G.R. No. 93628




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 93628 July 9, 1991 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDITHA DE GUZMAN, accused-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Mamerto S. Villanueva for accused-appellant. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: A "buy-bust operation" conducted by a team of police operatives led to the charge of Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Art. 11, Sec. 4, as amended) against Editha de Guzman, a 56 year-old widow, and her eventual conviction. From the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of P30,000.00, imposed by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch XIII, * she now professes anew her innocence before this Court. The People's version is that the "buy-bust operation" was undertaken on November 15, 1988, at about 6:30 P.M. when Patrolmen Eduardo Fajardo, Emmanuel Retiro, Nuguid and Asuncion, all members of the Quezon City Police Force, Dagat-Dagatan Sub-Station, went to Serrano Street, Novaliches, Quezon, to the residence of appellant Editha de Guzman. They were accompanied by Elmer Diaz whom they had arrested earlier in the afternoon for pushing marijuana. Elmer had pointed to appellant as his source of illicit drugs (tsn, January 1, 1989, pp. 5-6; tsn, January 25, 1989, p. 7; tsn, February 9, 1989, pp. 4-5). Elmer had told the team that appellant was selling marijuana for P500.00. They then prepared the amount, consisting of five (5) P100.00 bills, which they photocopied, (tsn, February 9, 1989, pp. 7-9, 11; Exhs. B-B-4). No special marking was made on the bills but the policemen instead listed down its serial numbers in a small notebook (tsn, February 9, 1989, p. 8; Exh. A). Pursuant to plan, Patrolman Fajardo acted as the "poseur buyer," while Patrolmen Retiro, Asuncion and Nuguid provided support (tsn, January 9, 1989, p. 7; tsn, February 9, 1989, p. 4). Elmer first went inside the house of appellant, leaving Patrolman Fajardo outside. Once inside, Elmer informed appellant that somebody wanted to buy P500.00 worth of marijuana. A little later, Elmer and appellant went out to where Patrolman Fajardo was (tsn, January 25, 1989, pp. 8-8). The latter then handed the bills worth P500.00 to appellant, who, in turn, gave him a package containing marijuana (tsn, January 9, 1989, p. 7). It was at this moment that the back-up team led by Patrolman Retiro approached and assisted Patrolman Fajardo in arresting appellant (ibid., p. 11; tsn, February 9, 1989, p. 8). Appellant was taken to the headquarters where she was investigated (tsn, January 9, 1989, pp. 9-13; tsn, February 9, 1989, p. 9). The package handed by appellant (Exh. E) was brought by Patrolman Retiro to the NBI for examination, the results of which proved positive for marijuana (tsn, January 9, 1989, p. 12; tsn, February 9, 1989, p. 10; tsn, April 13, 1989, pp. 3-7; Exh. C). Appellant was accordingly charged in Court. She defended herself by denying any buy-bust original jurisdiction. (tsn, June 13, 1989, p. 15). She further claimed that the marijuana was not hers but was left in her care by Dolores Urbana and Elmer Diaz on November 15, 1988 at around 4:00 P.M. It was the first time that appellant met Elmer although she admitted having known Dolores before, as the latter was an ambulant vendor in her place from whom she bought vegetables regularly. The prohibited drug was contained in a "bayong," which had ripe bananas on top. Elmer and Dolores promised to return for the "bayong" as soon as they had finished collecting debts from customers. All the while, appellant thought that its contents were all vegetables (ibid., pp. 4-6). Continuing, appellant narrated that at about 6:00 P.M. of the same date, Elmer returned without Dolores. Instead, he was accompanied by two men who introduced themselves as Patrolmen Eduardo Fajardo and Emmanuel Retiro. Elmer then took the "bayong" and removed its contents. Underneath was the marijuana covered with newspaper, which he gave to the policemen (ibid., pp. 6-8). Notwithstanding her explanation, she was arrested and brought to the police station. There, she alleges that she was physically maltreated and raped by Patrolman Fajardo. Later, she was "sodomized" by Patrolman Retiro causing her anus to bleed (ibid., pp. 8-14; Exhs. 1 & 2). Because of these abuses that she had suffered at their hands, she pressed charges for rape against Patrolmen Fajardo and Retiro with the National Police Commission (Appellant's Brief, pp. 3 & 9). Defense witness Amparo Serrano, appellant's neighbor, recalled having seen a man and a woman entering appellant's house on November 15, 1988, at about 4 P.M. Later, at about 6 P.M., she saw three (3) men entering appellant's house. Thirty (30) minutes later, the three (3) men, together with appellant, left the latter's house carrying a bag earlier brought by the man who had gone to appellant's house at 4 P.M. (tsn, August 29, 1989). The witness, however, did not positively identify the people who were the subject of her testimony. Convicted, as heretofore stated, appellant submits that the Court a quo erred: 1. . . . in finding that appellant met for the first time Dolores Urbana, the owner of the "bayong" containing marijuana. 2. . . . in appreciating the testimonies of Patrolman Eduardo Fajardo and Emmanuel Retiro and ignoring the testimony of appellant and Amparo Serrano. 3. . . . in rendering a judgment finding appellant guilty of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. From the evidence before us, appellant's guilt is evident. Her defense that Dolores Ubana and Elmer Diaz were the actual owners of the marijuana is pure concoction. Unquestionably, marijuana was found in her possession. She was caught completely unaware, never suspecting even for a moment that Elmer Diaz, who used to be her ally in the field, would turn against her and expose her to the police. Because of her full trust in him, she had no hesitation in believing what he had told her that there was someone interested in buying marijuana. Unsuspectingly, she fell right into the trap. She sold the marijuana to a poseur buyer. She accepted payment therefor in the form of five P100.00 peso bills. She had sold, delivered, and given away to another a prohibited drug, in contravention of law. The error imputed to the Trial Court, which allegedly found that appellant had met Dolores Ubana for the first time, lacks merit for it is plain that it was Elmer Diaz whom the Court a quo was referring to. At any rate, whether appellant met either one for the first time or had been previously acquainted with them is really immaterial in so far as appellant's guilt is concerned. She was caught in flagrante delicto. Imputing bias and prejudice to prosecution witnesses, Patrolmen Fajardo and Retiro, would not save the day for appellant. That she had charged them administratively with maltreatment and rape remains a bare allegation. And even assuming that the charge had, in fact, been filed, that would not ipso facto establish its commission. Besides, it is a matter altogether alien from the charge at hand. The medical certificate (Exh. 2) submitted by appellant does not yield any finding of rape or "sodomy" perpetrated against her.1âwphi1 Rather, the certificate points out that appellant's anus bled because of "severe anxiety and tension," presumably caused by her arrest and realization of impending incarceration. But whether or not one was ill motivated against the other, hence, the filing of the charge and countercharge, the fact remains that the Court a quo gave credence to the testimonies of the agents of the law for having been straightforward and clear as against the posturings of the, defense which it found, and which we affirm, incredible and unworthy of belief. Which brings us to the accepted principle in this jurisdiction that the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court relative to the credibility of witnesses are accorded the highest respect, absent established exceptions which are non-existent herein. Upon the evidence then, the guilt of appellant has to be pronounced, and she must suffer the consequences of her act. WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, for being in accord with the evidence and the law. Costs against accused-appellant Editha de Guzman y Suyat. SO ORDERED. Paras, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur. Footnotes * Presided over by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation