It is readil, apparent that these ar+u"ents should be raised as defenses durin+ the trial, not in the present Petition.

:; R FOR , the Petition is D NI D. !osts a+ainst petitioner. SO ORD R D. !RTEM$O +. P!NG!N$&!N !hief 3ustice !hair"an, First Division Foo,(o,es
$

Rollo, pp. 6-4%.

Id., pp. 66-7%. Prepared b, Craft Investi+ation Officer II Ro+elio #. Rin+pis, reco""ended b, Director #n+el !. Ma,oral+o 3r., revie'ed b, #ssistant O"buds"an #belardo =. #portadera 3r. and approved b, Overall Deput, O"buds"an Francisco #. Villa.
6

Id., pp. 2&-17. Prepared b, Craft Investi+ation Officer $ Francisca #. Maullon-Serfino, revie'ed b, Director Pela+io S. #postol, reco""ended b, Deput, Special Prosecutor Robert . Ballos and approved b, Overall Deput, O"buds"an Mar+arito P. Cervacio 3r.
7

Id., pp. 1%-A6. Prepared b, Craft Investi+ation Officer $ M,rna #. !orral, revie'ed b, Director 3ose T. de 3esus 3r., reco""ended b, #ssistant O"buds"an Pela+io S. #postol and approved b, Overall Deput, O"buds"an Mar+arito P. Cervacio 3r.
2

Id., pp. 7&-7%.

#ssailed 3oint Resolution dated Februar, $%, $%%%, pp. $-4@ rollo, pp. 66-67@ #ssailed Revie' and Reco""endation, pp. $-4@ rollo, pp. 2&-2%. See also #ffidavitH!o"plaint@ rollo, pp. A2-A%.
A

Ibid. Ibid. #ssailed 3oint Resolution, pp. 6-7@ rollo, pp. 62-61. Id., p. 7@ id., p. 61. Id., pp. 7-2@ id., pp. 61-6A. Ibid. See also PetitionerFs Me"orandu", p. 6@ rollo, p. $A7. #ssailed 3oint Resolution, p. 7@ rollo, p. 61. Id., p. 2@ rollo, p. 6A.

&

$5

$$

$4

$6

$7

$2

Ibid. Ibid. Id., pp. 2-A@ id., pp. 6A-6%. Ibid. Id., pp. $$-$4@ id., pp. 76-77. Ibid. Id., p. $7@ id., p. 7A. Id., pp. $$ M $7@ id., pp. 76 M 71. Ibid. Id., p. $1@ id., p. 7%. Id., p. $7@ id., p. 7A. Resolution No. %%-55$@ rollo, p. %7. Ibid. DocIeted as !ri"inal !ase Nos. >-%%-&6$46-47 and raffled to )ranch 447. Rollo, pp. 2$-21. Order dated 3une A, $%%%@ rollo, p. 2A. #ssailed Revie' and Reco""endation, p. 7@ rollo, p. 1$.

$1

$A

$&

$%

45

4$

44

46

47

42

41

4A

4&

4%

65

6$

64

The case 'as dee"ed sub"itted for resolution on October $5, 4552, upon this !ourtFs receipt of respondent #GuinoFs Me"orandu", si+ned b, hi". In our Nove"ber 46, 4552 Resolution, this !ourt accepted #GuinoFs e.planation 'h, his "e"orandu" 'as belatedl, filed. The Me"orandu" of the O"buds"an, si+ned b, #ssistant Solicitor Ceneral Barl ). Miranda and Solicitor Ma. #na !. Rivera, 'as received b, this !ourt on Ma, 41, 4552. PetitionerFs Me"orandu", si+ned b, hi", 'as received b, this !ourt on Ma, 2, 4552.
66

PetitionerFs Me"orandu", p. $5@ rollo, p. $&$@ ori+inal in upper case.

67

N$ of Rule $$4 of the Rules of !ourt, 'hich defines the purpose of a preli"inar, investi+ation. Villanueva v. Ople, CR No. $12$42, Nove"ber $&, 4552@ Mendo?a-#rce v. Office of the O"buds"an, 6&5 S!R# 642, #pril 2, 4554.
62

Paredes v. Sandi+anba,an, 424 S!R# 17$, 3anuar, 6$, $%%1. Peralta v. Desierto, CR No. $26$24, October $%, 4552.

61

6A

Pere? v. Office of the O"buds"an, 74% S!R# 62A, 616, Ma, 4A, 4557. See also #lba v. Nitorreda, 427 S!R# A26, March $6, $%%1.
6&

$%4 S!R# $&6, Dece"ber $5, $%%5.

6%

Id., pp. $&&-$&% citin+ Re+alado, Re"edial =a' !o"pendiu", p. $&& ($%&& ed.*. #lso cited in Villanueva v. Ople, supra at note 67@ Mendo?a-#rce v. Office of the O"buds"an, supra at note 67.
75

Villanueva v. Ople, supra@ Bui?on v. Desierto 627 S!R# $2&, March %, 455$. See also Tirol v. !o""ission on #udit, 6%$ Phil. &%A, #u+ust 6, 4555.
7$

N$ of Rule 12 of the Rules of !ourt.

74

Soria v. Desierto, CR Nos. $26247-42, 3anuar, 6$, 4552@ Pere? v. Office of the O"buds"an, supra at note 6A.
76

Ibid. PetitionerFs Me"orandu", pp. $4, $2-$% M 42@ rollo, pp. $&6, $&1-$%5 M $%1. The Manifesto reads8

77

72

9On 4& Septe"ber $%%&, after the fla+ raisin+ cere"on,, the ;onorable !o""issioner Teresita #. Desierto "ade unfounded accusations and s'eepin+ state"ents brandin+ the la',ers and staff of the #ppeals and Revie' Croup, the .panded National !apital Re+ion, the =e+al Services Croup, and Re+ional Field Office 7 as corrupt. She alle+ed that la',ers, le+al assistants and para-le+al assistants receive bribes and asI part, liti+ants to treat the" to lunch. 9The ;onorable !o""issioner "a, not have foreseen the possible repercusJsKions of her 'ords. She "a, not have Ino'n that the accusations "ade b, her tend to brin+ not onl, the le+al staff into disrepute but the 'hole )oard. 9The state"ents of the ;onorable !o""issioner tend to destro, public confidence in the )oard. ;ence, the, de+rade not onl, the la',ers, le+al assistants and para-le+al assistants but all e"plo,ees of the )oard.

9The ;onorable !o""issioner "a, not have reali?ed it, but once public confidence in the )oard is destro,ed, the )oard loses its usefulness. 9It is re+rettable that such irresponsible act 'as co""itted b, a hi+h ranIin+ official of the )oard, a person 'ho should be the first to protect the )oard and its di+nit,. 9:e have been sub/ected to snide re"arIs and slanderous state"ents before, but 'e tooI the" in stride, because the, are unsubstantiated and utterl, false. ;o'ever, 'hen the sa"e unproven accusations are "ade b, a responsible superior, 'ho is also a la',er, 'e believe that 'e have to react. :e have suffered in silence for too lon+. 9It appears that our continued silence is bein+ interpreted as an ad"ission of +uilt. To correct such "isinterpretation, 'e no' speaI out and asI that instead of hu"iliatin+ all la',ers in public, cases a+ainst errin+ officials and e"plo,ees be instituted before the proper foru". 9:e ferventl, hope that there 'ill be no repetition of the sorr, incident. :e hope that the architects, the en+ineers, the planners and the rest of the technical staff 'ill not suffer the sa"e fate. :e pra, that the rest of the e"plo,ees 'onFt have to endure the sa"e indi+nit,.9 (Rollo, p. 64*
71

PetitionerFs Me"orandu", p. $@ rollo, p. $A4. Id., pp. $A-$%@ id., pp. $&&-$%5. Cuin+ona v. !ourt of #ppeals, 627 Phil. 7$2, 3ul, $5, $%%&. 46$ S!R# A&6, A&2, #pril 41, $%%7. Id., p. &54, per Puno, 3. See :ebb v. De =eon, 6$A Phil. A2&, &55, #u+ust 46, $%%2.

7A

7&

7%

25

2$

24

So"e of the la's can be found in Section & of Republic #ct %4&A or the 9#ct Increasin+ the Penalties for Ille+al Nu"bers Ca"es #"endin+ !ertain Provisions of Presidential Decree No. $154, and for Other Purposes,9 approved #pril 4, 4557@ Section 66 of Republic #ct %$12 or the 9!o"prehensive Dan+erous Dru+s #ct of 4554,9 approved 3une A, 4554@ Section $4 of Republic #ct 1%&$ or the 9:itness Protection, Securit, and )enefit #ct,9 approved #pril 47, $%%$@ Section 41 of Republic #ct 1171 or the 9 lectoral Refor"s =a' of $%&A,9 approved 3anuar, 2, $%&&@ Section 2 of .ecutive Order No. $7 ('hich e"po'ered the P!CC to file and prosecute cases investi+ated b, it*, dated Ma, A, $%&1@ and Sections 6 and 7 of Presidential Decree $A64 or 9Providin+ I""unit, fro" !ri"inal Prosecution to Covern"ent :itnesses and for Other Purposes,9 approved October &, $%&5.
26

People v. Peralta, 762 Phil. A76, A12, #u+ust &, 4554@ :ebb v. De =eon, supra.

27

!o"elec v. spaOol, 7$A S!R# 227, Dece"ber $5, 4556. See Mapa v. Sandi+anba,an, supra at note 7%.

22

21

Republic #ct 1AA5 or the O"buds"an #ct, approved on Nove"ber $A, $%&%. ( "phasis supplied*.
2A

PetitionerFs Me"orandu", p. 45@ rollo, p. $%$. Ibid. N$A of Rule $$% of the Rules of !ourt.

2&

2%

15

Cuin+ona v. !ourt of #ppeals, supra at note 7&. See also People v. Peralta, supra at note 26.
1$

:ebb v. De =eon, supra at note 2$.

14

People v. Peralta, supra@ Cuin+ona v. !ourt of #ppeals, supra@ :ebb v. De =eon, supra.
16

People v. )insol, $55 Phil. A$6, A41, 3anuar, 44, $%2A. See PetitionerFs Me"orandu", pp. 4$-44@ rollo, pp. $%4-$%6.

17

12

See #ssailed 3oint Resolution, pp. $7-$2@ rollo, pp. 7A-7&@ Resolution No. %%-55$, supra at note 41.
11

PetitionerFs Me"orandu", p. $4@ rollo, p. $&6. The affidavit 'as attached as #nne. 939 of the Petition@ rollo, pp. &2-&1. Motion for Reinvesti+ation dated Ma, $6, $%%%, p. 4@ rollo, p. 24. =etter addressed to Overall Deput, O"buds"an Mar+arito O. Cervacio 3r.@ rollo, pp. 11-1&.

1A

1&

1%

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECON' '$+$S$ON G.R. No. 145254 #u-y 2 , 2 6

.NEC%T, $NCORPOR!TE', as ,rus,ee /or ,0e s,o120o-)ers a() 1re)3,ors o/ ROSE P!C.$NG CO., $NC., petitioner, vs. MUN$C$P!"$T4 OF C!$NT! a() ENC!RN!C$ON GON5!"ES-6ONG, respondents. 'EC$S$ON CORON!, J.7 This petition for revie' on certiorari seeIs the reversal of the Septe"ber 4A, 4555 decision$ of the !ourt of #ppeals (!#* in !#-C.R. SP No. 7&775, a petition for annul"ent of /ud+"ent. The decision in !#-C.R. SP No. 7&775 affir"ed various orders of different trial courts in three separate and distinct proceedin+s, na"el,8 ($* March 47, $%%7 order of RTC-Pasig City, Branch 151 (for"erl,, !FI-Ri?al, )ranch I* in Civil Case No. 9165 (a case for specific perfor"ance and da"a+es* authori?in+ the issuance of an alias 'rit of e.ecution in favor of 0!!@ (4* 3une $1, $%%4 order of RTC-Antipolo, Branch 7 in Civil Case No. 9!-1"17 (an e.propriation case* directin+ the Municipalit, of !ainta to deposit $5P of the provisional value of the propert,@ (6* 3une 44, $%%4 orders of RTC-Antipolo, Branch 7 in Civil Case No. 9!-1"17 declarin+ that the Municipalit, of !ainta had the la'ful ri+ht to e.propriate the propert, and also +rantin+ the "unicipalit,Fs "otion for a 'rit of possession@ (7* 3une 41, $%%4 order of RTC-Antipolo, Branch 7 in Civil Case No. 9!-1"17 e.cludin+ Rose PacIin+ (petitionerFs predecessor-in-interest* as part,-defendant in the e.propriation proceedin+s@ (2* Februar, 4$, $%%7 order of RTC-Antipolo, Branch 7 in Civil Case No. 9!-1"17 den,in+ Rose PacIin+Fs "otion for reconsideration of the order of its e.clusion@ and (1* #pril 47, $%%A order of RT! of RTC-Antipolo, Branch 7 in #RC Case No. 96-17$ dis"issin+ petitionerFs petition for cancellation of encu"brances annotated on T!T No. 1$6$$6 in its na"e. The facts and issues of each case are su""ari?ed belo'. C383- Case No. 9165 In $%12, Rose PacIin+ !o., Inc. (Rose PacIin+* sold three parcels of land situated in Sto. Do"in+o, !ainta, Ri?al to 0nited !i+arette !orporation (0!!*. The lar+est parcel 'as covered b, Transfer !ertificate of Title (T!T* No. A6145 'hile the t'o other parcels 'ere unre+istered. T!T No. A6145 'as "ort+a+ed to the Philippine !o""ercial and Industrial )anI (P!I)*.4

