Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50732:gr-175940-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:21:33+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO, Appellant.
Subject of this automatic review is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated 7 August 2006 which affirmed the Judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 110, convicting appellant Anson Ong alias Allan Co of illegal sale and possession of shabu.
That on or about the 21st day of [April] 1997, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver 989.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.
That on or about the 21st day of April 1997, Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Anson Ong alias "Allan Co," did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control 988.85 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug without the corresponding license.
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. A joint trial of the two cases ensued.
Appellant presented an entirely different account of the incident on 21 April 1997. Appellant, who apparently does not know English and Tagalog was assisted by an interpreter, narrated that he is a resident of Chuan Chow, People's Republic of China. Upon the suggestion of Lau Chan, appellant decided to go to the Philippines to start a clothing business. In the morning of 21 April 1997, appellant told Lau Chan that he wanted to go to Baclaran. Lau Chan, who himself was planning to go to the casino at Heritage Hotel, asked appellant to meet up with him. Appellant tried calling Lau Chan on this cellphone but the latter was not answering. This prompted appellant to go to Heritage Hotel to look for Lau Chan. At around 4:00 p.m., appellant was walking along Epifanio Delos Santos Avenue towards the direction of the Light Rail Transit when he noticed a commotion in front of the hotel and saw some men carrying guns. Fearing for his safety, appellant decided to walk faster but someone stopped him and poked a gun at him. He was made to board a white car in which he met Cua for the first time. They were then brought to Camp Crame for questioning. It was Cua who translated the questions propounded by the police officers to appellant. He was informed by Cua that he was arrested for failure to show any document regarding his stay in the country. During arraignment however, he learned that he was being charged of possession and sale of shabu.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the herein accused ONG POK PIW a.k.a. ANSON ONG a.k.a. ALLAN CO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) offenses for Violations of Section 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act [No.] 6425, as amended in relation to Section 20 and 21 of Article IV of said law and hereby imposes on him the penalty of two (2) RECLUSION PERPETUAS in these cases and a fine in the total amount of P200,000.00 in these cases without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" in Criminal Case No. 97-0017 for Violation of Section 15 of Republic Act [No.] 6425, as amended, weighing 989.05 grams and the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" in Criminal Case No. 97-0018 weighing 988.85 grams are hereby declared confiscated in favor of the government. The PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City or its duly authorized representative which has custody and possession of said regulated drugs are hereby directed to immediately cause the delivery and transportation thereof to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition in accordance with law. The Chief of said office is further directed to inform this Court within 20 days from receipt hereof of the action taken thereon.
The period during which the herein accused was under detention during the pendency of these cases shall be credited to him in full provided he agreed to abide by strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110, Pasay City, in Criminal Case Nos. 97-0017 and 97-0018 is hereby AFFIRMED with modification. As modified, the fine is increased to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for each offense or a total of ONE MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00).
In finding appellant guilty, the appellate court strongly relied on the testimonies of the police officers and dismissed the imputed inconsistencies in their statements as being minor.
At the core of this appeal is the issue of whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant.
Appellant primarily questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. He claims that their testimonies were tainted with inconsistencies which even the trial court had noted in its decision. Appellant relies on said observation to support his acquittal based on reasonable doubt. He asserts that his conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution's own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The prosecution seeks to establish the presence of these elements through the testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The innocence or culpability of appellant thus hinges on the issue of credibility. It is an oft-repeated rule that findings of facts of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive on this Court, absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.27 This case falls under the exception.
A I cannot recall the exact date but as far as I can remember she visited before the operation was conducted.
And you are referring to the operation on April 21, 1997?
How many days prior to the date of operation did that alleged walk-in informant go to your office?
A moment counsel, this informant, was he an employee of your office or an informant working for your office?
A He is an informant working from our office.
When you say informant working in your office, is he receiving salary from your office as a regular employee or he reports or he goes to your office every now and then?
A Yes sir, our informant.
In that briefing, was there a mention of an informant or an asset?
A Col. Lachica mentioned of a certain asset.
Was that asset present during the briefing at the headquarters?
Despite being the designated poseur-buyer, Saballa testified that he had no knowledge of how much shabu he was going to buy.
A One (1) kilo, Your Honor.
A I am not aware of the price, Your Honor.
A I do not know the price they have agreed, Your Honor.
As between the prosecution witnesses' account that it was appellant to whom the boodle money was passed and who was driving the black Honda Civic car during the alleged buy-bust operation and appellant's denial that he owned and drove said car, we are inclined to believe appellant. The prosecution failed to present the purported driver's license confiscated from appellant. In fact, they reasoned that it was missing.42 On the other hand, the defense presented a certification from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Philippine Motor Association stating that appellant's name does not exist in the LTO's file of licensed drivers and has not been issued a Philippine International Driving Permit43 by the Automobile Association of the Philippines.
