People v. Jandayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three NARCOM agents, with a lady poseur-buyer, planned and executed a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant Celso Jandayan y Inojales, suspected of selling marijuana. The poseur-buyer was given marked bills to purchase marijuana. Upon meeting the accused-appellant at his boarding house, the poseur-buyer handed the marked money, and the accused-appellant returned with a package wrapped in newspaper. This was the pre-arranged signal for the NARCOM agents to emerge, identify themselves, and arrest the accused-appellant. The marked money was recovered from the accused, and the package, found to be positive for marijuana, was recovered from the poseur-buyer. The accused-appellant was taken to the NARCOM office, where field tests confirmed the contents as marijuana. Procedural History: Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Law (RA 6425). He denied the charges, claiming he was framed and that the police planted the marijuana. The Regional Trial Court, Branch III, Tagbilaran, Bohol, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20,000.00. The court also recommended executive clemency. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed the decision, assigning two errors: (1) the denial of his demurrer to the evidence, arguing the impossibility of three affiants testifying identically without specifying personal knowledge, and (2) the finding that the prosecution's evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in denying the demurrer to the evidence. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, finding accused-appellant Celso Jandayan y Inojales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 4, R.A. 6425, as amended. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20,000.00 were upheld. The Court reiterated the recommendation for executive clemency.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the demurrer to the evidence: The Court found no basis for the accused-appellant's claim that it was impossible for the three affiants to give identical statements. As the NARCOM agents constituted the team that planned and executed the buy-bust operation, their declarations and testimonies were naturally expected to be identical. Furthermore, the Court noted that under Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, filing a demurrer to the evidence is deemed a waiver of the right to present evidence, yet the accused-appellant was still allowed to present his defense, and the appeal reviewed both prosecution and defense evidence. On the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence: The Court held that the testimonies of the three policemen were sufficient to establish the essential elements of the crime charged. The fact that the lady poseur-buyer was not presented as a witness did not prejudice the prosecution, as her testimony would have been merely corroborative, citing People vs. Abedes. The Court found that the marked bills were indeed marked, with Sgt. Binan clarifying that the markings were made almost invisible to avert suspicion. The existence of the markings was declared by the Trial Judge in the decision. The absence of a file list of serial numbers did not disprove that the bills were marked, as a listing was made and the marked bills were turned over to the fiscal and presented in evidence. The accused-appellant's own testimony confirmed that Sgt. Binan entered the serial numbers of the money. The Court dismissed the insinuation of spurious markings as pure conjecture. The Court also found credibility in the fact that the accused-appellant had been under surveillance for suspected drug trafficking and had admitted to merely "keeping" marijuana, not selling it, to an undercover agent. His denial of his identity upon apprehension further weakened his claim of innocence.
Main Doctrine
The testimonies of police officers, presumed to have regularly performed their duties, are credible in establishing the elements of the crime charged, and the non-presentation of a poseur-buyer does not invalidate a conviction, as her testimony would be merely corroborative.