People v. Pablo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Antonio Pablo y Dolloso was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), for allegedly delivering and selling one slice of marijuana cake and one aluminum foil of dried marijuana leaves to a poseur-buyer on January 29, 1986. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented testimonies of NARCOM officers P/Sgt. Rodrigo Espiritu and T/Sgt. Jacinto de la Cruz, and forensic chemist Constancia Franco-Salonga. The defense was denial, with testimonies from the accused and his friend Rodymir Calalang. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and one (1) day, and a fine of P5,000.00. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00. The CA certified the case to the Supreme Court due to the penalty imposed. The Petition: The accused appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to present the informer/poseur-buyer, that the conviction was unsupported by positive facts, and that the trial court erred in giving full credit to the prosecution's witnesses while disregarding the defense's evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the sale of marijuana in violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, despite the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer. Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the defense of denial and the testimony of the accused's corroborating witness. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court and modified by the Court of Appeals was correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The Court modified the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer: The Court held that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was not fatal to the prosecution's case. The testimonies of Sgt. Dela Cruz and Sgt. Espiritu, who were eyewitnesses to the transaction, were sufficient to establish the sale. The Court noted that the accused knew the poseur-buyer (Bobby, also known as Andoy) and could have presented him as a witness, even as a hostile witness, if he believed the testimony would be adverse to the prosecution. The presumption of suppressed evidence, which applies when evidence is willfully suppressed, does not apply to merely corroborative evidence or when the witness is available to the accused. The Court reiterated that the prosecution is not obliged to present all witnesses but only those deemed necessary to prove the facts alleged. On the issue of the defense of denial and planted evidence: The Court found the defense of denial and the claim of planted evidence to be incredible. The trial court, having observed the demeanor of the witnesses, gave credence to the prosecution's witnesses. The Court found it improbable that the police officers would plant evidence merely to satisfy the alleged personal motive of the informer, especially without any showing of undue influence by the informer over the officers. The Court emphasized that the defense's theory was easy to concoct but hard to believe, and that the testimonies of the police officers were credible and consistent with common experience. On the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt: The Court found that the prosecution had established the sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt. The buy-bust operation was conducted properly, with marked bills used and a pre-arranged signal. The officers witnessed the exchange of money for the marijuana. The forensic chemist confirmed that the substances seized were marijuana. The accused's claim that the items were planted was not substantiated and was contradicted by the testimonies of the police officers and the physical evidence. The Court reiterated that drug pushing, even on a small scale, can occur in public places. On the correctness of the penalty: The Court found the penalty imposed by the trial court to be incorrect. It noted that the trial court applied the pre-amendment provisions of R.A. No. 6425 but exceeded the maximum penalty and imposed a fine below the minimum prescribed. The Court of Appeals correctly modified the penalty to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000.00, consistent with the amended provisions of R.A. No. 6425 (as amended by P.D. No. 1675), considering that the death penalty is no longer imposable under the 1987 Constitution. The Court also clarified that subsidiary imprisonment should not be imposed in case of insolvency for penalties higher than prision correccional.
Main Doctrine
The non-presentation of a poseur-buyer is not fatal to the prosecution's case when other eyewitnesses sufficiently established the commission of the crime, especially when the accused knew the poseur-buyer and could have presented him as a witness. Furthermore, the presumption of suppressed evidence does not apply to merely corroborative evidence or when the witness is available to the accused.