People v. Abelita
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On February 16, 1990, in Navotas, Metro Manila, Reynaldo Abelita y Luquias was apprehended for allegedly selling three (3) handrolled cigarette sticks of marijuana for P10.00 to a poseur-buyer. Upon his arrest, he was found in possession of thirty-seven (37) more handrolled marijuana sticks contained in a Bonna milk can, intended for dispatch or transport. The confiscated items were found positive for Indian Hemp, commonly known as marijuana. Procedural History: The accused was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425. He pleaded not guilty. A motion to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence, contending the fatal failure to present the informant, was denied. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 170, Malabon, Metro Manila, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00, and costs. The Petition: The accused appealed the decision, raising two assignments of error: (I) the trial court erred in not acquitting him due to the absence of the NBI forensic expert to testify on the NBI report, and (II) the trial court erred in convicting him based solely on the allegedly improbable and hearsay testimony of the prosecution witness.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to present the NBI forensic expert to testify on the NBI report is fatal to the prosecution's case. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on the testimony of the lone prosecution witness, considering the non-presentation of the informant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, finding Reynaldo Abelita y Luquias guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425. The sentence of life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00, and costs were upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to present the NBI forensic expert: The Supreme Court held that the failure to present the forensic expert who prepared the NBI report is not fatal to the prosecution's case, especially when the accused and his counsel admitted the due execution and genuineness of the report during the pre-trial conference. The records showed that an Order dated April 11, 1990, embodied this admission, and the prosecution, in view thereof, dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist. The Court emphasized that facts stipulated during a pre-trial conference and embodied in a pre-trial order bind the parties, and any objection should have been raised earlier. Therefore, the accused-appellant's first assignment of error was deemed without merit. On the non-presentation of the informant: The Supreme Court ruled that the fact that the informant was never presented in court by the prosecution is of no moment, as their testimony, if presented, would at best be corroborative or cumulative. The Court cited several of its previous rulings establishing that the non-presentation of an informer, whose testimony would merely be corroborative or cumulative, is not fatal to the prosecution's case. The testimony of the lone prosecution witness, Sgt. Mendoza, was found to be positive and sufficiently clear to establish the commission of the offense. The Court presumed that Sgt. Mendoza performed his duty regularly and was not actuated by any improper motive to fabricate facts against the accused-appellant. His knowledge was acquired in the performance of his official duty, and there was no showing of prejudice against the accused, thus his testimony deserved full credit.
Main Doctrine
The failure to present the forensic expert who prepared the NBI report is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the accused, through counsel, admitted the due execution and genuineness of the report during the pre-trial conference. Similarly, the non-presentation of the informant is not fatal if their testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative.