Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=28768:g-r-nos-l-71986-87-august-19,-1988-people-of-the-phil-v-virgie-andiza&amp;catid=1240&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:49:03+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIRGIE ANDIZA y ORIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Expedito B. Yumul, for Defendant-Appellant.
1.	REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS; FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT, NOT DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — Factual findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed because courts have the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while they are testifying on the witness stand.
2.	ID.; EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS; REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY; PRESUMPTIONS APPLIED TO LAW ENFORCERS. — The principal prosecution witnesses were all law enforcers and are, therefore, presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary (People v. Agapito, No. 73786, October 12, 1987).
3.	ID.; ID.; WITNESSES; NON-PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES, NOT A SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY WHERE DECLARATIONS ARE MERELY CUMULATIVE. — Admittedly, Pat. Hernandez and the civilian informer would be highly competent witnesses, being, themselves, the poseurs-buyers; however, their testimonies are not indispensable in view of the declarations of not only one, but two other eyewitnesses. If presented, their testimonies would merely constitute cumulative evidence, thus, their non-presentation as witnesses does not mean suppression of testimony that is adverse to the prosecution (People v. Extra, No. L29205, July 30, 1976).
4.	ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESENTATION OF WITNESSES; A PREROGATIVE OF FISCAL. — The matter of presenting witnesses for the People is a prerogative of the prosecuting fiscal.
5.	ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ISSUE THEREON MAY NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL WHERE DEFENSE FAILED TO ASK THE COURT TO REQUIRE THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY. — The defense could have requested the court below to issue subpoenas requiring the said eyewitnesses to testify, but as the defense apparently failed to do that, they cannot now argue that said eyewitnesses’ testimonies would have been adverse to the prosecution.
6.	ID.; ID.; ID.; INCONSISTENCIES ON MINOR DETAILS DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE FINDINGS OF GUILT BY THE TRIAL COURT. — Even if the purported contradictory statements (of Sgt. Raquidan regarding the markings of bill) were to be excluded, there still remains sufficient evidence to convict the appellant for "drug-pushing." In any case, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the matter of who actually placed the markings is a minor detail which cannot substantially affect the finding of guilt by the trial court.
7.	CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA, INHERENT IN THE CRIME OF SELLING THEM. — Possession of marijuana is inherent in the crime of selling them (People v. de Jesus, Nos. L-71942-43, November 13, 1986 145 SCRA 521).
8.	ID.; PENALTY; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT; NOT IMPOSED WHEN PRINCIPAL PENALTY IS HIGHER THAN PRISION CORRECTIONAL. — The rule that when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit (Art. 39 , Revised Penal Code).
The version put forward by the prosecution, and upheld by the trial court, 1 is as follows.
From the foregoing judgment of conviction, the appellant came to this Court.
In this case, there are no compelling reasons to depart from the general rule that factual findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses should not be disturbed because courts have the opportunity to observe the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses while they are testifying on the witness stand.
The appellant underscores the fact that Pat. Hernandez and the civilian informer were not made to take the witness stand, and maintains that their non-presentation rendered a fatal blow to the prosecution’s case. We do not agree. Admittedly, Pat. Hernandez and the civilian informer would be highly competent witnesses, being, themselves, the poseurs-buyers; however, their testimonies are not indispensable in view of the declarations of not only one, but two other eyewitnesses. If presented, their testimonies would merely constitute cumulative evidence, thus, their non-presentation as witnesses does not mean suppression of testimony that is adverse to the prosecution. 13 At any rate, the matter of presenting witnesses for the People is a prerogative of the prosecuting fiscal. In the instant case, there was no need to present Pat. Hernandez because the testimonies of Sgt. Raquidan and Pat. de la Cruz, together with those of Cpl. Romeo Consengco and the forensic chemist, Daisy Panganiban, were already clear, sufficient, and convincing. Besides, the defense could have requested the court below to issue subpoenas requiring the said eyewitnesses to testify, but as the defense apparently failed to do that, they cannot now argue that said eyewitnesses’ testimonies would have been adverse to the prosecution.
Q.	So you do not know if you are the one who placed the marking?
Besides the foregoing seeming inconsistency, no other discrepancy in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses was raised in the brief of the Appellant.
Significantly, nowhere in the appellant’s brief is there any mention of Antonio Manuel who was arrested on the same occasion with the appellant In fact, the sworn statement of Manuel, 15 in which he categorically stated that he bought from the appellant the marijuana found in his wallet, was never controverted.
1.	Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch LIX, Hon. Cancio C. Garcia, Presiding Judge.
2.	T.s.n., session of August 28, 1984, 22.
4.	T.s.n., session of July 10, 1984, 6.
6.	T.s.n., session of August 28, 1984, 17.
7.	T.s.n., session of September 17, 1984, 4-13.
8.	Decision, 4; Rollo, 24.
10.	T.s.n., session of September 17, 1984, 34.
11.	T.s.n., session of August 28, 1984, 29-30, 32.
12.	People v. Agapito, No. 73786, October 12, 1987, 6.
13.	People v. Extra, No. L-29205, July 30, 1976, 72 SCRA 199, citing People v. Sigayan, Et Al., Nos. L-18523-26, April 30, 1966, 16 SCRA 844; People v. Cristobal, No. L-13062, January 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 151; and People v. Escalona, No. L-13294, March 29, 1961, 1 SCRA 891.
14.	T.s.n., session of August 6, 1984, 7.
15. "Karugtong ng Salaysay ni Ginoong Antonio M. Manuel na kusang loob na ibinigay sa pagtatanong ni P/Cpl Romeo C. Consengco, dito sa tanggapang Narcotics Command, Angeles District Office, nitong ika-26 ng Enero 1984." Exhibit "M-1," Exhibits, 13.
16.	T.s.n., session of August 28, 1984, 24-26.
17.	T.s.n., session of September 17, 1984, 18.
19.	T.s.n., session of October 2, 1984, 19.
21.	Affidavit of Ricardo Policarpio, Exhibit "3," Exhibits, 41.
22.	T.s.n., session of September 17, 1984, 5.
23.	T.s.n., session of October 2, 1984, 32.
24.	People v. De Jesus, Nos. L-71942-43, November 13, 1986, 145 SCRA 521.
25.	Art. 39(3), Revised Penal Code.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
	Art. 39