:hen Rose PacIin+, ho'ever, refused to co"pl, 'ith its co""it"ents under the contract, 0!! filed a suit for specific perfor"ance and da"a+es a+ainst it and its president, Rene Bnecht, in the then !ourt of First Instance (!FI* of Ri?al, )ranch I. It 'as docIeted as !ivil !ase No. %$12. On 3ul, $2, $%1%, the trial court decided in favor of 0!!.6 The !FI decision 'as upheld on appeal b, the !# and subseGuentl, b, this !ourt.7 ntr, of /ud+"ent 'as accordin+l, "ade on March 46, $%AA. The /ud+"ent in favor of 0!!, ho'ever, could not be i""ediatel, i"ple"ented because P!I), durin+ the pendenc, of !ivil !ase No. %$12, foreclosed on the "ort+a+e on the lot covered b, T!T No. A6145. Rose PacIin+ tried to stop the foreclosure b, filin+ a separate case but the trial court2 denied its pra,er for te"porar, restrainin+ order (TRO* or preli"inar, in/unction. P!I) subseGuentl, purchased the lot in the foreclosure sale, consolidated its title over the propert, and had it re+istered in its na"e. T!T No. A6145 'as thus cancelled and T!T No. 4&1$A1 'as issued in P!I)Fs na"e. Rose PacIin+ Guestioned the validit, of the foreclosure in the !#1 but the !# ruled in favor of P!I). :hen the case 'as elevated to this !ourt, ho'ever, 'e invalidatedA the foreclosure, in effect revertin+ the title to Rose PacIin+. Interpretin+ our decision as re"ovin+ the i"pedi"ent to the e.ecution of /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12, 0!!, throu+h its liGuidator #lberto :on+,& "oved for the e.ecution of the $%1% decision in that case. On March 47, $%%7, the Re+ional Trial !ourt (RT!* of Pasi+ !it,, )ranch $2$ (for"erl,, !FIRi?al, )ranch I*,% ordered the issuance of an alias 'rit of e.ecution in favor of 0!!.$5 The March 47, $%%7 order 'as a"on+ those Guestioned in and affir"ed b, the !# in its Septe"ber 4A, 4555 decision on petitionerFs suit for annul"ent of /ud+"ent (!#-C.R. SP No. 7&775*. The !# decision in turn is no' under our revie'. C383- Case No. 9 -181: In the "eanti"e, on 3une 44, $%%5, the Municipalit, of !ainta filed a co"plaint for e.propriation a+ainst P!I) and Rose PacIin+ in the RT! of #ntipolo, Ri?al, )ranch A6. $$ It 'as docIeted as !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A. In its co"plaint, the Municipalit, of !ainta alle+ed that Rose PacIin+ o'ned a parcel of land in )r+,. Sto. Do"in+o, !ainta, Ri?al 'hich 'as foreclosed b, P!I) in 'hose na"e it 'as then re+istered under T!T No. 4&1$A1. The e.propriation co"plaint 'as based on San++unian+ )a,an (S)* Resolution No. &%-545 'hich sou+ht to purchase the land as the site of the "unicipal ad"inistration co"pound and S) Resolution No. &%-54$ 'hich called for the conde"nation of said land if the ne+otiation for its voluntar, sale failed. The ne+otiation did fail, hence, the co"plaint for e.propriation.$4

On Nove"ber 4%, $%%5, Rose PacIin+ "oved to dis"iss the co"plaint for failure to state a cause of action. SubseGuentl,, Rose PacIin+ filed a supple"ental "otion to dis"iss alle+in+ that it never received a for"al offer to purchase fro" the "unicipalit,. It also averred that it could no lon+er be sued in vie' of its dissolution in $%&1.$6 It added that the propert, sou+ht to be e.propriated 'as under liti+ation and its e.propriation 'ould onl, co"plicate "atters. Mean'hile, #lberto :on+,$7 as liGuidator of 0!!, filed a "otion for leave to intervene in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A (the e.propriation case*, alle+in+ 0!!Fs le+al interest in the propert,$2 as the prevailin+ part, in the $%1% decision in !ivil !ase No. %$12. This 'as +ranted b, the RT!#ntipolo. On Septe"ber 4A, $%%$, the RT!-#ntipolo denied Rose PacIin+Fs "otion to dis"iss the e.propriation case. On 3une $1, $%%4, the trial court issued an order directin+ the Municipalit, of !ainta to deposit $5P of the provisional value of the propert,.$1 On 3une 44, $%%4, the RT!-#ntipolo issued a conde"nation order declarin+ that the Municipalit, of !ainta had the la'ful ri+ht to e.propriate the propert,. On the sa"e date, the trial court issued another order +rantin+ the "unicipalit,Fs "otion for a 'rit of possession.$A 0!!H:on+ subseGuentl, filed a "otion to e.clude Rose PacIin+ as part,-defendant in the e.propriation proceedin+s on the +round that an, interest of Rose PacIin+ in the propert, had alread, passed onto 0!!.$& On 3une 41, $%%4, the trial court +ranted the "otion and ordered the e.clusion of Rose PacIin+. Rose PacIin+ sou+ht reconsideration of the 3une 41, $%%4 order, clai"in+ that 0!! had also been dissolved since $%A6 but this 'as denied b, the trial court in an order dated Februar, 4$, $%%7. Petitioner Bnecht, Inc. (as successor-in-interest of Rose PacIin+ and trustee of Rose PacIin+Fs stocIholders and creditors* filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition 'ith TRO in the !#$% to annul and restrain the enforce"ent of the orders of RT!-#ntipolo dated 3une $1, $%%4 (to deposit $5P of the provisional value of the propert,*, 3une 44, $%%4 (to issue the 'rit of possession*, 3une 41, $%%4 (to e.clude Rose PacIin+ as part,-defendant in the e.propriation proceedin+s* and Februar, 4$, $%%7 (to den, reconsideration of the order of e.clusion of Rose PacIin+*. On October 42, $%%7, the !# dis"issed the petition. This setbacI failed to discoura+e petitioner, ho'ever, because it initiated another case in the !#, this ti"e st,led as a 9petition for annul"ent of /ud+"ent9 (!#-C.R. SP No. 7&775* but Guestionin+ in realit, the sa"e (four* orders of RT!-#ntipolo (dated 3une $1, $%%4, 3une 44, $%%4, 3une 41, $%%4 and Februar, 4$, $%%7* in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A (the e.propriation case*. The !# once "ore upheld these orders in the Septe"ber 4A, 4555 decision under our revie'. "RC Case No. 96-1:43 The conde"nation order in favor of the Municipalit, of !ainta dated 3une 44, $%%4 'as annotated in T!T No. 1$6$$6 (for"erl, T!T No. A6145 then T!T No. 4&1$A1* in the na"e of

petitioner Bnecht, Inc.45 The Septe"ber 4A, $%%$ order (den,in+ Rose PacIin+Fs "otion to dis"iss the e.propriation case* 'as also annotated later on. Petitioner, un'illin+ to accept the le+al adversities buildin+ up a+ainst it, filed a petition for cancellation of all these encu"brances in its title. The petition 'as raffled to RT!-#ntipolo, )ranch A6 and docIeted as =R! !ase No. %1-$A76. On #pril 47, $%%A, the petition 'as dis"issed for lacI of "erit.4$ Petitioner appealed the dis"issal to this !ourt on a pure Guestion of la' via a petition for revie' on certiorari.44 This !ourt dis"issed it on 3ul, 46, $%%A and thereafter denied reconsideration 'ith finalit,. Petitioner stubbornl, refused to accept the Supre"e !ourt decision, ho'ever. This ti"e, it 'ent to the !# and a+ain Guestioned the sa"e #pril 47, $%%A order of RT!-#ntipolo, )ranch A6 (=R! !ase No. %1-$A76* in the sa"e petition for annul"ent of /ud+"ent docIeted as !#-C.R. SP No. 7&775. The !# affir"ed the #pril 47, $%%A order. In su", the !# upheld all the assailed orders of RT!-Pasi+ !it, in !ivil !ase No. %$12 and RT!-#ntipolo in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A and =R! !ase No. %1-$A76. In so doin+, the !# also upheld the /urisdiction of the afore"entioned trial courts over the cited cases. No' petitioner is bacI before us a+ain Guestionin+ the /urisdiction of RT!-Pasi+ !it, to issue the assailed order in !ivil !ase No. %$12 and RT!-#ntipolo to issue the assailed orders in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A and =R! !ase No. %1-$A76. Petitioner pra,s for the annul"ent of the orders of these courts. :e den, the petition. The present petition, liIe all the others previousl, filed b, petitioner and its predecessor-ininterest (Rose PacIin+* before this !ourt, is intended to achieve onl, one thin+8 to frustrate the e.ecution of the 3ul, $2, $%1% decision (as directed in the March 47, $%%7 order of RT!-Pasi+ !it,* of the then !FI-Pasi+ in !ivil !ase No. %$12 a'ardin+ the propert, covered b, T!T Nos. A6145H4&1$A1H1$6$$6 to 0!!. #s a conseGuence of the le+al "aneuvers a+ainst the i"ple"entation of that decision, even the orders of RT!-#ntipolo (in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A and =R! !ase No. %1-$A76*, bein+ ulti"atel, rooted in the $%1% decision, beca"e ineffective. )ut the $%1% decision has lon+ beco"e final and e.ecutor,. In fact, entr, of /ud+"ent 'as "ade "ore than 4% ,ears a+o, on March 46, $%AA. #s in all its previous cases,46 petitionerFs "ain ar+u"ent rests on the ver, 'eaI pre"ise that a dissolved corporation is, in all respects, a dead entit,. 0!!Fs dissolution in $%A6 alle+edl, divested RT!-Pasi+ !it, of the /urisdiction to enforce its 3ul, $2, $%1% /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12 (throu+h the March 47, $%%7 order for the issuance of an alias 'rit of e.ecution*@ hence, RT!-#ntipoloFs subseGuent, related orders (dated 3une $1, $%%4, 3une 44, $%%4, 3une 41, $%%4 and Februar, 4$, $%%7 in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A, and dated #pril 47, $%%A in =R! !ase No. %1-$A76* in favor of the dissolved 0!! 'ere also supposedl, void. )ut this issue 'as

alread, addressed and settled co"pletel, in %necht an& %necht, 'nc. v. (nite& Cigarette Corporation.47 There is no doubt that the /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12 beca"e final and e.ecutor, on March 46, $%AA. That this /ud+"ent is still enforceable 'as decided 'ith finalit, b, this !ourt in C.R. No. $5%6&2. In Re)*riano vs. Co*rt o+ Appeals, a case 'ith si"ilar facts, this !ourt held8 JTKhe trustee (of a dissolved corporation* "a, co""ence a suit 'hich can proceed to final /ud+"ent e8e( beyo() ,0e ,0ree-year ;er3o) <o/ -3=u3)a,3o(> . . ., (o reaso( 1a( be 1o(1e38e) ?0y a su3, a-rea)y 1o@@e(1e) by ,0e 1or;ora,3o( 3,se-/ )ur3(A 3,s eB3s,e(1e, not b, a "ere trustee 'ho, b, fiction, "erel, continues the le+al personalit, of the dissolved corporation, s0ou-) (o, be a11or)e) s3@3-ar ,rea,@e(, C ,o ;ro1ee) ,o /3(a- Du)A@e(, a() eBe1u,3o( ,0ereo/. Indeed, the ri+hts of a corporation (dissolved pendin+ liti+ation* are accorded protection b, la'. This is clear fro" Section $72 of the !orporation !ode, thus8 Section $72. A,en&,ent or repeal. No r3A0, or re@e)y 3( /a8or o/ or a+ainst a(y 1or;ora,3o(, its stocIholders, "e"bers, directors, trustees, or officers, nor an, liabilit, incurred b, an, such corporation, stocIholders, "e"bers, directors, trustees, or officers, s0a-- be re@o8e) or 3@;a3re) e3,0er by ,0e subse=ue(, )3sso-u,3o( o/ sa3) 1or;ora,3o( or b, an, subseGuent a"end"ent or repeal of this !ode or of an, part thereof. The dissolution of 0!! itself, or the e.piration of its three-,ear liGuidation period, should not be a bar to the enforce"ent of its ri+hts as a corporation. One of these ri+hts, to be sure, includes the 0!!Fs ri+ht to seeI fro" the court the e.ecution of a valid and final /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12 L throu+h its trusteeHliGuidator ncarnacion Con?ales :on+ L for the benefit of its stocIholders, creditors and an, other person 'ho "a, have le+al clai"s a+ainst it. To hold other'ise 'ould be to allo' petitioners to un/ustl, enrich the"selves at the e.pense of 0!!. This, in effect, renders nu+ator, all the efforts and e.penses of 0!! in its Guest to secure /ustice, not to "ention the undue dela, in disposin+ of this case pre/udicial to the ad"inistration of /ustice.42 If onl, for this, the entire petition loses its bearin+s. #nnul"ent of /ud+"ent "a, be restored to onl, on t'o +rounds8 lacI of /urisdiction and e.trinsic fraud.41 Neither 'as present here. :e therefore hold that RT!-Pasi+ !it, and RT!-#ntipolo had the co"petence and /urisdiction to issue the assailed orders since the dissolution of 0!! did not deprive the" of the authorit, to taIe co+ni?ance of !ivil !ase No. %$12, !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A and =R! !ase No. %1-$A76. Thus, the !# could not have annulled the orders of the trial courts on the +round of lacI of /urisdiction.

The orders could not be annulled based on e.trinsic fraud either. .trinsic or collateral fraud "eans fraud 'hich prevents the a++rieved part, fro" havin+ a trial or presentin+ his case to the court, or 'as used to procure the /ud+"ent 'ithout fair sub"ission of the controvers,.4A This refers to acts intended to Ieep the unsuccessful part, a'a, fro" the courts as 'hen there is a false pro"ise of co"pro"ise or 'hen one is Iept in i+norance of the suit.4& !ertainl,, /ud+in+ fro" the nauseatin+ nu"ber of petitions filed b, Rose PacIin+ andHor petitioner in the RT!, the !# and this !ourt, it is clear that the, 'ere never prevented fro" ventilatin+ or defendin+ their case nor 'as /ud+"ent rendered a+ainst the" 'ithout a fair and co"plete consideration of the issues. Pro83s3o(a- 'e;os3, o/ 1 E 3( C383- Case No. 9 -181: :e, ho'ever, have to correct the erroneous reliance of RT!-#ntipolo on Presidential Decree (PD* $2664% in the e.propriation case of the Municipalit, of !ainta. Its order dated 3une $1, $%%4 in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A "andated the deposit of $5P of the assessed value of the propert,.65 In -.port Processing /one A*thority v. 0*lay,6$ a $%&A case, 'e strucI do'n PD $266 as unconstitutional. Moreover, the e.ercise of the po'er of e"inent do"ain b, a local +overn"ent unit is no' +overned b, Section $% of Republic #ct A$15.64 For properties under e.propriation, the la' no' reGuires the deposit of an a"ount eGuivalent to fifteen percent ($2P* of the fair "arIet value of the propert, based on its current ta. declaration.66 F3(a- '3s;os3,3o( In conclusion, 'e once and for all declare that 0!! ou+ht to reap the fruits of the $%1% decision in its favor. Its interest in the propert, sou+ht to be e.propriated havin+ been clearl, established, 0!! is ad/ud+ed the proper part,-defendant in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A (the e.propriation case*. Bnecht, Inc.HRose PacIin+ 'as correctl, e.cluded fro" the case since its interest in the sub/ect propert, had alread, passed onto 0!!. 0!!Fs interest liIe'ise prevails over that of P!I) since P!I)Fs foreclosure sale of the sa"e propert, 'as alread, invalidated 'ith finalit, b, this !ourt.67 Pe,3,3o(erFs Pro;e(s3,y ,o Tr3/-e 63,0 Cour, Pro1esses This !ourt is not un"indful of petitionerFs dilator, tactics, spannin+ al"ost three decades, a+ainst the e.ecution of the $%1% decision in !ivil !ase No. %$12 and the subseGuent related orders in !ivil !ase No. %5-$&$A and =R! !ase No. %1-$A76. Its clever sche"es to dela, the i"ple"entation of a final and e.ecutor, decision "anifest its utter disre+ard and disrespect for our /ustice s,ste". Petitioner is stron+l, re"inded, as this !ourt ad"onished it in %necht an& %necht, 'nc. v. (nite& Cigarette Corporation, 62 that8

ver, liti+ation "ust co"e to an end. :hile a liti+antFs ri+ht to initiate an action in court is full, respected, ho'ever, once his case has been ad/udicated b, a co"petent court in a valid final /ud+"ent, he should not be per"itted to initiate si"ilar suits hopin+ to secure a favorable rulin+, for this 'ill result to endless liti+ations detri"ental to the ad"inistration of /ustice, as in this case. In that case, petitioner 'as alread, assessed treble costs. In filin+ this petition and once a+ain resurrectin+ an issue 'hich has lon+ been settled 'ith finalit,, petitioner is triflin+ dan+erousl, 'ith court processes. Petitioner andHor counsel is 'arned one final ti"e of the dire conseGuences of i+norin+ this re"inder. 6%EREFORE, the petition is hereb, 'EN$E'. Treble costs ane' a+ainst petitioner. SO OR'ERE'. P*no, Chairperson, 1an&oval-2*tierre3, A3c*na, 2arcia, 4.4., concur.

