Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 74240 September 24, 1987
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
DAVID SUNGA y BARRUT, accused-appellant.
PARAS, J.:
On June 21, 1984, the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit, Narcotics Command, based at Camp Crame, Quezon City, received confidential information that a drug pusher named "Dodie" was engaged in the illicit sale of marijuana dried leaves somewhere along M. dela Cruz in Pasay City. Acting on this tip, Capt. Gabriel Paile of the Makati Police Station, then assigned to the Narcotics Command at Camp Crame, set up undercover operations to apprehend the drug pusher. Thus, a team composed of Capt. Paile as team leader, Pat. Braulio Basco who was assigned the role of "poseur" buyer, Pat. Enrico Marquilla and Pat. Dominador Mendiola, was formed.
At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, the team hied off to M. de la Cruz, Pasay City. Upon arrival thereat, the team immediately began a close watch of the area. At about 11:00 o'clock a confidential informer brought Pat. Basco to the dope pusher who turned out to be appellant David Sunga y Barrut. Pat. Basco introduced himself to appellant as a buyer. He talked to appellant about the drug and its price. He told appellant that he wanted to buy P50.00 worth of the stuff. Afterwards, appellant left and returned shortly carrying a small plastic bag containing marijuana which he delivered to Pat. Basco. Pat. Basco in turn paid appellant with a marked P50.00 bill. Then Pat. Basco signalled his team members who immediately closed in and apprehended appellant. Appellant readily gave up, admitted his guilt and led the operatives to the house of his sister-in-law Loreta Sunga who was reportedly the source of the drugs. The latter was also arrested when the team discovered and confiscated a big quantity of prohibited drugs inside her house. While in custody appellant gave a written confession (Exh. "B") wherein he admitted his guilt.
Tried upon a plea of not guilty to the information charging him with violation of Sec. 4, Art. II in relation to Sec. 21, Art. IV of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, appellant put up the defense of alibi and complete denial. He claimed that on June 21, 1984 from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., he was at the Philippine General Hospital to undergo a treatment of hemorrhoids. However, the doctor he consulted told him to just come back the following day so he decided instead to stay overnight at the residence of Loreta Sunga at M. de la Cruz Street, Pasay City. At about 10:00 p.m. while he was walking along a small alley going toward the door of the house of Loreta Sunga after coming from a toilet outside, he noticed some nude persons approaching. But as he was not feeling well and wanted much to rest, he just proceeded to enter the door inside the house. Immediately, two persons poked their armalite rifles at him while the others rushed inside and ransacked the house of his sister-in-law. He was shocked about the incident, particularly when the persons brought out some leaves which they claimed to be marijuana. He was then brought to a Makati Police Detachment where he was tortured and asked to admit that the alley coated marijuana was his. Because of maltreatment he suffered in the hands of the police investigators, he was constrained to admit that he owned the marijuana. From the Makati Police Station, he was brought to Camp Crame where he was detained for five days. He vehemently denied the imputation about the offense charged. He signed the statement (Exh. "B") without the assistance of a lawyer and because of fear and the maltreatment he received from the policemen investigating him about the offense charged. He also denied that the P50.00 bill was taken from him.
On April 3, 1986, the court a quo rendered judgment the dispositive portion of which reads —
WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime involving the be and delivery of dried marijuana leaves as defined and penalized in accordance with Section 4, Article 2 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972, and hereby imposes upon him by way of imprisonment, the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and a fine of P20,000.00, with costs against him, and the forfeiture in favor of the government of the dried marijuana leaves, subject matter of this case. Without subsidiary imprisonment as provided for in Republic Act 5465.
SO ORDERED. (p. 31, Rollo)
From the aforesaid decision, appellant, interposed the present appeal assigning the following alleged errors —
1. The trial court gravely erred in giving evidently weight to accused-appellant's alleged confession (Exh. "B") on the commission of the offense charged, and
2. The trial court gravely erred in not acquitting the accused-appellant of the offense charged on ground of reasonable doubt.
A review of the records of this case in the light of the arguments raised by appellant in his brief indicates no reason why we should not accord the usual respect given to the factual findings of trial courts. As repeatedly stressed in the majority of appeals in cases, an appellate court gives great weight to the factual findings of trial courts and accords them respect if not finality unless the appellant is able to show that the trial court overlooked or disregarded matters of substance which, if considered, would very likely change the results. (People vs. Egas, 137 SCRA 188; People vs. Rosario, 134 SCRA 496)
The prosecution's evidence is both substantial and convincing. Capt. Gabriel Paile of the Narcotics Command at Camp Crame set up undercover operations to apprehend the drug pusher. The buy-bust operation resulted in the apprehension of David Sunga y Barrut, herein appellant. He talked with the poseur-buyer, went to his source of drugs, returned with the marijuana, accepted the P50.00 bill and was forthwith arrested.
Appellant's contention that he was innocently walking in a small alley going toward the door of the house of Loreta Sunga when suddenly somebody pushed him inside the house, and two other persons poked their armalites at him, forced him to admit the ownership of the subject marijuana leaves is very hollow and obviously self-serving. Stronger proof is needed to overcome the following findings of the trial court.
Central to the evidence of the case at bar is the very testimony of Pat. Braulio Basco-as the poseur buyer in the "Buy-Bust operation" conducted by the team led by Capt. Gabriel Payle. And such testimony was strongly reinforced by take testimonies of the other members of the team, including Capt. Payle. Indeed, the buy-bust operation they have conducted zeroed in the accused in his trading business of marijuana leaves in that particular area of this city. True enough this kind of business can only be effectively busted through an informer. All these declarations are in convergence to common knowledge and observation of man. The narration of events by the prosecution's with are positive, able, probable and entirely in accord with human experience. It bears all the earmarks of truth that it is extremely difficult for a rational mind not to give to it. They testified in a clear, positive, and straightforward manner and even under a rigid cross-examination conducted by the defense and should searching questions asked by the Court did not disturb the very essence of their testimonies.
The defense of alibi and complete denial put-up by the accused Cannot prevail over the clear, explicit and positive Identification made by all the prosecution's witnesses.
No jurisprudence in criminal cases is more settled than the rule that alibi is the weakest of all defenses and that the same should be rejected when the Identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the crime. Alibi is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove. (See People vs. Pizarro, 131 SCRA 418) Otherwise stated, alibi is a reason with a bad reputation. (See People vs. Canete, 125 SCRA 452)
Sad to state, the other decisive factor which militates very heavily against the theory exposed by the accused was when he readily admitted the source of the 25 grams of marijuana leaves that he sold to Pat. Basco — the poseur buyer. He led the team to the house of his sister-in-law, Loreta Sunga, and there they found the following articles, namely:
1. Five hundred (500) grams marijuana dried leaves;
2. Twenty-two 122) foils wrapped in newspaper and placed inside a battery operated lampshade;
3. Twenty (20) foils of marijuana leaves wrapped in newspaper and concealed in a can marked Nido. (See Exhibit F). It must be stressed that the two last items were even surrendered by the accused and his sister-in-law, Loreta Sunga. (pp. 27-28, Rollo)
The other error assigned by appellant refers to his extrajudicial confession (Exh. B) which he claimed should be disregarded because of its involuntariness and because he made it without the presence and advice of counsel.
At any rate, even if his extra-judicial confession were to be completely disregarded, there is as already discussed hereinabove more than enough evidence independent of the confession, to convict appellant for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. (People vs. de Jesus, 145 SCRA 527).
WHEREFORE the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
