SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
140679
January 14, 2004
-versus-
MANNY A. DOMINGCIL,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For the sale and delivery
of one (1) kilo of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, the appellant Manny
Domingcil
was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 16,
for
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 in an
Information,
the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the
12th day of August, 1994, in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not
authorized
by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell
and
deliver mixed dried marijuana leaves, tops and seeds in brick form,
wrapped
with paper placed in a plastic bag, a prohibited drug, weighing 800
grams,
to a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted by Police Officers
of Laoag City, in violation of the aforesaid law.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon arraignment on
August 29, 1994, the appellant, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty
to the offense charged.[2]
The case thereafter proceeded to trial.
The Case for the
Prosecution
On August 12, 1994,
at around 11:00 a.m., Belrey Oliver, an employee of Ferd’s Upholstery
Shop
located in Barangay 2, Laoag City, arrived at the Laoag Police Station.
He reported to Chief Investigator SPO4 Rodrigo Ventura that the
appellant
went to their shop looking for a buyer of marijuana. Oliver recounted
telling
the appellant that he knew of someone who was interested and ready to
buy
marijuana, and instructing him to bring one (1) kilo of the substance
to
a store located in front of the Divine Word College of Laoag at General
Segundo Avenue, Laoag City at around 1:30 p.m. of that same day.[3]
Acting on the said report,
SPO4 Ventura formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against the
appellant. He assigned SPO1 Orlando Dalusong as the poseur-buyer, and
SPO2
Marlin Ramos, SPO2 Warlito Maruquin, SPO1 Rovimanuel Balolong, SPO1
Loreto
Ancheta, and SPO2 Rosemarie Agustin, all assigned at the Investigation
Section of the Laoag Police Station as back-up. The marked "buy-money"
consisting of one P500-bill bearing Serial No. G-242745 was recorded in
the police blotter in accordance with standard operating procedure.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Except for SPO1 Dalusong
and Oliver, the rest of the team left the precinct on board two (2)
owner-type
jeeps and posted themselves near the Macmac Store, across the gate of
the
Divine Word College. Five minutes later, SPO1 Dalusong and Oliver
arrived
at General Segundo Avenue.[5]
Oliver immediately approached the appellant, who was then standing
between
the Macmac Store and a xerox center, and introduced poseur-buyer SPO1
Dalusong,
who was sporting casual clothes and slippers: "Pare, daytoy tay
gumatangen"
("Friend, this is the buyer"). At this point, the appellant who was
carrying
an orange plastic bag, brought out a brick-like item wrapped in
newspaper.
He handed the item to SPO1 Dalusong, who forthwith checked the same by
making a small hole through it. Convinced that the brick-like item was
indeed marijuana, SPO1 Dalusong handed the P500 bill to the appellant.
He thereupon scratched his head, a signal to the back-up men that the
transaction
had been consummated.[6]
Momentarily, the back-up officers, who had earlier positioned
themselves
separately in different strategic locations near the poseur-buyer,
rushed
to the scene and arrested the appellant. SPO1 Dalusong then handed the
orange plastic bag containing the suspected marijuana to SPO4 Ventura.
SPO2 Ramos frisked the appellant and recovered the buy-money from the
latter’s
pocket. Thereafter, the appellant was brought to the headquarters where
he was booked, and the incident was recorded in the police blotter.[7]
The suspected marijuana was brought to and initially examined by Dr.
Joseph
Adaya, an accredited physician of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), who
certified that the item comprised of three genuine mixture of marijuana
leaves with seeds.[8]
On September 5, 1994,
SPO4 Ventura sent a letter to the Commanding Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory
Service, Camp Diego Silang, San Fernando, La Union, requesting for the
examination of samples of the suspected marijuana taken from the
appellant.[9]
On September 6, 1998, SPO1 Loreto Ancheta, evidence custodian of the
Laoag
City, PNP, delivered the orange plastic bag containing the suspected
marijuana
to the PNP provincial crime laboratory service in Camp Juan, Laoag
City.
The bag, together with SPO4 Ventura’s letter-request, was received by
SPO3
Diosdado Mamotos.[10]
On September 8, 1994, SPO3 Mamotos forwarded the laboratory request and
the confiscated item, and were duly received by SPO4 Tampos.[11]
The latter, in turn, handed the item to Police Superintendent Theresa
Ann
B. Cid, Forensic Chemist of the Crime Laboratory Center, Region I, Camp
Diego Silang, Carlatan, San Fernando, La Union, who conducted an
examination
of representative samples extracted from the suspected marijuana
confiscated
from the appellant.[12]
On the basis of her examination, Superintendent Cid issued Chemistry
Report
No. D-074-94 with the following findings:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
One (1) block of suspected
marijuana fruiting tops weighing eight hundred grams (800) wrapped with
newspaper pages contained in an orange plastic bag.cralaw:red
PURPOSE OF LABORATORY
EXAMINATION:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
To determine the presence
of marijuana on the above-mentioned specimen.cralaw:red
F I N D I N G S:
Qualitative examination
conducted on the above-mentioned specimen prove POSITIVE result to the
test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.[13]
The Case for the
Appellant
The appellant interposed
the twin defenses of denial and alibi. He testified that sometime in
the
first week of August 1994, he and Ernesto Gamiao went to the City of
Laoag
to canvass the price for the repair of the upholstery of a passenger
jeepney.
On that occasion, they befriended a certain Belrey Oliver who was an
employee
of the Ferd’s Upholstery Shop. In the course of their conversation,
Oliver
asked the appellant where he came from and what his occupation was.
Upon
being told that he helped in harvesting mangoes in Cagayan, Oliver
immediately
offered refreshments to Gamiao and the appellant. While taking their
snacks,
Oliver inquired whether they wanted to back up the promotion of certain
policemen who, in the future, might be able to return the favor to
them.
When the appellant asked in what way they could extend help, Oliver
suggested
that they look for somebody in Cagayan from whom they could buy one (1)
kilo of marijuana. He agreed to Oliver’s suggestion. The latter handed
to him the amount of P700.00 to cover the purchase of the marijuana.
The
appellant immediately went to the terminal bound for Cagayan to look
for
somebody from that province who could be of help. When he could not
find
anyone, he decided to personally take the trip. He then instructed
Gamiao
to just go home to Vintar and inform his mother that he was going to
Cagayan.cralaw:red
The appellant thereafter
took a bus bound for Tuguegarao, Cagayan. After three (3) days, he was
able to buy one kilo of marijuana for P300.00. When he returned to
Laoag
City on August 12, 1994, he went to Ferd’s Upholstery Shop at 11:30
a.m.
to inform Oliver that he had procured the order. After seeing the
marijuana,
Oliver instructed him to take it and meet him at about 12:30 p.m. of
the
same day in front of the Divine Word College where they would hand over
the marijuana to the policemen they intended to help.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At about 12:00 noon,
the appellant arrived at Macmac’s Store and took his merienda.
Momentarily,
Oliver arrived alone on a tricycle. Oliver summoned him and they walked
southward, away from the Macmac’s Store, looking for the policemen to
whom
they would deliver the marijuana. They walked back northward, at which
point they encountered an owner-type jeep which suddenly stopped. He
was
nonplussed when Oliver grabbed him by the neck, seized his knapsack
containing
the marijuana, and pushed him inside the jeep. He was made to sit
beside
the driver with another policeman, while Oliver seated himself at the
back
seat with another policeman. The jeep they were riding was followed by
a patrol car. Still dazed at the sudden turn of events, he asked Oliver
four times, "Why is it that this is now happening to me(?)," but Oliver
did not respond. At the police station, he was immediately locked up.
That
afternoon, SPO4 Ventura and SPO2 Ramos, accompanied by Oliver, brought
him to the City Fiscal’s Office. He was later brought to the provincial
hospital where he was subjected to a physical check-up. That was the
last
time he saw or heard of Oliver.[14]
On July 9, 1999, the
court a quo rendered judgment,[15]
the dispositive portion of which reads :
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Court is morally convinced beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused Manny Domingcil is GUILTY under Sec. 4 of Art. II, RA No.
6425,
as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The
quantity
of marijuana involved is more than 750 grams; hence, in accordance with
Sec. 20, the penalty provided for in Sec. 4, shall be applied. The
accused
is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua with all its accessory
penalties
and to pay the costs.cralaw:red
Hence, the present appeal.cralaw:red
The appellant submits
the following assignment of errors:
1. The
lower
Court erred in finding that the accused was not instigated in looking
for
marijuana and bringing it to Laoag.
2. The lower Court
erred
in finding that the accused received the FIVE HUNDRED PESO bill,
despite
his denial that he received the same and that his denial cannot prevail
over the positive testimony of the police officers who are presumed to
be regularly performing their official duties, there being no improper
motive attributed to them.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. The lower Court
erred
in convicting the accused.[16]
The appellant contends
that contrary to the collective testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses,
Oliver instigated him to buy marijuana. The trial court erred in not
giving
credence and probative weight to his testimony and in considering the
testimonies
of the witnesses of the prosecution.
The appeal has no merit.cralaw:red
Time and again, this
Court has ruled that the evaluation by the trial court of the
credibility
of witnesses is entitled to the highest respect and will not be
disturbed
on appeal unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked
which,
if considered, might affect the result of the case. The reason for this
rule is that the trial court is in a better position to decide thereon,
having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial.[17]
After a thorough and careful review of the records of this case, we
find
that the guilt of the appellant was sufficiently established by the
evidence,
and the trial court’s judgment is well-supported by law and
jurisprudence.cralaw:red
What is material to
the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that
the
sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti as evidence.[18]
In this case, the prosecution adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt
that
the appellant sold one (1) kilo of marijuana to poseur-buyer SPO1
Orlando
Dalusong in the entrapment operation.cralaw:red
Q How has
the case involving drug or marijuana involving the accused brought to
your
attention or to your office, for that matter?
A Our informant
by the name of Belrey Oliver tipped of (sic) to us that he met Manny
Domingcil
at the Upholstery Shop along Ablan Avenue and he also informed us that
he ordered P500.00 worth of marijuana.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Who ordered
from whom?
A Belrey
Oliver from Manny Domingcil, sir.cralaw:red
Q By the
way, who was the chief of the Intelligence Section of Laoag City PNP,
at
that time?
A SPO4 Ventura,
sir.cralaw:red
Q Was he
present when the informant Belrey Oliver tipped you of (sic) about this
matter?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And because
of that information from Belrey Oliver, what did your Chief, SPO4
Ventura
do?
A SPO4 Ventura
made or designed a plan purposely to conduct a buy-bust operation, sir.cralaw:red
Q Where
will the operation take place?
A In front
of Macmac Store, particularly, in front of the Divine Word College of
Laoag,
sir.cralaw:red
Q And did
you have any participation in that operation?
A Yes, sir,
I acted as the poseur buy (sic).cralaw:red
Q At what
time was the operation scheduled to be executed?
A 1:30 P.M.
of August 12, 1994, sir.cralaw:red
Q For the
said operation, what preparations, if any, did your group take?
A Our Chief
of Intelligence made a plan, sir.cralaw:red
Q What was
the plan?
A To conduct
the buy-bust operation, sir.cralaw:red
Q And you
said that you were to act as poseur buyer, anything was given to you in
connection with your specific participation?
A I was
given the buy-bust money in the amount of P500.00, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what
will you do with that P500.00?
A The Chief
of Intelligence, SPO4 Ventura directed me to reflect the serial number
of the money in the police blotter, the P500.00 to be used as marked
money.cralaw:red
Q And after
the serial number was entered in the police blotter, what next did you
do?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Before
we went out of the station, the team or companions of SPO4 Ventura went
ahead to the place where the transaction will take place, sir.cralaw:red
Q And who
were the companions of SPO4 Ventura who went ahead?
A Rosemarie
Agustin, SPO2 Marlin Ramos and SPO4 Balolong, sir, while Oliver and
myself
were the ones who went together.cralaw:red
Q Who went
ahead to the place where the sale will take place?
A The team
of SPO4 Ventura, sir.cralaw:red
Q And did
you reach the place where the transaction will take place?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Before
you started to the place where the transaction will take place in front
of the Divine Word College of Laoag, did you know then the face of
Manny
Domingcil?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q How did
you know his face then?
A Belrey
Oliver, the informant, informed me that the person is Manny Domingcil.cralaw:red
Q So, what
you are saying is: when you arrived at the scene where the transaction
would take place, Manny Domingcil was already there and that Belrey
Oliver
pointed him to you?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q After
that, what did you do with Belrey Oliver?
A We went
near Manny Domingcil, sir.cralaw:red
Q And after
or as soon as you were near him, what happened next?
A Belrey
Oliver introduced Manny Domingcil to me as the buyer, sir.cralaw:red
Q What did
Oliver say?
A "Pare,
daytoy tay gumatangen", (which when translated into english[sic]
means):
"Pare, this is the buyer."
Q And so,
what was the reaction of Manny Domingcil?
A Before
that I asked Manny Domingcil if he has the stuff that was ordered.cralaw:red
Q And what
did he say?
A Manny
Domingcil said: "There is, Pare."
Q By the
way, who ordered the stuff from Manny Domingcil?
A Belrey
Oliver, sir.cralaw:red
Q Did you
ask Oliver where he ordered that from Manny Domingcil?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Where?
A At the
Upholstery Shop at Ablan Avenue, sir.cralaw:red
Q That was
what Oliver told you when he ordered the stuff?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q When Manny
Domingcil said: "There is, pare," what transpired next, if any?
A I told
him: "Can I look at it" and he brought out a wrapped brick-type form
wrapped
in a newspaper inside an orange plastic bag.cralaw:red
Q And after
he had brought out the said thing, what did you do with it?
A I checked
the contents if it is real marijuana, sir.cralaw:red
Q You said
the thing was wrapped with newspaper and you said you checked its
contents?
A Yes, sir,
I opened the wrapper, by making a small hole at the side.cralaw:red
Q And what
was the result of your inspection?
A I found
out that it was real marijuana, sir.cralaw:red
Q And, so
what did you do then?
A After
I found out that it was marijuana I handed to Manny Domingcil the P500
peso bill, sir.cralaw:red
Q And as
soon as you have handed the P500.00 bill, what did you do next?
A I gave
the signal to my companions, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what
did your companions do when you gave the signal?
A They apprehended
Manny Domingcil, sir.cralaw:red
Q What was
your signal?
A I scratched
my head, sir.cralaw:red
Q And, what
was your attire at that time you bought the brick-type marijuana from
Manny
Domingcil?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Ordinary
clothes, sir, wearing slippers.cralaw:red
Q And all
the time during your transaction with Manny Domingcil, where was Belrey
Oliver?
A At my
side, sir.cralaw:red
Q And during
the transaction, did Belrey Oliver say anything?
A None,
sir.cralaw:red
Q And after
giving your signal to your companion police officers who were nearby
and
they rushed to your place where you were, what happened?
A They apprehended
Manny Domingcil, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what
about the marijuana which you said Manny Domingcil sold to you?
A I handed
it to SPO4 Rodrigo Ventura, sir.cralaw:red
Q And what
about the P500 peso bill, do you know what happened to it?
A SPO2 Marlin
Ramos recovered the P500 peso bill from the pocket of Manny Domingcil.cralaw:red
Q And after
arresting Manny Domingcil where did your group go?
A To the
police station, sir.cralaw:red
Q Do you
know if any records were made to your police station when you returned
or arrived there?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q What for
example?
A They made
a requestwe reflected in the police blotter the apprehension of
Manny
Domingcil, the confiscation of the marijuana and the recovery of the
marked
money in the amount of P500.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Was the
serial number of the P500 bill you recovered from the pocket of Manny
Domingcil
recorded?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And do
you know what happened to the stuff later on after you returned to the
police station?
A They made
a request to Dr. Adaya to conduct an initial examination on the
confiscated
marijuana, sir.[19]
The foregoing testimony
of SPO1 Orlando Dalusong was corroborated on material points by SPO4
Rodrigo
Ventura, then Chief of the Intelligence Section of the PNP of Laoag
City
who organized and conducted the operation and was part of the buy-bust
team itself.[20]
SPO4 Ventura remained steadfast and unwavering on cross-examination
despite
intense grilling by the defense counsel.[21]
Police Superintendent
Theresa Ann Cid, the Forensic Chemist assigned at the PNP Crime
Laboratory
Center at San Fernando, La Union, confirmed[22]
Dr. Joseph Adaya’s initial finding[23]
that the substance seized from the appellant was indeed marijuana, a
prohibited
drug.cralaw:red
It was also fairly established
by SPO3 Diosdado Mamotos[24]
and SPO1 Loreto Ancheta[25]
that the confiscated marijuana was the same substance examined by the
forensic
chemist and later presented as evidence in court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The testimonies of the
principal prosecution witnesses complement each other, giving a
complete
picture of how the appellant’s illegal sale of the prohibited drug
transpired,
and how the sale led to his apprehension in flagrante delicto. Their
testimonies
establish beyond doubt that dangerous drugs were in the possession of
the
appellant who had no authority to possess or sell the same. More
importantly,
all the persons who obtained and received the confiscated stuff did so
in the performance of their official duties. Unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired
by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty,
their
testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.[26]
The appellant’s bare
denial of the crime charged and his barefaced claim that he was merely
instigated by Oliver into procuring the marijuana cannot prevail over
the
straightforward and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
It is incredible that the appellant, who had just met Belrey Oliver in
the course of his canvass for the upholstery of his brother’s jeepney,
would readily leave his errand behind and allow a stranger to talk him
into buying a prohibited drug, a known criminal activity for which he
could
be prosecuted, and if convicted, sentenced to reclusion perpetua. All
this
he was willing to risk, in exchange for an empty promise of alleged
future
favors from another who was also unknown to the appellant. The
appellant
supposedly traveled to and spent almost three days in Tuguegarao,
Cagayan,
just to be able to accommodate a newly found acquaintance, who handed
the
appellant the meager sum of P700.00 for the intended purpose. The Court
cannot give credence to such a preposterous stance as advanced by the
appellant
and confirmed by his supposed corroborative witness, Ernesto Gamiao.cralaw:red
It is axiomatic that
for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from
the mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself
such
that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference
of its probability under the circumstances. In criminal prosecution,
the
court is always guided by evidence that is tangible, verifiable and in
harmony with the usual course of human experience and not by mere
conjecture
or speculation. Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are
necessarily
accorded little weight or credence.[27]
Besides, instigation, or the appellant’s claim of a frame-up, is a
defense
that has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor because the
same can easily be concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in
most
prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.[28]
Thus, in People vs. Bongalon,[29]
the Court held:
As we have earlier stated,
the appellant’s denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception that,
in
some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting
evidence
to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like
alibi,
frame-up is a defense that has been viewed by the Court with disfavor
as
it can easily be, concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of
defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous
Drugs
Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law
and
order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely
on the basis of the policemen’s alleged rotten reputation, accept in
every
instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is
precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty
has been regularly performed exists.cralaw:red
The failure of the prosecution
to present Oliver, the police informant, does not enfeeble the case for
the prosecution. Informants are almost always never presented in court
because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police.
Their testimony or identity may be dispensed with inasmuch as his or
her
narration would be merely corroborative, especially so in this case,
when
the poseur-buyer himself testified on the sale of the illegal drug.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant’s claim
that the prosecution offered in evidence a mere xerox copy of the
P500.00
buy money and did not account for its failure to adduce in evidence the
original copy thereof is not supported by the records. The records show
that the original, and not merely a xerox copy of the marked money, was
in fact offered in evidence by the prosecution.[31]
The appellant would surely have objected if the prosecution had offered
in evidence a mere xerox copy of the bill. The appellant did not do so.
The only ground for his objection to the admission of the marked money
was that it was self-serving.cralaw:red
Even if the xerox copy
of the P500.00 bill was erroneously admitted in evidence by the trial
court,
the absence of the original of the marked money is inconsequential. The
marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable in
drug
cases;[32]
it is merely corroborative evidence. Moreover, the appellant was
charged
not only for the sale of marijuana but also for the delivery thereof,
which
is committed by the mere delivery or transfer of the prohibited drug.