Foo,(o,es
$

Penned b, #ssociate 3ustice 3ose =. Sabio, 3r. and concurred in b, #ssociate 3ustices )uenaventura 3. Cuerrero (no' retired* and lie?er R. de los Santos of the Seventh Division of the !ourt of #ppeals@ rollo, pp. A1-&&.
4

No' the Guitable-P!I )anI. The dispositive portion of the !FI decision read8 PR MIS S !ONSID R D, this !ourt orders defendants JRose PacIin+K and its President, Rene Bnecht to conve, and deliver to J0!!K, the three parcels of land ob/ect of the co"plaint, to+ether 'ith all the buildin+s and i"prove"ents thereon, 'ith the e.ception of "achines for cannin+ factor,, and to e.ecute the correspondin+ deed of sale 'ith "ort+a+e coverin+ said properties for the purchase price of P&55,555.55 under the follo'in+ ter"s and conditions8 ... (%necht an& %necht, 'nc. v. (nite& Cigarette Corporation, 766 Phil. 6&5, 6&7 J4554K*.

The !# affir"ed this on 3une 44, $%A1 (!#-C.R. No. 72242-R*. This !ourt denied the petition for revie' on certiorari on 3anuar, 2, $%AA (C.R. No. =-7%AA*.
2

!ivil !ase No. $$5$2 in !FI-Ri?al, )ranch II, presided b, 3ud+e Rodolfo )onifacio. DocIeted as !#-C.R. No. 76$%&-R.

Rose Pac5ing v. Co*rt o+ Appeals, C.R. No. =-665&7, $7 Nove"ber $%&&, $1A S!R# 65%.
&

#lberto :on+, one of 0!!Fs "a/or stocIholders, 'as appointed trusteeHliGuidator of the dissolved corporation 'hen UCCFs 1or;ora,e -3/e eB;3re) o( Mar10 3 , 19:3. (%necht an& %necht, 'nc. v. (nite& Cigarette Corp., s*pra note 6, at 6&2* Private respondent ncarnacion Con?ales :on+ substituted her husband, #lberto :on+, as liGuidator of 0!! b, virtue of an order dated March 44, $%%2 issued b, RT!-Pasi+.
%

:ith the enact"ent of )P $4% (The 3udiciar, Reor+ani?ation #ct of $%&$*, the !FIs 'ere replaced b, RT!s.
$5

Penned b, 3ud+e Deo+racias O. Feli?ardo. Presided b, 3ud+e 3uan O. nriGue?. Petition, rollo, pp. $1-$A.

$$

$4

$6

Rose PacIin+ 'as dissolved upon the e.piration of its corporate charter on 3une $5, $%&1.
$7

0pon his death, he 'as substituted b, his 'ife, private respondent ncarnacion Con?ales-:on+ (s*pra note &*.
$2

1*pra note 6. The dispositive portion of 'hich read8 :; R FOR , pursuant to Sec. 4 of P.D. $266 and Sec. $% of the =ocal Covern"ent !ode of $%%$, in order for the JMunicipalit, of !aintaK to taIe possession of the sub/ect propert,, the JMunicipalit, of !aintaK is hereb, ordered to deposit the a"ount of P7,A$A,525 'ith the Philippine National )anI, !ainta )ranch, Feli. #venue, !ainta, Ri?al, representin+ $5P of the provisional value of the propert, sou+ht to be conde"ned or e.propriated. (Petition, rollo, p. $%.*

$1

$A

Petition, rollo, p. $%.

$&

1ee Rose Pac5ing Co., 'nc. v. 6on. Boni+acio, !#-C.R. SP No. 41272. In its decision dated March 2, $%%4, the !# nullified the !FI orders holdin+ that 0!!Fs intervention in !ivil !ase No. $$5$2 'as not 'arranted since the onl, purpose 'as to e.ecute the /ud+"ent obtained b, the 0!! a+ainst Rose PacIin+ in !ivil !ase No. %$12. The !# stressed that 0!!Fs ri+ht to e.ecute the /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12 had not ,et prescribed insofar as the parcel of land covered b, T!T No. A6145 'as concerned. Pursuant to the decision in !#-C.R. SP No. 41272, RT!-Pasi+ issued an order +rantin+ 0!!Fs "otion for the issuance of a 'rit of e.ecution of the /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12 'ith respect to the land covered b, T!T No. A6145 (then still in the na"e of P!I)

under T!T No. 4&1$A1*. 1ee also %necht an& %necht 'nc. v. (nite& Cigarette Corp., s*pra note 6, at 6&A-6&&.
$%

!#-C.R. No. 6662A.

45

The title 'as for"erl, T!T No. A6145 in the na"e of Rose PacIin+, 'hich later on beca"e T!T No. 4&1$A1 in the na"e of P!I). For unIno'n reasons, title over the sub/ect realt, then alread, under the na"e of P!I) (T!T No. 4&1$A1* 'as transferred in the na"e of Bnecht, Inc. under T!T No. 1$6$$6. 1ee %necht an& %necht, 'nc. v. (nite& Cigarette Corporation, s*pra note 6, at 6%5.
4$

Penned b, 3ud+e Mauricio Rivera. C.R. No. $4%54A.

44

46

These 'ere enu"erated in %necht an& %necht, 'nc. v. (nite& Cigarette Corp., s*pra note 6, at 6%6-6%2, as follo's8 $. !#-C.R. SP No. 4&666 L petition for certiorari to annul the 3une $A, $%%4 order of the RT!- Pasi+, )ranch $2$ allo'in+ the issuance of a 'rit of e.ecution to enforce the decision in !ivil !ase No. %$12. This 'as dis"issed@ 4. C.R. No. $5%6&2 L petition for revie' on certiorari filed 'ith this !ourt Guestionin+ the !# decision in !#-C.R. SP No. 4&666 'here this !ourt found no reversible error on the part of the !#@ 6. !#-C.R. SP No. 66&24 L petition for certiorari to en/oin the enforce"ent of an alias 'rit of e.ecution issued b, the trial court on #pril $%, $%%7. Petitioners interposed the ar+u"ent that the /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12 cannot be enforced due to the dissolution of 0!! on March 65, $%A6. The !# dis"issed the petition@ 7. C.R. Nos. $$&$&6 and $$&$&7 L petitions for revie' on certiorari filed 'ith this !ourt Guestionin+ the !# Decision in !#-C.R. SP No. 66&24. These 'ere dis"issed@ 2. !#-C.R. SP No. 6%556 L petition for certiorari and prohibition 'ith pra,er for TRO seeIin+, a"on+ others, the annul"ent of the second alias 'rit of e.ecution issued b, the trial court on Nove"ber &, $%%2. Petitioners reiterated that the /ud+"ent in !ivil !ase No. %$12 cannot an,"ore be enforced for havin+ been rendered "oot and acade"ic b, the dissolution of 0!!. This 'as dis"issed@ 1. C.R. No. $47%&6 L petition for revie' on certiorari filed 'ith this !ourt Guestionin+ the !# decision in !#-C.R. SP No. 6%556. This 'as denied@

A. !#-C.R. SP No. 7A%A& L petition for certiorari seeIin+ to annul the 3une 4A, $%%A order of the trial court directin+ sheriff duardo =. )oli"a of )ranch $2$, RT!-Pasi+ to e.ecute the correspondin+ deed of sale 'ith "ort+a+e in co"pliance 'ith the /ud+"ent and the second alias 'rit of e.ecution issued in !ivil !ase No. %$12. Petitioners persistentl, clai"ed that the decision in !ivil !ase No. %$12 is voided b, the e.piration of 0!!Fs three-,ear period of liGuidation fro" its dissolution. Further"ore, the, theori?ed that the second alias 'rit of e.ecution is i"proper because it varied the ter"s of the /ud+"ent and also deprived Bnecht, Inc. of its propert, 'ithout due process of la'. The !# denied this petition and cited petitioners +uilt, of foru" shoppin+@ &. C.R. No. $6%6A5 L petition for revie' Guestionin+ the decision of the !# in !#-C.R. SP No. 7A%A&. This 'as denied and the assailed decision 'as affir"ed. Treb-e 1os,s 'ere ad/ud+ed a+ainst petitioner.
47

1*pra note 6. Id. at 6%2-6%1. !itations o"itted. Rules of !ourt, Rule 7A, Sec. 4.

42

41

4A

Re+alado, Re"edial =a' !o"pendiu" ($%%%* (National )ooI Store, Inc., Manila, Philippines* at 22A, 6&5.
4&

Id. at 6&5-6&$.

4%

#n #ct stablishin+ # 0nifor" )asis For Deter"inin+ 3ust !o"pensation #nd The #"ount Of Deposit For I""ediate Possession Of The Propert, Involved In "inent Do"ain Proceedin+s.
65

Section 4 thereof reads8 S !. 4. 0pon the filin+ of the petition for e.propriation and the deposit in the Philippine National )anI at its "ain office or an, of its branches of an a"ount eGuivalent to ten per cent ($5P* of the a"ount of co"pensation provided in Section $ hereof, the +overn"ent or its authori?ed instru"entalit, a+enc, or entit, shall be entitled to i""ediate possession, control and disposition of the real propert, and the i"prove"ents thereon, includin+ the po'er of de"olition if necessar,, not'ithstandin+ the pendenc, of the issues before the courts. RT!-#ntipolo si"ilarl, referred to Section $% of R# A$15 (the =ocal Covern"ent !ode* 'hich reGuires, a"on+ others, a deposit 'ith the proper court of at least fifteen percent ($2P* of the fair "arIet value of the propert, based on the current ta. declaration of the propert, to be e.propriated before the local +overn"ent unit can taIe possession of the propert, to be e.propriated.

6$

C.R. No. =-2%156, 4% #pril $%&A, $7% S!R# 652. The =ocal Covern"ent !ode of $%%$. 1ee City o+ 'loilo v. #egaspi, C.R. No. $271$7, 42 Nove"ber 4557, 777 S!R# 41%. 1*pra note A. 1*pra note 6, at 6%A-6%&.

64

66

67

62

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila F$RST '$+$S$ON G.R. No. 1: 83: Se;,e@ber 12, 2 6

T%E PEOP"E OF T%E P%$"$PP$NES, appellee, vs. 'EGTER TORRES y 'E"! CRU5, appellant. 'EC$S$ON C!""E#O, SR., J.: De.ter Torres 'as char+ed 'ith violation of Section &, #rticle II of Republic #ct (R.#.* No. 1742, as a"ended, for unla'ful possession of &6$.%$ +ra"s of "ari/uana fruitin+ tops, a prohibited dru+@ as 'ell as Section $1, #rticle III of the sa"e la' for ille+al possession of 5.41 +ra"s of "etha"pheta"ine h,drochloride, a re+ulated dru+ co""onl, Ino'n as sha)*. The indict"ent in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$667 for violation of Section &, #rticle II of R.#. No. 1742 reads8 That on or about #u+ust $6, 455$, in the Municipalit, of Con?a+a, province of !a+a,an, and 'ithin the /urisdiction of this ;onorable !ourt, the above-na"ed accused, did then and there 'illfull,, unla'full, and feloniousl, have in his possession and under his control and custod, one ($* bricI of Mari/uana fruitin+ tops 'ei+hin+ &6$.%$ +ra"s 'rapped in a ne'spaper 'hich +ave POSITIV results for the tests of "ari/uana, a prohibited dru+, the said accused Ino'in+ full, 'ell and a'are that it is prohibited for an, person to, unless authori?ed b, la', to possess or use an, prohibited dru+. !ONTR#RD TO =#:.$