Further rendering the prosecution's version dubious is the escape of another alleged cohort of appellant. Lagradilla, who was specifically tasked to block or run after any escaping suspect, failed in this regard. During the alleged buy-bust operation, he was positioned in such a manner that a firewall was blocking his vantage point.44 Instead of using his motorcycle, he chased the suspect on foot.45 Moreover, it is quite difficult to imagine how one suspect can easily escape notwithstanding the presence of at least twelve (12) police operatives in the vicinity.
The witnesses' hesitation in answering questions on the stand, as aptly observed by the trial court,46 only compounded their lack of credibility.
And so, in your testimony February 13, 2000[,] you narrated to the Court that Col. Lachica led this operation?
A He was at the Heritage Hotel. Yes.
A I know that perjury is punishable but I don't know the penalty.
A He was with us and Col. Danao at the Heritage Hotel at the time.
A Col. Lachica and the rest stayed at the Heritage Hotel considering that the buy-bust operation was at the Heritage Hotel.
A During our briefing at the office.
A I was the one who provided the buy-bust money, the boodle money.
A I cannot remember the exact amount because the money used in that operation is boodle money.
A I think Agent Coballes.
While the presentation of the boodle money, as a general rule, is not indispensable in the prosecution of a drug case, the material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the non-presentation of the buy-bust money raise reasonable doubts on the occurrence of a buy-bust operation.56 It is indeed suspicious that vital pieces of evidence, such as the boodle money and the driver's license were lost while in the custody of Coballes who unfortunately passed away during trial. Certainly, the failure to present vital pieces of these evidence cast doubt on the veracity of the buy-bust operation.
Another baffling point is the dismissal of the criminal case against Cua, the alleged accomplice of appellant. The prosecution witnesses testified that the boodle money was found in his possession. This fact was confirmed by the presence of fluorescent powder on Cua's hands.
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. While appellant's defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishe a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.
With the failure of the prosecution to present a complete picture of the buy-bust operation, as highlighted by the disharmony and incoherence in the testimonies of its witnesses, acquittal becomes ineluctable.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02256 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Anson Ong a.k.a. "Allan Co" is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him on the ground of reasonable doubt. His immediate release from prison is ordered unless he is being held for some other valid or lawful cause.
1 This Latin legal maxim literally means "when in doubt, for the accused." The earliest historical root of this rule is from the Roman Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117) when he gave the legal advice that "it is better not to punish the act of a culprit than to sentence an innocent."
2 Rollo, pp. 3-24; penned by Associate Justice Normandie Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
3 CA rollo, pp. 32-43; presided by Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg.
6 TSN, 29 July 1999, pp. 4-9.
7 TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 13.
11 TSN, 26 November 1999, p. 44.
12 TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 30-34.
13 TSN, 17 October 2000, pp. 44-47.
14 TSN, 3 March 1998, pp. 36-37.
17 TSN, 26 November 1999, p. 54.
18 CA rollo, pp. 42-43.
20 G.R. NOS. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
22 CA rollo, pp. 108-128.
26 People v. Quiaoit, G.R. No. 175222, 27 July 2007; People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019, 12 February 2007, 515 SCRA 537, 547; People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 554, 562.
27 People v. Dilao, G.R. No. 170359, 27 July 2007.
28 361 Phil. 595 (1999).
29 Cabugao v. People, G.R. No. 158033, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 624; People v. Ong, G.R. No. 137348, 21 June 2004, 432 SCRA 471, 485; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 151205, 9 June 2004, 431 SCRA 516, 523; People v. Padasin, 445 Phil. 448, 456 (2003).
30 G.R. No. 137348, 21 June 2004, 432 SCRA 471.
31 G.R. No. 158033, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 624.
33 Supra note 31 at 634.
34 TSN, 29 July 1999, pp. 4-5.
35 TSN, 14 December 1998, p. 19.
36 TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 9.
37 TSN, 26 November 1999, pp. 12-13.
38 TSN, 17 October 2000, p. 18.
39 TSN, 3 March 1998, p. 34.
41 TSN, 22 August 2000, p. 7.
42 TSN, 12 February 1999, p. 3.
44 TSN, 26 November 1999, p. 48.
46 TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 8; 26 November 1999, p. 19.
47 TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 18.
50 TSN, 25 April 2000, p. 12.
51 TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 4.
52 TSN, 15 February 2000, pp. 7-8.
53 TSN, 3 March 1998, pp. 12-13.
54 TSN, 29 July 1999, p. 8.
56 People v. Balag-Ey, G.R. No. 141532, 14 April 2004, 427 SCRA 384, 406.
57 People v. Pabiona, G.R. No. 145803, 30 June 2004, 433 SCRA 301, 323, citing People v. Morada, 307 SCRA 362, 380 (1999), People v. CaÃ±ete, G.R. No. 128321, 11 March 2004, 425 SCRA 353, and People v. LeaÃ±o, 366 SCRA 774, 792 (2001).
58 People v. Milan, 370 Phil. 493, 506 (1999).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.