The
consideration for the transaction is of no moment.[33]
The law defines deliver
as "a person’s act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another
with
or without consideration."[34]
Considering that the appellant was charged with the sale and the
delivery
of prohibited drugs, the consummation of the crime of delivery of
marijuana
may be sufficiently established even in the absence of the marked
money.
The erasures and alterations in the Joint Affidavit of the policemen
involved
in the buy-bust operation did not debilitate the case of the
prosecution.
First. The Joint Affidavit of the policemen was not admitted in
evidence
for any party. Second. The investigator who prepared the "Joint
Affidavit"
erroneously stated that the two P500.00 bills were used by the
policemen
who conducted the buy-bust operation bearing Serial Numbers AA823675
and
G242745. As shown by the prosecution’s evidence the policemen used only
the P500.00 bill bearing Serial No. G242745 for the purchase of the
drug.
Hence, the "Joint Affidavit" of the policemen had to be corrected to
reflect
the truth.cralaw:red
All told, the presumption
of regularity in the performance of duty is, in this case,
uncontradicted
by evidence to the contrary and, therefore, stands. This is bolstered
by
the fact that the prosecution’s evidence fully shows and confirms such
regularity. Accordingly, there exists no cogent reason to reverse or
even
modify the findings of the trial court giving credence to the evidence
of the prosecution.cralaw:red
IN THE LIGHT OF ALL
THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City,
Branch 16, in Criminal Case No. 7079, finding the appellant guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 4, Article II of
Republic Act No. 6425, is hereby AFFIRMED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records, pp. 1-2.
[2]
Record, pp. 17-18.
[3]
TSN, 3 June 1998, p. 3.
[4]
Id. at 4-5; TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 3-4; Exhibits "D," "E" & "F"
and
their respective submarkings.
[5]
TSN, 8 June 1998, pp. 6-7; TSN, 24 August 1998, p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 5-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 7-8; TSN, 24 August 1998, p. 7; Exhibit "G" &
submarkings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 8-11; TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 4-7; TSN, 26
October
1998, pp. 3-4; Exhibits "B," "H" & "I" & their respective
submarkings.
[9]
TSN, 3 June 1998, p. 11; Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
TSN, 28 August 1998, pp. 3-5; TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 8-9; Exhibits
"A-4" & submarkings.
[11]
TSN, 28 August 1998, p. 6; Exhibit "A-1."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, 11 February 1998, pp. 3-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Exhibit "C" & sub-markings.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
TSN, 20 April 1999, pp. 2-4; TSN, 3 May 1999, pp. 1-7; TSN, 17 May
1999,
pp. 1-5.
[15]
Records, pp. 128-135.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Rollo, p. 50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
People vs. Larry Caritativo, G.R. Nos. 145452-53, June 10, 2003.
[18]
People vs. Agnes Padasin y Chakiton, G.R. No. 143671, February 14, 2003.
[19]
TSN, 24 August 1998, pp. 3-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
TSN, 3 June 1998, pp. 3-12.
[21]
TSN, 8 June 1998, pp. 2-8.
[22]
TSN, 11 February 1998, pp. 3-7; Exhibit "C" & submarkings.
[23]
TSN, 26 October 1998, pp. 2-4; Exhibit "I."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
TSN, 28 August 1998, pp. 2-7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
TSN, 28 September 1998, pp. 1-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
People vs. Reynaldo Remerata y Remoquillo, G.R. No. 147230, April 29,
2003.
[27]
People vs. Fausto Obedo y Borbajo, G.R. No. 123054, June 10, 2003.
[28]
People vs. Evelyn Patayek y Calag, G.R. No. 123076, March 26, 2003.
[29]
374 SCRA 289 (2002).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
People vs. Uy, 380 SCRA 700 (2002).
[31]
Exhibit "E." NOTE: The Folder of Exhibits contained the envelope
(Exhibit
"F") on which it is written that the P500.00 bill (Exhibit "E") is
contained
therein. However, the envelope does not contain the said P500.00 bill.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[32]
People vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 (1998).
[33]
People vs. Ruel Eugenio y Angeles, G.R. No. 146805, January 16, 2003.
[34]
People vs. Ganenas, 364 SCRA 582 (2001). |