0pon the other hand, the accusator, portion of the Infor"ation in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$677 for violation of Section $1, #rticle III of the sa"e la' reads8 That on or about #u+ust $6, 455$, in the Municipalit, of Con?a+a, province of !a+a,an, and 'ithin the /urisdiction of this ;onorable !ourt, the above-na"ed accused, did then and there 'illfull,, unla'full, and feloniousl, have in his possession and under his control and custod, t'o (4* s"all heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containin+ 'hite cr,stalline substances 'ith a total 'ei+ht of 5.41 +". 'hich substances +ave POSITIV results to the tests for Metha"pheta"ine ;,drochloride, a re+ulated dru+, co""onl, Ino'n as Shabu, the said accused Ino'in+ full, 'ell and a'are that it is prohibited for an, person to possess or use an, re+ulated dru+ 'ithout the correspondin+ license or prescription. !ONTR#RD TO =#:.4 The t'o (4* cri"inal cases 'ere /ointl, tried at the Re+ional Trial !ourt (RT!* of #parri, !a+a,an, )ranch &. De.ter pleaded not +uilt, to both char+es.6 The case for the prosecution is as follo's8 In the earl, afternoon of #u+ust $6, 455$, operatives of the Second Re+ional Narcotics Office led b, PSI Teodolfo M. Tanna+an, SPO7 #belardo M. =asa", SPO$ 3essie O. =i'a+ and PO4 Tirso T. Pascual, as "e"bers, and a bacI-up tea" fro" the Con?a+a Police Station, ar"ed 'ith a search 'arrant issued b, .ecutive 3ud+e 3i"", ;enr, F. =ucson, 3r. of the RT! of Tu+ue+arao !it,, !a+a,an, raided the house of De.ter Torres located at Salvanera St., Barangay Paradise, Con?a+a, !a+a,an. The tea" 'as /oined b, the t'o )arangay council"en, d'ard Sa+nep and rnesto Vivit. 3ust before searchin+ De.terQs house, SPO7 =asa" presented the search 'arrant and introduced the raidin+ tea" to ;enn, Catchalian, De.terQs sister, and De.terQs children. :hen asIed 'here the o'ners of the house 'ere, ;enn, responded that her brother and his 'ife had /ust left. In their presence and that of the t'o 5aga7a&s, the tea" searched the "asterQs bedroo" and found the follo'in+ stashed inside the second decI of a 'ooden cabinet8 $* a bricI of dried suspected "ari/uana 'rapped inside ne'sprint@ 4* t'o plastic sachets of suspected sha)*@ 6* three pieces of alu"inu" foil@ 7* a colored +reen plastic li+hter@ and 2* a s"all transparent plastic ba+. The raiders then prepared an inventor,7 of the articles sei?ed, a cop, of 'hich 'as handed to ;enn,. #fter photos of the confiscated articles 'ere taIen, the, 'ere placed in a plastic ba+ and turned over to SPO7 =asa", 'ho sub"itted the sa"e to the Re+ional !ri"e =aborator, Office 4, !a"p #li"anao, Tu+ue+arao, !a+a,an, for forensic e.a"ination.2 That sa"e afternoon, %aga7a&s d'ard and rnesto both si+ned a certification1 as to the conduct of the search, certif,in+, a"on+ others, that it 'as conducted in an orderl, and peaceful "anner@ no unnecessar, force 'as e"plo,ed@ nobod, 'as hurt@ and nothin+ 'as taIen 'ithout proper receipt. ;enn,, ho'ever, refused to si+n the certification.

PSI Forensic !he"ist Maria =eonora !. !a"arao e.a"ined the substance sei?ed fro" De.terQs house 'hich tested positive for "ari/uana and sha)*. On the 'itness stand, Maria confir"ed her Ph,sical Science Reports, hereunder reproduced as follo's8 SP !IM N S0)MITT D8 .h 9#9 L one ($* bricI of suspected Mari/uana fruitin+ tops 'ith 'ei+ht of &6$.%$ +ra"s 'rapped 'ith ne'spaper print and "asIin+ tape 'ith "arIin+s and further placed in one ($* bro'n lon+ envelope 'ith description. ... .h 9)-)$9 L T'o (4* s"all heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets 'rapped 'ith "asIin+ tape 'ith "arIin+s, containin+ 'hite cr,stalline substances 'ith total 'ei+ht of 5.41 +" and further placed in one ($* cellophane 'ith description. ... P0RPOS OF =#)OR#TORD R#MIN#TION8 To deter"ine the presence of prohibited andHor re+ulated dru+s. ... F I N D I N C S8 >ualitative e.a"ination conducted on the above-stated speci"en +ave the follo'in+ results8 .h 9#9 L +ave POSITIV result to the test for Mari/uana, a prohibited dru+. ... .h 9)-)$9 L +ave POSITIV result to the test for Metha"pheta"ine ;,drochloride, a re+ulated dru+. ... ! O N ! = 0 S I O N8 .h 9#9 L contains Mari/uana, a prohibited dru+. ... .h 9)-)$9 L contains Metha"pheta"ine ;,drochloride, a re+ulated dru+. ...A On Dece"ber 2, 4554, the prosecution for"all, offered its e.hibits, 'hich included the bricI of "ari/uana leaves and fruitin+ tops 'ei+hin+ &6$.%$ +ra"s ( .hibit 9#9*@ and the sha)* 'hich 'ei+hed 5.41 +ra"s ( .hibits 9)9 and 9)-$9*. Thereafter, the prosecution rested its case.& De.ter, throu+h counsel, ob/ected to the offer of evidence on the +round that the sa"e 'ere 9confiscated not fro" JhisK possession as he 'as then sta,in+ in =aoa+ !it,.9% The defense consists of the testi"onies of De.ter hi"self, his sister ;enn, Catchalian, and his relative, %aga7a& rnesto, are predicated on denial and fra"e-up. The defense version is as follo's8

Thirt,-ei+ht-,ear old De.ter eIed out a livin+ as a carpenter. ;e averred that 'eeIs before his house 'as searched, he 'as alread, in Cabu, =aoa+ !it,, 'orIin+ in a house construction pro/ect of his sister-in-la' Re"a Penti+rado. ;e left for Cabu, =aoa+ !it, on 3ul, 4&, 455$ 'ith his 'ife. #fter entrustin+ his children to the care of his father, and his sister ;enn,, he padlocIed his place and +ave the Ie, to his sister. ;e declared that he onl, ca"e to Ino' of the incident fro" ;enn, 'hen he and his 'ife arrived ho"e fro" Cabu, =aoa+ !it,.$5 Ba+a'ad rnesto, a+ed 12 ,ears, De.terQs Iin, narrated that on #u+ust $6, 455$ he 'as at his house. # police"an fro" the Con?a+a Police Station arrived and asIed hi" to be a 'itness in a raid that la'"en 'ould conduct in De.terQs residence. ;e acceded. ;o'ever, upon reachin+ the pre"ises, he found out that the search had alread, been conducted. ;e 'as infor"ed that a bricI of "ari/uana had been found inside the house, but he did not see it. =ater, upon the proddin+ of the police, he si+ned a confiscation receipt 'ithout readin+ its contents.$$ ;enn,, a+ed 62 ,ears, recounted that at about $855 p.". of #u+ust $6, 455$, she 'as at her fatherQs house 'hen a nu"ber of police"en arrived. The, asIed her to open the door, and as she 'as forced to do so, she acco"panied the police to the nei+hborin+ house and unlocIed the place. Inside, she 'as placed in one of the roo"s and 'as ordered not to "ove a "uscle. Thereafter, the police"en ransacIed the cabinets, chests and dra'ers. Mean'hile, she re"ained confined in the roo", 'ithout a clue as to 'hat 'as taIin+ place. #fter the search, the police"en brou+ht her out of the house and sho'ed to her the sha)* and "ari/uana 'hich the police clai"ed to have found inside the house. She denied si+nin+ an,thin+ save the search 'arrant. ;enn,, ho'ever, told the court that it 'as De.terQs "istress, not his 'ife, that her brother brou+ht to Cabu, =aoa+ !it,.$4 On Nove"ber $7, 4556, the RT! rendered a /oint decision convictin+ De.ter of the offenses char+ed. The +allo reads L :; R FOR , the !ourt finds accused De.ter Torres , De =a !ru? 9C0I=TD9 be,ond reasonable doubt in both cases and is hereb, sentenced to suffer the penalt, of Recl*sion Perpet*a and a fine of Five ;undred Thousand (P255,555.55* Pesos in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$667 and, the indeter"inate prison ter" of si. (1* ,ears, one ($* da, of prision ,ayor, as "ini"u", to t'elve ($4* ,ears and one ($* da, of recl*sion te,poral, as "a.i"u", and a fine of Five ;undred Thousand (P255,555.55* Pesos in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$677. :ith costs. SO ORD R D.$6 The trial court re/ected the defense of alibi c*, fra"e-up of the accused and upheld in favor of the prosecution the presu"ption of re+ularit, in the perfor"ance of official duties. De.ter appealed his conviction to this !ourt, docIeted as C.R. Nos. $14274-76, pra,in+ for the reversal of the /ud+"ent. ;e clai"ed that the search 'arrant had been unla'full, i"ple"ented

and that the prosecution failed to prove his +uilt be,ond reasonable doubt. ;e assi+ned the follo'in+ errors purportedl, co""itted b, the trial court8 I The court a 8*o +ravel, erred in findin+ that the search 'arrant issued a+ainst herein appellant 'as validl, and la'full, i"ple"ented. II The court a 8*o erred in findin+ that the +uilt of the accused-appellant for the cri"e char+ed has been proven be,ond reasonable doubt.$7 The appeal 'as transferred to the !# for appropriate action and disposition per Resolution$2 of this !ourt dated #pril 1, 4552, in accordance 'ith the rulin+ in People v. 9ateo.$1 On 3ul, 4&, 4552, the /ud+"ent of conviction 'as affir"ed, but 'as "odified as to the penalt, i"posed in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$677. In disposin+ the appeal, the !# +ave short shrift to De.terQs clai" that the t'o-'itness rule under Sec. &, Rule $41 of the Revised Rules of !ourt 'as violated. "phaticall, pointin+ out that at the ti"e of the search, ;enn, 'as livin+ in De.terQs house, and therefore a la'ful occupant, it held that the t'o-'itness rule applies onl, in the absence of a la'ful occupant of the searched pre"ises. !itin+ People v. 1i,on,$A and considerin+ that onl, 5.41 +ra"s of sha)* 'as involved, the appellate court reduced De.terQs sentence to an indeter"inate penalt, of si. (1* "onths of arresto ,ayor to four (7* ,ears and t'o (4* "onths of prison correccional. The petitor, portion of the !# decision reads L :; R FOR , in vie' of the fore+oin+, the /oint decision of the Re+ional Trial !ourt, )ranch 5& of #parri, !a+a,an in !ri"inal !ases Nos. 5&-$667 and 5&-$677 is hereb, #FFIRM D :IT; MODIFI!#TIONS. #ccused-appellant De.ter Torres , Dela !ru? is hereb, found C0I=TD of violatin+ Sections & and $1 of Republic #ct No. 1742, as a"ended b, Republic #ct No. A12%, and is hereb, sentenced to suffer8 ($* the penalt, of recl*sion perpet*a and a fine of Five ;undred Thousand Pesos (P255,555.55* in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$667@ and (4* an indeter"inate sentence of 1 "onths of arresto ,ayor to 7 ,ears and 4 "onths of prison correccional in !ri"inal !ase 5&-$677. SO ORD R D.$& De.ter sou+ht reconsideration, 'hich the !# denied.$% 0nfa?ed, De.ter, no' the appellant, appealed ane' to this !ourt, adoptin+ b, 'a, of "anifestation the sa"e ar+u"ents before the !#.45

#ppellant insists that the ite"s sei?ed fro" his house are inad"issible as evidence, bein+ the fruits of an ille+al search. ;e "aintains that the "anner of search conducted in his residence had failed to co"pl, 'ith the "andator, provisions of Section & (for"erl, Section A*, Rule $41 of the 4555 Rules of !ri"inal Procedure, 'hich provides8 S !. &. 1earch o+ ho*se, roo,, or pre,ises, to )e ,a&e in presence o+ t7o 7itnesses. L No search of a house, roo", or an, other pre"ise shall be "ade e.cept in the presence of the la'ful occupant thereof or an, "e"ber of his fa"il, or in the absence of the latter, t'o 'itnesses of sufficient a+e and discretion residin+ in the sa"e localit,. #ppellant ar+ues that ;enn, is not a 9la'ful occupant9 of the house as conte"plated in the above section. #nd even if she is one, her presence did not cure the ille+alit, of the search since she 'as prevented b, the police fro" actuall, 'itnessin+ the search as it 'as bein+ conducted. ;e points out that her sister 'as confined b, the police in one of the roo"s of the house 'hile the si"ultaneous search 'as +oin+ on in the other portion thereof. Moreover, thou+h the raidin+ part, had su""oned t'o baran+a, 5aga7a&s as 'itnesses, the police 'ere alread, throu+h searchin+ the house 'hen %aga7a& rnesto arrived. In other 'ords, the latter, too, had failed to 'itness the search.4$ The appeal is not "eritorious. !ontrar, to appellantQs clai", ;enn, and Barangay %aga7a& rnesto 'ere present 'hen the la'"en searched his house. The illicit dru+s and paraphernalia 'ere found in the "asterQs bedroo" stashed inside the second decI of a 'ooden cabinet. This is clear fro" the positive and cate+orical testi"on, of PO4 Tirso Pascual, a "e"ber of the raidin+ tea"8 FIS!#= 8 > :hat did ,ou do 'hen ,ou arrived at the house of the accused at Salvanera St. Paradise, Con?a+a, !a+a,anS # SPO7 =asa", the officer on the case 'ho 'as handlin+ the Search :arrant, infor"ed the persons present at that house of the purpose of the "e"bers, Sir. > ), the 'a,, 'as the accused presentS # De.ter Torres 'as not present, Sir. > :ho 'ere in their house at that ti"eS # ;is sister, ;enn, Catchalian and so"e of his children, Sir. ... > #nd after infor"in+ the sister of the accused of ,our purpose, that is to serve the search 'arrant a+ainst her brother, 'hat did ,ou doS

