People v. Espallardo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 16, 1985, at around 12:30 P.M., Pasay City policemen on routine patrol noticed appellant Joseph Espallardo and four others sniffing something from a cellophane bag. Upon approach, the group scattered, but Espallardo was apprehended after a brief chase. A search yielded fifteen (15) sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes from his right pants pocket. On the way to the police station, Espallardo pointed to Alfonso Bangate as one of his customers, stating Bangate had purchased two sticks of marijuana. The police accosted Bangate, searched him, and found two sticks of marijuana cigarettes inside his wallet. Espallardo was asked to initial the confiscated marijuana sticks, as was Bangate. All seventeen sticks were submitted to the NBI and found positive for marijuana. Procedural History: Informations were filed charging Espallardo with selling marijuana (Sec. 4, R.A. 6425) and Bangate with possession of marijuana (Sec. 8, R.A. 6425). Both pleaded not guilty. The cases were tried jointly. The prosecution presented testimonies of the forensic chemist and police officers. Espallardo, in his defense, alleged he was playing billiards when arrested, denied ownership of the marijuana, and claimed he was forced to admit ownership. The trial court found Espallardo guilty of selling prohibited drugs and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P20,000.00. Bangate, who jumped bail, was tried in absentia and sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day imprisonment and a fine of P6,000.00. The Petition: Espallardo appealed, alleging the trial court erred in giving credence to the prosecution's testimonies and in concluding he was not entitled to basic rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Whether the marijuana cigarettes confiscated from the appellant were admissible as evidence.
Ruling
The conviction of Joseph Espallardo y Reyes is affirmed. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000.00, with the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of prosecution witnesses: The Court held that the trial court's findings on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses deserve full respect. The police witnesses had no apparent ill motive and were presumed to have regularly performed their public functions. Their testimonies were considered more convincing and credible than the unsubstantiated denial of the accused. The alleged contradictions among the police witnesses were deemed imaginary and reconcilable, not altering the core fact that fifteen (15) sticks of marijuana were found in Espallardo's possession. The Court reiterated the principle that possession of a considerable quantity of marijuana, especially when the accused is not a user, indicates an intention to sell, distribute, or deliver the drug, as established in People v. Roberto Toledo. The testimony of the NBI Forensic Chemist, a qualified expert, confirmed the marijuana content of the confiscated items. On the admissibility of evidence: The Court ruled that the marijuana sticks seized from Espallardo were admissible as evidence. The search was conducted as an incident to a lawful arrest. Espallardo was arrested for possession of rugby (a volatile substance punishable under P.D. No. 1619). The marijuana was discovered during this lawful apprehension. The Court cited People v. Salondro, Jr., which held that evidence taken from an accused as an incident to his arrest may be presented against him in court. Therefore, the confiscation of the marijuana was a valid search incident to a lawful arrest, making the evidence admissible.
Main Doctrine
The possession of a considerable quantity of marijuana cigarettes, coupled with the admission of selling some of them, is sufficient to establish guilt for selling prohibited drugs beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest is admissible.