# $( ,0e ;rese(1e o/ ,0e bara(Aay 2aAa?a) a() ,0e s3s,er o/ ,0e a11use), ?e beAa( ,o sear10 ,0e 0ouse, S3r. > #nd 'ere ,ou able to discover an,thin+ inside the house of the accusedS # Des, Sir. > :hat 'ere ,ou able to find out inside the houseS # Durin+ the conduct of the search, 'e 'ere able to recover one bricI for" of dried "ari/uana 'rapped in a ne'spaper, placed inside a 'ooden cabinet particularl, at the second decI of the 'ooden cabinet, Sir. > #side fro" that, 'hat did ,ou see inside the houseS # :hile conductin+ the search, 'e recovered t'o transparent plastic sachet containin+, 'hich 'e believe to be sha)* and so"e other "aterials such as li+hter, alu"inu" foils, Sir.44 ... !O0RT8 > :here 'as ;enn, Catchalian at the ti"e of the searchS # !-?ays bes3)e us, 4our %o(or. > Dou "ean ;enn, Catchalian 'as also inside the houseS # Des, Dour ;onor. FIS!#=8 > So there 'ere five of ,ou inside the houseS # Des, Sir. > Dou, =i'a+, council"en Sa+nep and Vivit and CatchalianS # Des, Sir.46 PO4 PascualQs above testi"on, 'as corroborated b, SPO$ 3essie =i'a+, liIe'ise a "e"ber of the raidin+ tea" that searched the house of the appellant.47 )esides, ;enn, and %aga7a& rnesto, 'ere not the onl, 'itnesses to the search@ %aga7a& d'ard Sa+nep 'as also present

durin+ the entire search. This is evinced b, the testi"onies of PO4 Pascual and the certification si+ned b, the t'o %aga7a&s. The RT! and the !# correctl, re/ected the testi"onies of defense 'itnesses ;enn, and %aga7a& rnesto for bein+ biased and riddled 'ith inconsistencies. :e are in full accord 'ith the follo'in+ enco"passin+ disGuisition of the appellate court8 :e note, ho'ever, that her credibilit, is adversel, affected b, the inconsistencies in her state"ents. She could not even e.actl, sa, 'here she 'as sta,in+ before the police arrived to conduct the search. Thus, the transcript of her testi"on, provides as follo's8 FIS!#= N =3O !ORT S8 Dou do not o'n a house in Con?a+aS :itness C#T!;#=I#N8 :e onl, sta, in the house of ", parents-in-la', Sir. >8 Dou stated 'hile a+o that ,ou 'ere then in ,our house 'hen the, conducted the searchS #8 Des, Sir. >8 #nd ,ou liIe'ise stated that ,our house is situated beside the house of De.ter Torres #8 Des, Sir. >8 The house of ,our father is situated about 455 "eters a'a, fro" the house of De.ter Torres, is it notS #8 Des, Sir. >8 #nd accordin+ to ,ou at that ti"e, ,ou 'ere sta,in+ in the house of ,our father-inla'S #8 I 'as not sta,in+ in the house of ", father, Sir. >8 )ecause ,ou 'ere then sta,in+ in the house of De.ter TorresS #8 Des, Sir. >8 #nd as a "atter of fact, ,ou 'ere in the house of De.ter Torres 'hen the police arrived, is it notS #8 I 'as in the house of ", father, Sir. >8 So ,ou no' a+ree 'ith "e that in #u+ust 455$, ,ou 'ere sta,in+ in the house of ,our brother De.ter TorresS

#8 No, Sir. >8 Did ,ou not state a 'hile a+o that ,ou are sta,in+ in ,our brotherQs houseS #8 Des, Sir, but 'hen the police conducted the search, I 'as in the house of ", father. >8 #+ain, ,ou see" not to be tellin+ the truthS #8 :h, not, Sir. >8 # 'hile a+o also ,ou stated that ,ou are sta,in+ in the house of ,our father-in-la', 'hich is about 455 "eters a'a,S #8 Des, Sir. >8 So at that ti"e ,ou 'ere sta,in+ in three houses, in the house of ,our brother, in the house of ,our father-in-la' and in the house of ,our (father*S #8 I a" not sta,in+ in the house ", father-in-la', Sir. >8 So ,our state"ent earlier that ,ou are sta,in+ in ,our father-in- la'Qs house is not correctS #8 No, Sir. >8 So the house that ,ou are referrin+ to in ,our direct e.a"ination is actuall, the house of ,our father or the house of De.terS #8 (I* 'as onl, told b, De.ter that I 'ill /ust clean the house if he leaves the place, Sir. !onsistent 'ith the trial courtQs o'n findin+s as bet'een the testi"on, of Catchalian and the testi"onies of the police officers, this !ourt finds the testi"onies of the police officers "ore credible. #side fro" the principle that testi"onies of police officers deserve full faith and credit +iven the presu"ption that the, have perfor"ed their duties re+ularl,, 'e note that the prosecution 'itnesses +ave consistent and strai+htfor'ard narrations of 'hat transpired on #u+ust $6, 455$. The police officers have consistentl, testified that Catchalian 'as then in the house of the accused-appellant 'hen the, arrived thereat, and that she 'as 'ith the" 'hen the, conducted the search inside the house. The presence of baran+a, council "e"bers d'ard Sa+nep and rnesto Vivit durin+ the search 'as also sufficientl, established. These baran+a, officials even affi.ed their si+natures on the confiscation receipt issued b, PO6 3essie =i'a+ that contains a state"ent that the sei?ed properties 'ere found in the presence of )r+,. Ba+. d'ard R. Sa+nep and )r+,. Ba+. rnesto >. Vivit.

)aran+a, Ia+a'ad rnesto VivitQs retraction and assertion that he 'as not reall, present 'hen the police"en searched the house of the accused-appellant fail to persuade. Durin+ crosse.a"ination, Vivit, a relative of the accused-appellant, even testified in court8 FIS!#= N =3O !ORT S8 Dou 'ere reGuired to si+n a confiscation receiptS #8 Des, sir. >8 Dou 'ere told that the docu"ent that ,ou 'ere asIed to si+n is a !onfiscation Receipt, "eanin+, the ite"s ,ou enu"erated therein 'ere actuall, taIen as a result of the searchS #8 Des, sir. >8 #nd ,ou si+ned that docu"ent because ,ou Ino' for a fact that the ite"s 'ere actuall, recovered inside the house of the accusedS #8 Des, sir. >8 #nd that is the truthS #8 Des, sir. #s correctl, pointed out b, the trial court8 The afore state"ents of this defense 'itness clearl, established the fact that, there 'as nothin+ irre+ular in the e.ecution of the search 'arrant. It also establishes the "aterial fact that, 'hat 'as clai"ed to have been recovered, sei?ed and confiscated fro" the cabinet located in one of the roo"s of De.terQs house, to 'it8 dried "ari/uana, t'o (4* plastic sachets of sha)*, li+hter, "atch bo., and alu"inu" foils are true. True, because rnesto Vivit, a 'itness to the search and a baran+a, council"an si+ned the confiscation receipt voluntaril, because he Ine' for a fact that said ite"s 'ere actuall, recovered fro" the house of the accused.9 ven defense 'itness ;enn, Catchalian "entioned in her testi"on, that rnesto Vivit 'as 'ith the police"en 'hen the, conducted the search.42 More i"portantl,, it is no' too late in the da, for appellant to ob/ect to the ad"issibilit, of the evidence sei?ed pursuant to the search 'arrant. Thou+h he seasonabl, ob/ected after the prosecution for"all, offered its evidence, his ob/ection 'as not based on constitutional +rounds, but rather on the +round that he 'as not in actual possession of the pre"ises at the ti"e the search 'as conducted.41 In the case of 0e,aisip v. Co*rt o+ Appeals,4A 'e held8

#t an, rate, ob/ections to the le+alit, of the search 'arrant and to the ad"issibilit, of the evidence obtained thereb, 'ere dee"ed 'aived 'hen no ob/ection to the le+alit, of the search 'arrant 'as raised durin+ the trial of the case nor to the ad"issibilit, of the evidence obtained throu+h said 'arrant. Indeed, the ri+ht to be secure fro" unreasonable searches and sei?ures, liIe an, other ri+ht, can be 'aived and the 'aiver "a, be "ade either e.pressl, or i"pliedl,.4& ;ard to believe is appellantQs insinuation that the evidence for the prosecution 'ere planted. ;is ver, conduct follo'in+ his arrest 'ould belie this alle+ation8 :irst. ;e failed to co"plain about this "atter 'hen he 'as apprehended nor bestirred hi"self to brin+ it up durin+ his preli"inar, investi+ation. ;e could not even identif, the person, the police"an or police"en 'ho alle+edl, planted the evidence. In fact, it 'as onl, durin+ this appeal that appellant accentuated this alle+ed fra"e-up. 1econ&. The appellant failed to infor" his counsel of the alle+ed plantin+ of evidence b, the police"en@ if he had done so, for sure, the said counsel 'ould have prepared his affidavit and filed the appropriate "otion in court for the suppression of the thin+sHarticles sei?ed b, the police"en. Thir&. :e find it incredible that the police"en planted said evidence in full vie' of %aga7a& d'ard, 'hose presence durin+ the search 'as undisputed. This is so because the police"en could be prosecuted for plantin+ evidence and, if convicted, sentenced to death under Section $% of R.#. No. A12%8 S !TION $%. Section 47 of Republic #ct No. 1742, as a"ended, Ino'n as the Dan+erous Dru+s #ct of $%A4, is hereb, a"ended to read as follo's8 Sec. 47. Penalties +or 2overn,ent ;++icials an& -,ployees an& ;++icers an& 9e,)ers o+ Police Agencies an& the Ar,e& :orces, <Planting< o+ -vi&ence. L The "a.i"u" penalties provided for JinK Sections 6, 7($*, 2($*, 1, A, &, %, $$, $4 and $6 of #rticle II and Sections $7, $7-#, $2($*, $1 and $% of #rticle III shall be i"posed, if those found +uilt, of an, of the said offenses are +overn"ent officials, e"plo,ees or officers, includin+ "e"bers of police a+encies and the ar"ed forces. #n, such above +overn"ent official, e"plo,ee or officer 'ho is found +uilt, of 9plantin+9 an, dan+erous dru+s punished in Sections 6, 7, A, &, % and $6 of #rticle II and Sections $7, $7-#, $2 and $1 of #rticle III of this #ct in the person or in the i""ediate vicinit, of another as evidence to i"plicate the latter, shall suffer the sa"e penalt, as therein provided. The incantation of fra"e-up is nothin+ ne'. It is a co""on and standard line of defense in "ost prosecutions for violation of the Dan+erous Dru+s =a'. :hile such defense cannot and should not al'a,s be considered as contrived, nonetheless, it is +enerall, re/ected for it can easil, be concocted but is difficult to prove. Police officers are, after all, presu"ed to have acted re+ularl,

in the perfor"ance of their official functions, in the absence of clear and convincin+ proof to the contrar,, or that the, are "otivated b, ill-'ill.4% #ppellant ne.t sub"its that his absence durin+ the search coupled 'ith the fact that he 'as not cau+ht in possession of the illicit dru+s and paraphernalia are circu"stances sufficient enou+h to e.onerate hi".65 :e are not persuaded. The essential ele"ents of the cri"e of ille+al possession of re+ulated dru+s are the follo'in+8 (a* the accused is found in possession of a re+ulated dru+@ (b* the person is not authori?ed b, la' or b, dul, constituted authorities@ and (c* the accused has Ino'led+e that the said dru+ is a re+ulated dru+.6$ The ele"ents of ille+al possession of prohibited dru+s are as follo's8 (a* the accused is in possession of an ite" or ob/ect 'hich is identified to be a prohibited dru+@ (b* such possession is not authori?ed b, la'@ and (c* the accused freel, or consciousl, possessed the prohibited dru+.64 The fact that appellant 'as not in his residence 'hen it 'as searched nor cau+ht in +lagrante &elicto possessin+ the illicit dru+s and paraphernalia does not dent the case of the prosecution. #s a "atter of la', 'hen prohibited and re+ulated dru+s are found in a house or other buildin+ belon+in+ to and occupied b, a particular person, the presu"ption arises that such person is in possession of such dru+s in violation of la', and the fact of findin+ the sa"e is sufficient to convict. Other'ise stated, the findin+ of the illicit dru+s and paraphernalia in the house o'ned b, the appellant raised the presu"ption of Ino'led+e and, standin+ alone, 'as sufficient to convict.66 This !ourt, in People v. Tira,67 ru"inated on the /uridical concept of 9possession9 under Section $1, #rticle III of R.#. No. 1742, as a"ended, and the evidence necessar, to prove the said cri"e. The sa"e principle applies to prohibited dru+s. . . . This cri"e is ,ala prohi)ita, and as such, cri"inal intent is not an essential ele"ent. ;o'ever, the prosecution "ust prove that the accused had the intent to possess (ani,*s posi&en&i* the dru+s. Possession, under the la', includes not onl, actual possession, but also constructive possession. #ctual possession e.ists 'hen the dru+ is in the i""ediate ph,sical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession e.ists 'hen the dru+ is under the do"inion and control of the accused or 'hen he has the ri+ht to e.ercise do"inion and control over the place 'here it is found. .clusive possession or control is not necessar,. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his ri+ht to e.ercise control and do"inion over the place 'here the contraband is located, is shared 'ith another. Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon e.clusive possession, and a sho'in+ of non-e.clusive possession 'ould not e.onerate the accused. Such fact of possession "a, be proved b, direct or circu"stantial evidence and an, reasonable inference dra'n therefro". ;o'ever, the prosecution "ust prove that the accused had Ino'led+e of the

e.istence and presence of the dru+ in the place under his control and do"inion and the character of the dru+. Since Ino'led+e b, the accused of the e.istence and character of the dru+s in the place 'here he e.ercises do"inion and control is an internal act, the sa"e "a, be presu"ed fro" the fact that the dan+erous dru+s is in the house or place over 'hich the accused has control or do"inion, or 'ithin such pre"ises in the absence of an, satisfactor, e.planation. In the instant case, appellant failed to present an, evidence to rebut the e.istence of ani,*s possi&en&i over the illicit dru+s and paraphernalia found in his residence. ;is clai" that he 'as not a'are that such ille+al ite"s 'ere in his house is insufficient. :e have ti"e and a+ain ruled that "ere denial cannot prevail over the positive testi"on, of a 'itness. Mere denial, /ust liIe alibi, is a self-servin+ ne+ative evidence 'hich cannot be accorded +reater evidentiar, 'ei+ht than the declaration of credible 'itnesses 'ho testif, on affir"ative "atters. #s bet'een a cate+orical testi"on, that rin+s of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the for"er is +enerall, held to prevail.62 Moreover, his defense of fra"e-up, as 'e said, is a co""on and standard line of defense 'hich is invariabl, vie'ed 'ith disfavor, it bein+ capable of eas, concoction and difficult to prove.61 !onsiderin+ that no clear and convincin+ evidence 'as presented to prove such alle+ation, the presu"ption of re+ularit, in the perfor"ance of official dut,,6A as 'ell as the principle that findin+s of the trial court on the credibilit, of 'itnesses, especiall, 'hen affir"ed b, the !#, are entitled to +reat respect and are accorded the hi+hest consideration,6& "ust prevail over the appellantQs i"putation of ill-"otive on the part of the police"en 'ho conducted the search. The RT! and the !#, in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$667, correctl, "eted a+ainst appellant the penalt, of recl*sion perpet*a and the P255,555.55 fine. The cri"e of violation of Section &, #rticle II of R.#. No. 1742, as a"ended, for ille+al possession of &6$.%$ +ra"s of "ari/uana, a prohibited dru+, is punishable b, recl*sion perpet*a to death. !onsiderin+ that there are no Gualif,in+ circu"stances, the appellant is sentenced to suffer the penalt, of recl*sion perpet*a, confor"abl, to #rticle 16 of the Revised Penal !ode. The !ourt, ho'ever, 'ill "odif, the penalt, the !# i"posed upon the appellant in !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$677. 0nder Section $1, #rticle III of R.#. No. 1742, as a"ended, the i"posable penalt, of possession of less than 455 +ra"s of re+ulated dru+, in this case sha)*, is prision correccional to recl*sion perpet*a. )ased on the Guantit, of the re+ulated dru+ sub/ect of the offense, the i"posable penalt, shall be as follo's8 >0#NTITD =ess than one ($* +ra" to 7%.42 +ra"s 7%.41 +ra"s to %&.25 +ra"s IMPOS#)= P N#=TD prision correccional prision "a,or

%&.2$ +ra"s to $7A.A2 +ra"s

reclusion te"poral reclusion perpetua

$7A.A1 +ra"s to $%% +ra"s

!onsiderin+ that the re+ulated dru+ found in the possession of the appellant is onl, 5.41 +ra"s, the i"posable penalt, for the cri"e is prision correccional. #ppl,in+ the Indeter"inate Sentence =a', the appellant should have been sentenced to suffer an indeter"inate penalt, of fro" four (7* "onths and one ($* da, of arresto ,ayor in its "ediu" period, as "ini"u", to three (6* ,ears of prision correccional in its "ediu" period, as "a.i"u", for violation of Section $1 of R.#. No. 1742, as a"ended. In vie' of the Guantit, of sha)* confiscated in this case, the !# correctl, deleted the penalt, of fine i"posed on appellant, as the second para+raph of Section 45 of R.#. No. 1742, as a"ended b, Section $A of R.#. No. A12%, provides onl, for the penalt, of i"prison"ent. Republic #ct No. %$12, other'ise Ino'n as the !o"prehensive Dan+erous Dru+s #ct of 4554, increased the penalt, for ille+al possession of less than five (2* +ra"s of sha)* to i"prison"ent of t'elve ($4* ,ears and one ($* da, to t'ent, ,ears and a fine ran+in+ fro" three hundred thousand (P655,555.55* to four hundred thousand pesos (P755,555.55*. ;o'ever, since this la' is not favorable to appellant, it cannot be +iven retroactive application in the instant case. This is the "andate of #rticle 44 of the Revised Penal !ode, 'hich reads8 #RT. 44. Retroactive e++ect o+ penal la7s. L Penal la's shall have a retroactive effect insofar as the, favor the persons +uilt, of felon,, 'ho is not a habitual cri"inal, as this ter" is defined in Rule 2 of #rticle 14 of this !ode, althou+h at the ti"e of the publication of such la's a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is servin+ the sa"e. The sa"e la' also chan+ed the penalt, for ille+al possession of 255 +ra"s or "ore of "ari/uana to life i"prison"ent to death, and a fine ran+in+ fro" P255,555.55 to P$5,555,555.55. Obviousl,, the a"end"ent of the penalt, fro" recl*sion perpet*a to life i"prison"ent to death in R.#. No. %$12 cannot, liIe'ise, be applied retroactivel, to the present case since it 'ould also be unfavorable to appellant. $N "$G%T OF !"" T%E FOREGO$NG, the Decision appealed fro" is !FF$RME' ?3,0 MO'$F$C!T$ON. #ccordin+l,, /ud+"ent is hereb, rendered as follo's8 ($* In !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$667, the appellant is found GU$"T4 be,ond reasonable doubt of violation of Section &, #rticle II of Republic #ct No. 1742, as a"ended, and is hereb, SENTENCE' to suffer the penalt, of recl*sion perpet*a. ;e is also OR'ERE' to pa, a fine of P255,555.55 'ithout subsidiar, i"prison"ent in case of insolvenc,@ (4* In !ri"inal !ase No. 5&-$677, the appellant is hereb, found GU$"T4 be,ond reasonable doubt of violation of Section $1, #rticle III of Republic #ct No. 1742, as a"ended, and is SENTENCE' to suffer an indeter"inate penalt, fro" Four (7* "onths and One ($* da, of

arresto ,ayor, in its "ediu" period, as "ini"u" to Three (6* ,ears of prision correccional, in its "ediu" period, as "a.i"u". No costs. SO OR'ERE'. Pangani)an, =nares-1antiago, A*stria-9artine3, Chico-Na3ario, 4.4., concur.

Foo,(o,es
$

Records, Vol. $, p. 4. Records, Vol. 4, p. $. Records, Vol. $, pp. 4A-4&@ records, Vol. 4, pp. 44-46. Records, Vol. $, p. &.

TSN, Ma, $7, 4554, pp. 6-$4@ TSN, Septe"ber $5, 4554, pp. 4-44@ 3oint #ffidavit of #rrest, Records, Vol. $, p. 1.
1

Records, Vol. $, p. $5. Id. at $6. Id. at $5A-$$5. Id. at $$7. TSN, March $$, 4556, pp. 4-A. TSN, Ma, 41, 4556, pp. 7-$$. TSN, 3ul, A, 4556, pp. 6-$7. Records, Vol. $, p. $%6. !# rollo, p. 7&. Id. at %7. C.R. Nos. $7A1A&-&A, 3ul, A, 4557, 766 S!R# 175. C.R. No. %654&, 3ul, 4%, $%%7, 467 S!R# 222, 2&4.

&

$5

$$

$4

$6

$7

$2

$1

$A

$&

!# rollo, p. $$7. Id. at $4%-$65. Rollo, p. $&. !# rollo, pp. 24-21. TSN, Ma, $7, 4554, p. 1-&. TSN, Septe"ber $5, 4554, p. 4$. TSN, October $7, 4556, pp. 4-1. !# rollo, pp. $5A-$$5. Records, Vol. $, pp. $$7-$$2. C.R. No. &%6%6, 3anuar, 42, $%%$, $%6 S!R# 6A6, 6&4.

$%

45

4$

44

46

47

42

41

4A

4&

People v. O"a'en+, C.R. No. %%525, Septe"ber 4, $%%4, 4$6 S!R# 714, 7A$, citin+ People v. Malasu+ui, 16 Phil. 44$, 441 ($%61*.
4%

People v. ;uan+ Ehen ;ua, C.R. No. $6%65$, Septe"ber 4%, 4557, 76% S!R# 625, 6&$.
65

!# rollo, p. 21. People v. Tira, C.R. No. $6%1$2, Ma, 4&, 4557, 765 S!R# $67, $2$. Id. !upcupin v. People, 775 Phil. A$4, A65 (4554*. Supra note 6$, $2$-$24. People v. Macalaba, 776 Phil. 212, 2A& (4556*. People v. Solon, C.R. No. $5116%, Ma, 6$, $%%2, 477 S!R# 227, 215. Rule $6$, Sec. 6 ("*, Revised Rules of !ourt.

6$

64

66

67

62

61

6A

6&

Carcia v. !#, 647 Phil. &71, &26 ($%%1*.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila F$RST '$+$S$ON G.R. No. 1:2116 O1,ober 3 , 2 6

PEOP"E OF T%E P%$"$PP$NES, appellee, vs. ROGER +$""!NUE+!, appellant.

'EC$S$ON

4N!RES-S!NT$!GO, J.: For revie' is the Decision$ of the !ourt of #ppeals in !#-C.R. !R-;.!. No. 55%A2, dated Dece"ber 45, 4552, affir"in+ in toto the Decision4 of the Re+ional Trial !ourt of Malabon !it,, )ranch A4, in !ri". !ase No. 4A$2%-MN findin+ appellant Ro+er Villanueva , ;uelva +uilt, of violation of Section 2, #rticle II of Republic #ct (R.#.* No. %$12 (4554*, other'ise Ino'n as the Co,prehensive 0angero*s 0r*gs Act o+ >!!>, and sentencin+ hi" to suffer the penalt, of life i"prison"ent and to pa, a fine of P255,555.55 and costs. The Infor"ation dated 3ul, $$, 4554 a+ainst the appellant alle+es8 That on or about the %th da, of 3ul,, 4554 in the Municipalit, of Navotas, Metro Manila Philippines and 'ithin the /urisdiction of this ;onorable !ourt, the above-na"ed accused, bein+ a private person and 'ithout authorit, of la', did, then and there, 'illfull,, unla'full, and feloniousl, sell and deliver in consideration of the a"ount of P$55.55 to poseur bu,er One ($* heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containin+ 'hite cr,stalline substance 'ith net 'ei+ht 5.4$ +ra", 'hich substance 'hen sub/ected to che"istr, e.a"ination +ave positive result for Meth,la"pheta"ine ;,drochloride other'ise Ino'n 9shabu9, a re+ulated dru+. !ONTR#RD TO =#:. 6 #ppellant pleaded not +uilt, upon arrai+n"ent.7 PO$ #riosto Rana of the Dan+erous Dru+s nforce"ent Croup (DD C*, Northern Police District, testified that at &855 p.". of 3ul, %, 4554, a confidential infor"ant infor"ed the" that appellant 'as sellin+ sha)* at )locI &, lot 4, Phase 4, #rea $, Da+at-da+atan, Navotas.2 ;e i""ediatel, co"posed a tea" of police operatives to entrap the appellant,1 'ith hi" posin+ as

the poseur-bu,er. #fter "arIin+ the P$55.55 bill and recordin+ in the blotter its serial nu"ber, the tea" proceeded to the place and arrived thereat around %865 p.". ;e and the infor"ant approached the appellant 'hile the rest strate+icall, positioned the"selves. The infor"ant introduced hi" to the appellant, 'ho asIed the" if the, 'anted to bu, sha)*. #ppellant +ot one plastic sachet fro" his pocIet containin+ a 'hite cr,stalline substance. #fter appellant received the "arIed "one,, Rana e.ecuted the prearran+ed si+nal and the tea" arrested the appellant. The confiscated substance 'as sub"itted to the Northern Police District-!ri"e =aborator, for e.a"ination,A 'hich ,ielded the follo'in+ results8 SP !IM N S0)MITT D8 # L one ($* heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet 'ith "arIin+s 9RV; ))9 containin+ 5.4$ +ra" of 'hite cr,stalline substance. .... .... FINDINCS8 >ualitative e.a"ination conducted on the above-stated speci"en +ave POSITIV result to the tests for Meth,la"pheta"ine h,drochloride, a re+ulated dru+. . . .& Den,in+ the accusations a+ainst hi", appellant testified that on the ni+ht of the alle+ed co""ission of the cri"e, he 'as at ho"e 'atchin+ television. Thereafter, t'o police"en InocIed at the door looIin+ for a certain person na"ed Ro+er. :hen he identified hi"self as Ro+er, he 'as i""ediatel, handcuffed and brou+ht to the headGuarters 'ithout e.planation. It 'as onl, later that he found out that he 'as bein+ char+ed for sellin+ sha)*.% #fter hearin+, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of 'hich reads8 :; R FOR , pre"ises considered, /ud+"ent is hereb, rendered findin+ accused Ro+er Villanueva , ;uelva +uilt, be,ond reasonable doubt for dru+ pushin+, penali?ed under Section 2, #rt. II, R# %$12 and he is hereb, sentenced, in vie' of the s"all Guantit, of shabu involved, to "3/e $@;r3so(@e(, and to pa, a fine of P255,555.55, and to pa, the costs. The decIs of shabu sub/ects of this case are forfeited in favor of the +overn"ent to be disposed of under the rules +overnin+ the sa"e. ;'C-Branch Cler5 o+ Co*rt -nri8*eta A. 9ar8*e3 is hereb, en/oined to i""ediatel, turn over the decI of shabu to the proper authorit, for final disposition. !osts de oficio. SO ORD R D.$5 !onsiderin+ the penalt, i"posed, the case 'as directl, appealed to this !ourt for auto"atic revie'. ;o'ever, pursuant to our decision in People v. 9ateo$$ "odif,in+ the pertinent

provisions of the Rules of !ourt insofar as direct appeals fro" the Re+ional Trial !ourt to the Supre"e !ourt in cases 'here the penalt, i"posed is death, reclusion perpetua or life i"prison"ent, this case 'as referred to the !ourt of #ppeals, 'hich affir"ed in toto the decision of the trial court, thus8 IN VI : OF #== T; FOR COINC, the instant appeal is hereb, DISMISS D and the challen+ed decision #FFIRM D in toto. !osts de oficio. SO ORD R D.$4 ;ence, this petition. The core issue for resolution is 'hether error attended the trial courtFs findin+s, as affir"ed b, the !ourt of #ppeals, that appellant 'as +uilt, be,ond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 2, #rticle II, of R.#. No. %$12. #ppellant "aintains that there 'as no entrap"ent and that he 'as arrested in his house on the ni+ht of the alle+ed co""ission of the cri"e. :hile he ad"its that the resolution of the case 'ould boil do'n to the deter"ination of 'ho bet'een the parties is "ore credible, he insists that the presu"ption of re+ularit, in the perfor"ance of official dut, alone could not sustain a conviction@ and that the self-servin+ and uncorroborated testi"on, of PO$ Rana could not prevail over his constitutionall, +uaranteed presu"ption of innocence.$6 In essence, 'hat appellant puts at issue is the trial courtFs appreciation of factual details of the bu,-bust operation or the entrap"ent. Suffice it to sa, that settled is the polic, of this !ourt, founded on reason and e.perience, to sustain the factual findin+s of the trial court in cri"inal cases, on the rational assu"ption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence before it, havin+ had the opportunit, to "aIe an honest deter"ination of the 'itnessesF deport"ent durin+ the trial.$7 In the instant case, 'e find no basis to disre+ard the trial courtFs factual findin+s. Indeed, in cri"inal cases, the prosecution bears the on*s to prove be,ond reasonable doubt not onl, the co""ission of the cri"e but liIe'ise to establish, 'ith the sa"e Guantu" of proof, the identit, of the person or persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but re"ains in the prosecution throu+hout the trial. ;o'ever, 'hen the prosecution has succeeded in dischar+in+ the burden of proof b, presentin+ evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the alle+ations in the infor"ation or has established a pri"a facie case a+ainst the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused "aIin+ it incu"bent upon hi" to adduce evidence in order to "eet and nullif,, if not to overthro', that pri"a facie case.$2 To sustain a conviction under a sin+le prosecution 'itness, such testi"on, needs onl, to establish sufficientl,8 $* the identit, of the bu,er, seller, ob/ect and consideration@ and 4* the deliver, of the thin+ sold and the pa,"ent thereof. Indeed, 'hat is "aterial is proof that the transaction or sale actuall, tooI place, coupled 'ith the presentation in court of the substance sei?ed as evidence.$1 In this case, PO$ Rana, bein+ the poseur-bu,er, 'as the "ost co"petent person to testif, on the fact of sale and he did so to the satisfaction of both the trial court and the appellate court.

Thus, 'e a+ree 'ith the !ourt of #ppeals that8 !ontrar, to appellantFs assertions, the prosecution has established 'ith "oral certaint, the presence of all the ele"ents necessar, for the prosecution for the ille+al sale of sha)*. In the case at bar, there is no doubt that appellant 'as cau+ht in the ver, act of sellin+ ?sha)*?, a prohibited dru+. PO$ #riosto Rana, the prosecution 'itness 'ho acted as poseur-bu,er, narrated in a clear and strai+htfor'ard "anner the facts of sale. . . . .... :hat is "ore, the identities of the seller and the bu,er to+ether 'ith the corp*s &elict@iA of sellin+ sha)* have also been dul, established. Poseur-bu,er PO$ #riosto Rana positivel, identified accused-appellant Ro+er Villanueva as the person 'ho sold to hi" one plastic sachet containin+ the 'hite cr,stalline substance. . . . .... Then too, the re+ulated dru+ of sha)* contained in a plastic sachet 'hich the appellant handed over to the bu,er, 'as also dul, proven before the trial court. . . . .... #+ainst these stron+ positive and substantial evidence, appellant could onl, sa, that no bu,-bust operation 'as conducted and, instead, insists that he 'as /ust a victi" of fra"eup@ that the police"en carried out an ille+al search on the pre"ises of his house, planted evidence, and then char+ed hi" as a supplier of dru+s. The contentions are 'ithout "erit. # bu,-bust operation is a for" of entrap"ent that is resorted to for trappin+ and capturin+ felons in the e.ecution of their cri"inal plan. The operation is sanctioned b, la' and has consistentl, proved to be an effective "ethod of apprehendin+ dru+ peddlers. 0nless there is clear and convincin+ evidence that the "e"bers of the bu,-bust tea" 'ere inspired b, an, i"proper "otive or 'ere not properl, perfor"in+ their dut,, their testi"onies 'ith respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit. Veril,, here, fro" the evidence adduced, :e find no reason to depart fro" the +eneral rule. :e are one 'ith the court a GuoFs conclusion that the prosecution 'as able to establish that a bu,-bust operation actuall, tooI place startin+ fro" the ti"e the tea" co"posed of nine (%* "e"bers proceeded to the tar+et area at %855 p.". for the initial ne+otiation until the perfection of the sale at %865 p.". the sa"e ni+ht.$A Moreover, 'hen the police officers involved in the bu,-bust operation have no "otive to falsel, testif, a+ainst the accused, the courts shall uphold the presu"ption that the, have perfor"ed their duties re+ularl,@$& and as held in People v. Pacis,$% bare denials b, the accused cannot overco"e this presu"ption.

#ll told, the trial court and the !ourt of #ppeals correctl, held that the appellant co""itted the cri"e char+ed. :hat re"ains to be deter"ined is the correctness of the penalt, i"posed on the felon, co""itted. Section 2, #rticle II of R# %$12 reads8 Sec. 2. 1ale, Tra&ing, A&,inistration, 0ispensation, 0elivery, 0istri)*tion an& Transportation o+ 0angero*s 0r*gs an&Bor Controlle& Prec*rsors an& -ssential Che,icals. - The penalt, of life i"prison"ent to death and a fine ran+in+ fro" Five hundred thousand pesos (P255,555.55* to Ten "illion pesos (P$5,555,555.55* shall be i"posed upon an, person, 'ho, unless authori?ed b, la', shall sell, trade, ad"inister, dispense, deliver, +ive a'a, to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport an, dan+erous dru+, includin+ an, and all species of opiu" popp, reAar)-ess o/ ,0e =ua(,3,y a() ;ur3,y 3(8o-8e), or shall act as a broIer in an, of such transactions. In findin+ appellant +uilt, be,ond reasonable doubt of the cri"e char+ed, the trial court sentenced hi" to suffer the penalt, of life i"prison"ent and to pa, a fine of Five ;undred Thousand pesos (P255,555.55*. :hile it correctl, i"posed the said penalties, 'e find the reason +iven therefor, that is, in vie7 o+ the s,all 8*antity o+ sha)* involve&, inaccurate. 0nliIe under the repealed R.#. No. 1742 ($%A4* or the Dan+erous Dru+s #ct of $%A4 'here the i"posable penalt, depends on the Guantit, of the re+ulated dru+ involved, the fore+oin+ provision no' i"poses the penalt, of life i"prison"ent to death and a fine ran+in+ fro" Five hundred thousand pesos (P255,555.55* to Ten "illion pesos (P$5,555,555.55* for the sa-e, trade, ad"inistration, dispensation, deliver,, distribution and transportation of sha)*, a dan+erous dru+, reAar)-ess o/ ,0e =ua(,3,y 3(8o-8e).45 6%EREFORE, in vie' of the fore+oin+, the Decision of the !ourt of #ppeals in !#-C.R. !R;.!. No. 55%A2, dated Dece"ber 45, 4552, affir"in+ in toto the Decision of the Re+ional Trial !ourt of Malabon !it,, )ranch A4, in !ri". !ase No. 4A$2%-MN findin+ appellant Ro+er Villanueva , ;uelva +uilt, of violation of Section 2, #rticle II of Republic #ct No. %$12, other'ise Ino'n as the Co,prehensive 0angero*s 0r*gs Act o+ >!!>, and sentencin+ hi" to suffer the penalt, of life i"prison"ent and to pa, a fine of P255,555.55 and costs, is hereb, !FF$RME'. SO OR'ERE'. Pangani)an, C.4. CChairpersonD, A*stria-9artine3, CalleEo, 1r., an& Chico-Na3ario, 44., concur. Foo,(o,es
$

Rollo, pp. 6-$$. Penned b, #ssociate 3ustice !onrado M. VasGue?, 3r. and concurred in b, #ssociate 3ustices 3uan >. nriGue?, 3r. and Vicente >. Ro.as.
4

Id. at $4-$1. Penned b, 3ud+e )en/a"in M. #Guino, 3r.

Records, p. $. Id. at 62. TSN, March $A, 4556, pp. 4-6. TSN, March 45, 4556, p. $5. TSN, March $A, 4556, pp. 6-1. Records, p. 1. TSN, March 4A, 4556, pp. 6-A. Records, p. A$. C.R. Nos. $7A1A&-&A, 3ul, A, 4557, 766 S!R# 175. Rollo, p. $$. Id. at 6A-6&. People v. Ch*a, C.R. No. $66A&%, #u+ust 46, 455$, 616 S!R# 214, 2&$. People v. %ino5, 745 Phil. 2%$, 156 (455$*. #ap*3 v. People, C.R. No. $25525, 3une $A, 4557, 764 S!R# 776, 77A. Rollo, pp. 1-%. People v. Falencia, 76% Phil. 21$, 21A (4554*. 767 Phil. $7&, $2$ (4554*.
45

&

$5

$$

$4

$6

$7

$2

$1

$A

$&

$%

9a)*tas v. Perello, #.M. Nos. RT3-56-$&$A M RT3-57-$&45, 3une &, 4552, 72% S!R# 61&, 6%6.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila T%$R' '$+$S$ON

G.R. No. 169141 'e1e@ber 6, 2 HFor@er-y G.R. Nos. 159854-56I

PEOP"E OF T%E P%$"$PP$NES, appellee, vs. ROMEO 'E" MUN'O y ST!. M!R$!, appellant.

'EC$S$ON

T$NG!, J.7 Ro"eo del Mundo , Sta. Maria (appellant* 'as char+ed before the Re+ional Trial !ourt (RT!* of MaIati, )ranch $62, for violation of Sections 2 and $$, #rticle II of Republic #ct (R.#.* No. %$12 in t'o (4* Infor"ations that read8 !RIMIN#= !#S No. 54-656& That on or about the $&th of October 4554, in the !it, of MaIati, Philippines and 'ithin the /urisdiction of this ;onorable !ourt, the above-na"ed accused, 'ithout the correspondin+ license or prescription, did then and there 'illfull,, unla'full, and feloniousl, sell, +ive a'a,, distribute and transport Meth,la"pheta"ine ;,drochloride (shabu*, a re+ulated dru+, 'ei+hin+ E RO POINT E RO T;R CR#M (5.56 +ra"* contained in one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet. !ONTR#RD TO =#:.$ !RIMIN#= !#S No. 54-656% That on or about the $&th da, of October 4554, in the !it, of MaIati, Philippines and 'ithin the /urisdiction of this ;onorable !ourt, the above-na"ed accused, not bein+ la'full, authori?ed to possess or other'ise use an, dan+erous dru+ and 'ithout correspondin+ license or prescription, did then and there 'illfull,, unla'full, and feloniousl, have in his possession, direct custod, and control ?ero point ?ero three (5.56* +ra" of Meth,la"pheta"ine ;,drochloride (shabu*, 'hich is a dan+erous dru+ in violation of the above cited la'. !ONTR#RD TO =#:.4 0pon arrai+n"ent, appellant pleaded not +uilt, to the char+es.6 Trial ensued. #fter trial, his coaccused Susan Pu+al 'as acGuitted fro" a separate char+e for violation of Section $$, #rticle II, R.#. No. %$12. ;o'ever, in a Decision7 dated & Septe"ber 4556, the RT! found appellant +uilt, be,ond reasonable doubt of the cri"e char+ed. The RT! disposed as follo's8

:; R FOR , it appearin+ that the +uilt of the accused ROM O D = M0NDO , ST#. M#RI# 'as proven be,ond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 2 and $$, #rticle II of R.#. JNo.K %$12, as principal, 'ith no "iti+atin+ or a++ravatin+ circu"stances, accused is hereb, sentenced8 $. In !ri"inal !ase No. 54-656&, to suffer life i"prison"ent and to pa, a fine of P255,555.55@ 4. In !ri"inal !ase No. 54-656%, to suffer i"prison"ent for a period of t'elve J$4K ,ears and one J$K da,, as "ini"u", to t'ent, J45K ,ears and a fine of P655,555.55@ and 6. To pa, the costs. It appearin+ that the +uilt of accused S0S#N P0C#= , PINCO= in !ri"inal !ase No. 54-6575 'as not proven be,ond reasonable doubt, she is hereb, acGuitted of the cri"e of violation of Section $$ of R# JNo.K %$12. =et the ?ero point ?ero nine J5.5%K +ra" of Meth,la"pheta"ine ;,drochloride be turned over to the PD # for proper disposition. SO ORD R D.2 !ulled fro" the records and decisions of the courts belo', the antecedents follo'. The office of !luster 4 of the MaIati #nti-Dru+ #buse !ouncil (M#D#!* received a report fro" a confidential infor"ant that a certain Ro",, later identified as appellant, 'as en+a+ed in the sellin+ of prohibited dru+s, particularl, sha)*. Proceedin+ fro" this infor"ation, the head of M#D#! !luster 4 for"ed a tea" to conduct a bu,-bust operation and desi+nated M#D#! a+ent Nor"an #. )ilason ()ilason* as the poseur-bu,er, to be provided 'ith t'o (4* "arIed P$55 bills.1A On $& October 4554, at around 2855 oQclocI in the afternoon, the infor"ant acco"panied )ilason to the place 'here appellant 'as reported to be pl,in+ his trade. Meanti"e, the rest of the M#D#! and Dru+ nforce"ent 0nit (D 0* operatives positioned the"selves at a strate+ic place to "onitor the transaction.& )ilason and the infor"ant approached appellant 'ho 'as then standin+ at the corner of Pason+ Tirad and Ponte Streets in Te/eros, MaIati and talIin+ to his fe"ale co"panion, later identified as Pu+al and alle+edl, a QscorerQ accordin+ to the infor"ant. The infor"ant introduced )ilason to appellant as a bu,er of sha)*. #ppellant asIed )ilason ho' "uch he intended to bu,. )ilason replied, ?0os lang, pangga,it lang.? Then, appellant received the P455.55 "arIed "one, fro" )ilason 'hile handin+ the latter one ($* plastic sachet% of sha)* 'hich ca"e fro" the left pocIet of his pants. Ne.t, )ilason +ave the pre-arran+ed si+nal. The rest of the tea" closed in. )ilason introduced hi"self as a "e"ber of M#D#! and, 'ith the tea", placed appellant and Pu+al under arrest. T'o (4* plastic sachets$5 and the "arIed "one, 'ere recovered fro" appellant

'hile one ($* plastic sachet$$ 'as confiscated fro" Pu+al. #ppellant and Pu+al 'ere dul, apprised of the nature of their arrest and their constitutional ri+hts.$4 #fter'ards, appellant and Pu+al 'ere brou+ht to the D 0 office for proper disposition. Tests conducted on the plastic sachet ,ielded positive results for Meth,la"pheta"ine ;,drochloride.$6 The parties stipulated that the ph,sical science report$7 'as dul, acco"plished after the speci"ens of sha)* had been sub/ected to laborator, tests. ;ence, the prosecution dispensed 'ith the presentation of the Forensic !he"ist. The parties liIe'ise stipulated that8 ($* M#D#! a+ent Dio"edes !a"poraso confiscated fro" Pu+al one J$K plastic sachet suspected to contain sha)*@ and (4* SPO4 :il"er #ntonio 'as the tea" leader of the bu,-bust operation 'herein he assisted in the arrest of appellant.$2 #ppellant, a 16-,ear old /obless resident of Te/eros, MaIati, interposed the defense of denial. ;e clai"ed that there 'as never a ti"e in his life that he sold sha)*. ;e alle+ed that in the afternoon of $& October 4554, he 'as inside his house l,in+ do'n 'ith his +randchild. ;e 'as a'aIened fro" sleep 'hen police officers IicIed the door open and entered the house. The police officers forced hi" to reveal the 'hereabouts of the sha)* and the "one,. #ppellant replied that he does not sell sha)*. Then, the police officers searched the house but 'ere not able to find an,thin+. SubseGuentl,, appellant 'as asIed to +o out of the house and board the police officersQ service vehicle for alle+edl, sellin+ sha)*. #ppellant entrusted his +randchild to his 'ifeQs siblin+.$1 #t the D 0 office, appellant 'as told to escape but he did not as he clai"ed not to have done an,thin+ 'ron+. Ten ($5* "inutes after, Pu+al arrived. #ppellant ca"e to Ino' of the char+es a+ainst hi" on the da, he 'as arrested. #lle+edl,, these are false char+es but appellant failed to file an, co"plaint a+ainst the arrestin+ officer for lacI of "one,.$A #ppellant 'as found +uilt, as char+ed and the /ud+"ent of conviction 'as elevated to the !ourt for auto"atic revie'. In a Resolution$& dated 1 Septe"ber 4557 of the !ourt in C.R. Nos. $2%&27-21,$% the cases 'ere transferred to the !ourt of #ppeals pursuant to the !ourtQs rulin+ in People v. 9ateo.45 )efore the !ourt of #ppeals, appellant ar+ued that the trial court erred in8 ($* accordin+ +reater 'ei+ht to the evidence adduced b, the prosecution and disre+ardin+ the defense of denial interposed b, appellant@ and (4* findin+ appellant +uilt, be,ond reasonable doubt of the offenses char+ed.4$ The !ourt of #ppeals in a Decision44 dated 4A 3une 4552, in !#-C.R. !R No. 55464, affir"ed 'ith "odifications the decision of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the decision reads8 :; R FOR , the appealed 0ecision is #FFIRM D 'ith MODIFI!#TION. #ppellant Ro"eo del Mundo , Sta. Maria is hereb, #!>0ITT D in !ri". !ase No. 54-656%. ;is conviction in !ri". !ase No. 54-656& for violation of Section 2, #rticle II of R# No. %$12 and all other aspects of the Decision are "aintained. SO ORD R D.46

The !ourt of #ppeals held that in !ri"inal !ase No. 54-656&, the details of the sale of sha)* bet'een appellant and the M#D#! operatives have been clearl, and sufficientl, sho'n.47 ;o'ever, the appellate court entertained doubts 'ith respect to appellantQs culpabilit, in !ri"inal !ase No. 54-656% resultin+ to his acGuittal therein. The appellate court observed that the prosecution did not produce evidence to sho' that appellant 'as actuall, in possession of the second sachet supposedl, containin+ Qshabu.Q42 #ppellant is no' before the !ourt sub"ittin+ for resolution the sa"e "atters ar+ued before the !ourt of #ppeals, thou+h this ti"e he Guestions onl, his conviction in !ri"inal !ase No. 54656&, for the ille+al sale of sha)*, as he 'as acGuitted of the char+e in !ri"inal !ase No. 54656% b, the appellate court. Throu+h his Manifestation (In =ieu of Supple"ental )rief*41 dated $7 Nove"ber 4552, appellant stated that 'ill not file a Supple"ental )rief and in lieu thereof, he 'ill adopt the #ppellantQs )rief he had filed before the appellate court. The Office of the Solicitor Ceneral liIe'ise "anifested that it is no lon+er filin+ a supple"ental brief.4A #ppellant principall, contends that the non-presentation before the trial court of the infor"ant and 'itnesses other than M#D#! a+ents )ilason and !a"poraso "ilitates a+ainst the trust'orthiness of the prosecutionQs theor,.4& The !ourt is not persuaded. The pertinent provision of #rticle II of R.#. %$124% reads as follo's8 S !. 2. 1ale, Tra&ing, A&,inistration, 0ispensation, 0elivery, 0istri)*tion an& Transportation o+ 0angero*s 0r*gs an&Bor Controlle& Prec*rsors an& -ssential Che,icals.- The penalt, of life i"prison"ent to death and a fine ran+in+ fro" Five hundred thousand pesos (P255,555.55* to Ten Million Pesos (P$5,555,555.555* shall be i"posed upon an, person, 'ho, unless authori?ed b, la', shall sell, trade, ad"inister, dispense, deliver, +ive a'a, to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport an, dan+erous dru+, includin+ an, and all species of opiu" popp, re+ardless of the Guantit, and purit, involved, or shall act as a broIer in an, of such transactions. The ele"ents necessar, in ever, prosecution for the ille+al sale of QshabuQ are8 ($* the identit, of the bu,er and the seller, the ob/ect and the consideration@ and (4* the deliver, of the thin+ sold and the pa,"ent therefor.65 :hat is "aterial is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled 'ith the presentation in court of the corp*s &elicti. Corp*s &elicti is the bod, or substance of the cri"e, and establishes the fact that a cri"e has been actuall, co""itted. It has t'o ele"ents, na"el,8 ($* proof of the occurrence of a certain event@ and (4* so"e personQs cri"inal responsibilit, for the act.6$ M#D#! a+ent )ilason, the poseur-bu,er, clearl, established that an ille+al sale of sha)* actuall, tooI place and that appellant 'as the author thereof. ;e testified as follo's8 Fiscal Moreno to 'itness8 >8 ;o' did ,ou co"e to Ino' the accused in this caseS

#8 On October $&, 4554, 'e arrested both accused Ro"eo del Mundo and Susan Pu+al. >8 For 'hat particular offenseS #8 For violation of Sections 2 and $$. >8 Did ,ou conduct a bu,-bust operation a+ainst said accusedS #8 Des, sir. >8 :as the bu, bust operation successfulS #8 Des, sir. >8 In connection 'ith the bu,-bust operation that ,ou conducted a+ainst the accused, do ,ou recall havin+ e.ecuted a 3oint #ffidavit of #rrestS #8 Des, sir. >8 If that affidavit 'ill be sho'n to ,ou, 'ill ,ou be able to identif, the sa"eS #8 Des, sir. >8 I a" sho'in+ to ,ou a Pina+sanib Na Sinu"paan+ Sala,sa,. Please +o over this and tell the !ourt if this is the sa"e affidavit that ,ou e.ecutedS #8 Des, sir. Fiscal Moreno8 This 'as previousl, "arIed as .hibits # and #-$. .... Fiscal Moreno8 For purposes of e.pedienc, and to save the "aterial ti"e of the ;onorable !ourt, 'e propose for stipulation 'ith the defense that this Pina+sanib na Sinu"paan+ Sala,la, (sic* 'ill for" part as the direct testi"on, of the 'itness. #tt,. >uia"bao8 :e a+ree, ,our ;onor. . . . .64

In the Pinagsani) na 1in*,paang 1alaysay,66 )ilason to+ether 'ith SPO4 :il"er #ntonio and M#D#! #+ent !a"poraso narrated in detail the sale of shabu "ade b, appellant to )ilason. )ased on a tip fro" a confidential infor"ant, a tea" co"posed of M#D#! and D 0 a+ents 'as for"ed to conduct a bu,-bust operation. The tea" proceeded to the place 'herein, accordin+ to the confidential infor"ant, appellant alle+edl, conducted his transactions. #fter introductions 'ere "ade, )ilason handed the "arIed "one, to appellant 'hile the latter in turn handed hi" one ($* plastic sachet containin+ sha)*. #ppellant 'as thereafter i""ediatel, arrested.67 The result of the laborator, e.a"ination conducted on the 'hite cr,stalline substance confiscated fro" appellant and for'arded to the cri"e laborator, of the Philippine National Police confir"s the testi"on, that indeed, 'hat 'as sold b, appellant 'as shabu. The results of the e.a"ination states8 FINDINCS8 >ualitative e.a"ination conducted on the above-stated speci"ens +ave POSITIV result to the tests for the presence of Meth,la"pheta"ine h,drochloride, a dan+erous dru+s. . . .. !ON!=0SION8 Speci"ens # to ! contains Meth,la"pheta"ine h,drochloride, a dan+erous dru+s. . . . .62 Moreover, )ilason 'as able to present and identif, in court the confiscated dru+s and the "arIed "one,, 'hich are corroboratin+ pieces of evidence of the corp*s &elicti, thus8 Fiscal Moreno8 >8 Dou liIe'ise stated in ,our #ffidavit that ,ou 'ere able to bu, shabu fro" the accused and confiscated another plastic sachets (sic* containin+ shabu. If those ite"s 'ill be sho'n to ,ou, 'ill ,ou be able to identif, the sa"eS #8 Des, sir. >8 I a" sho'in+ to ,ou a 'hite envelope, do ,ou Ino' the contents of this envelopeS #8 Des, sir. Three plastic sachets. >8 :ill ,ou +o over these plastic sachets and tell us 'hich of these plastic sachets ,ou 'ere able to bu, fro" accused Del MundoS #8 This one 'ith "arIin+ 9RDMS.9 Fiscal Moreno8

:e reGuest that this 'hite envelope be "arIed as .hibit 9 9 and this plastic sachet 'ith "arIin+ 9RDMS9 be "arIed as J.Khibit 9 -$.961 .... Fiscal Moreno8 >8 Dou said in ,our Pina+sanib na Sinu"paan+ Sala,sa, that in conductin+ the bu, bust operation a+ainst the accused, ,ou used bu, bust "one, consistin+ of t'o pieces of One ;undred Peso bills. If that t'o pieces of One ;undred Peso bills 'ill be sho'n to ,ou, 'ill ,ou be able to identif, the sa"eS #8 Des, sir. >8 I a" sho'in+ to ,ou t'o pieces of One ;undred Peso bills, 'ill ,ou please tell us if these are the sa"e bu, bust "one, 'hich ,ou used in conductin+ the bu, bust operation a+ainst the accusedS #8 This is the photocop, of the bu, bust "one, 'e used in the operation. . . . .6A # bu,-bust operation is a for" of entrap"ent 'hereb, 'a,s and "eans are resorted to for the purpose of trappin+ and capturin+ the la'breaIers in the e.ecution of their cri"inal plan.6& The deliver, of the contraband to the poseur-bu,er and the receipt b, the seller of the "arIed "one, successfull, consu""ates the bu,-bust transaction bet'een the entrappin+ officers and the accused.6% 0nless there is clear and convincin+ evidence that the "e"bers of the bu,-bust tea" 'ere inspired b, an, i"proper "otive or 'ere not properl, perfor"in+ their dut,, their testi"on, on the operation deserves full faith and credit.75 It is ver, clear fro" the testi"on, of )ilason and the other "e"bers of the tea" bear that their narration of events 'as positive, probable and in accord 'ith hu"an e.perience. It bears the bad+es of truth, such that it is difficult for a rational "ind not to find it credible. Thus, 'e find no reason to deviate fro" the findin+s of the trial court and the appellate court. In addition, the presu"ption of re+ularit, in the perfor"ance of official duties has not been controverted@ hence, the !ourt is bound to uphold it. #ppellant failed to prove that in testif,in+ a+ainst hi", )ilason and the other "e"bers of the tea" 'ere "otivated b, reasons other than the dut, to curb the sale of dan+erous dru+s. There is no proof of an, ill "otive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to i"pute falsel, such a serious cri"e to appellant.7$ On the non-presentation of the infor"ant, the rule is that his presentation in an ille+al dru+s case is not essential for the conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testi"on, 'ould "erel, be corroborative and cu"ulative. Infor"ants are +enerall, not presented in court because of the need to hide their identit, and preserve their invaluable service to the

police. ;ere, the a+ents directl, testified re+ardin+ the entrap"ent, and the testi"on, of the infor"ant 'ould "erel, have been corroborative. #ppellantQs defenses of denial and alibi are unavailin+. It bears e"phasis that appellant 'as cau+ht in +lagrante &elicto in a le+iti"ate entrap"ent operation conducted b, the M#D#! and D 0 a+ents. ;ence, his identit, as the person 'ho sold the dan+erous dru+ to )ilason cannot be doubted an,"ore. Such positive identification prevails over his 'eaI defenses of denial and alibi. In People v. 'snani,74 'e ruled that8 The defenses of denial and alibi have been invariabl, vie'ed b, us 'ith disfavor for it can easil, be concocted but difficult to prove, and the, are co""on and standard defense plo,s in "ost prosecutions arisin+ fro" violations of the Dan+erous Dru+s #ct.76 #ppellantQs contention that the police authorities intruded his house and that he onl, failed to file char+es a+ainst the" due to lacI of "one, could neither be believed. #ppellant did not bother to present an, evidence to support this contention. It liIe'ise bears stressin+ that the police authorities are presu"ed to have perfor"ed their dut, in a re+ular "anner.77 In fine, the trial court and the appellate court correctl, held that appellant is +uilt, of the cri"e of ille+al sale of sha)*.Q :; R FOR , the Decision dated 4A 3une 4552 of the i+hth Division of the !ourt of #ppeals in !# C.R. !R No. 55464 findin+ appellant Ro"eo del Mundo , Sta. Maria +uilt, be,ond reasonable doubt of the cri"e char+ed in !ri"inal !ase No. 54-656& for violation of Section 2, #rticle II of R.#. No. %$12 is #FFIRM D. SO ORD R D. G*is*,)ing, 4., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio 9orales, an& Felasco, 4r., 44., concur.

Foo,(o,es
$

Records, p. 6@ Dated 44 October 4554. Id. at 2. Id. at 4$. Id. at 16-1%@ Penned b, ;onorable Francisco ). Iba,. Id. at 1%.

Id. at 27@ .hibits F and F-$. Id. at 7%@ .hibit #. Id. .hibit -$. .hibit -4. .hibit -6. Records, pp. 7%-25. Id. at 12. .hibit !@ Id. at 24. Id. at 17. TSN, 42 3ul, 4556, pp. 4-7. Id. at 7-1. !# rollo, p. 2$. The docIet nu"bers of the cases 'hen first elevated to the !ourt. C.R. Nos. $7A1A&-&A, A 3ul, 4557, 766 S!R# 175. !# rollo, p. 4%.

&

$5

$$

$4

$6

$7

$2

$1

$A

$&

$%

45

4$

44

Id. at A1-&7@ Penned b, #ssociate 3ustice Ma+dan+al M. de =eon 'ith the concurrence of #ssociate 3ustices Salvador 3. Valde?, 3r. and Mariano !. del !astillo.
46

Id. at &6. Id. at &$. Id. at &4. Rollo, pp. $6-$7. In its Manifestation dated 47 Nove"ber 4552@ id. at $2. !# rollo, pp. 66-67.

47

42

41

4A

4&

4%

Bno'n as the 9!o"prehensive Dan+erous Dru+s #ct of 4554.9 People v. Isnani, C.R. No. $66551, % 3une 4557, 76$ S!R# 76%, 77%. People v. Monte, C.R. No. $776$A, 2 #u+ust 4556, 75& S!R# 652, 65%-6$5. TSN, 2 March 4556, pp. 6 and 2. Records, p. 7%@ .hibit #. Id. Id. at 24. TSN, 2 March 4556, pp. 2-1. Id. at 2-1. People v. Valencia, 76% Phil. 21$, 21A (4554*. People v. Ra?ul, 77$ Phil. 14, A2 (4554*@ People v. 0,, 6%4 Phil. AA6, A&A-A&& (4555*. People v. Valencia, supra. People v. Ra?ul, supra note 6% at &%-%5. C.R. No. $66551, % 3une 4557, 76$ S!R# 76%.

65

6$

64

66

67

62

61

6A

6&

6%

75

7$

74

76

Id. at 727 citin+ People v. leonor 3ulian Fernande?, C.R. Nos. $7&&25-26, $& Dece"ber 455$, 6A4 S!R# 15&, 147.
77

People v. )on+alon, 742 Phil. %1, $45-$4$ (4554*.