People vs. Moner DIGEST

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TENG MONER y ADAM, accused-appellant.
Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** J.:

Topic/Principles/Doctrines: Credibility of Witnesses
Nature of the Case: APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
To establish the guilt of accused-appellant, the prosecution presented three (3) witnesses namely: PO2 Joachim
Panopio, PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes and PO3 Edwin Lirio. The prosecution’s evidence tends to establish the following facts:
On April 23, 2005, the police operatives of Las Piñas Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force
(SAIDSOTF) arrested a certain Joel Taudil for possession of illegal drugs. Upon investigation, based from Taudil that the
source of the illegal drugs was Teng Moner from Tandang Sora, Quezon City. As per this information, Police Chief
Inspector Jonathan Cabal formed a team that would conduct a buy-bust operation for the apprehension of Moner. The
team composed of himself, SPO4 Arnold Alabastro, SPO1 Warlie Hermo, PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes, PO3 Edwin Lirio, PO2
Rodel Ordinaryo, PO1 Erwin Sabbun and PO2 Joachim Panopio. The marked and boodle money were given to PO2
Panopio who acted as the poseur-buyer.
At the target area, PO2 Panopio and Taudil went to Moner’s house. Outside the gate, Taudil summoned
accused-appellant and the latter came out. Taudil introduced PO2 Panopio as his friend to Moner and told him that PO2
Panopio was interested to buy shabu. PO2 Panopio asked for the price of five (5) grams of shabu. Moner replied that the
cost was P8,000.00. PO2 Panopio confirmed that he has the money with him, Moner asked them to wait and he went
inside the house. When he returned after, he handed a plastic sachet containing a substance suspected as shabu to PO2
Panopio who in turn gave him the marked and boodle money. Accused-appellant was about to count the money when
PO2 Panopio gave the prearranged signal to his team and introduced himself as [a] police officer.
Moner resisted arrest but PO2 Panopio was able to catch up with him. PO3 Lirio confiscated the items from
them and placed the same inside a plastic bag. The team proceeded to the Las Piñas City Police Station. The items
confiscated from them were turned over by PO2 Panopio to PO3 Dalagdagan who marked them in the presence of the
police operatives, accused-appellant and his co-accused. PO3 Dalagdagan prepared the corresponding inventory of the
confiscated items. The specimens were then brought to the police crime laboratory for testing. The specimens yielded
positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Consequently, a case for Violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. 9165 was filed against accused-appellant and another for Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165
against him and his co-accused.
In refutation of the prosecution’s version, the defense presented four (4) witnesses, to wit: Judie Durado,
Fatima Macabangen, accused-appellant and Richard Pascual. It is the contention of the defense that on April 23, 2005,
accused-appellant and his co-accused were at the house located along Tandang Sora, Quezon City to prepare for the
wedding of Fatima Macabangen and Abubakar Usman to be held the following day. While they were inside the house,
several armed persons wearing civilian clothes entered and announced that they were police officers. They searched the
whole house and gathered all of them in the living room.
After receiving the evidence for both sides, the trial court convicted Moner on the charge of selling shabu while,
at the same time, acquitting him and his co-accused of the charge of possession of illegal drugs.
The Court finds accused TENG MONER y ADAM “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or
illegal selling of three point ninety-one (3.91) grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug and he is hereby sentenced to suffer
the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).
Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Moner maintains that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proof to sustain his conviction for the
charge of sale of dangerous drugs. He highlights the fact that the prosecution failed to present in court the informant
who pointed to him as a supplier of shabu. He also stresses that the buy-bust operation was conducted without proper
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Likewise, he derides the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses as inconsistent, incredible and unworthy of belief. Most importantly, he underscores the failure
of the arresting officers to comply with the statutorily mandated procedure for the handling and custody of the
dangerous drugs allegedly seized from him
ISSUE: WHETHER THE COURT ERRED WHEN IT RELIED SOLELY ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES POLICE OFFICERS WHICH ARE FULL OF INCONSISTENCIES.
RULING:
No. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that were pointed out by Moner consist
merely of minor variances that do not deviate from the main narrative which is the fact that Moner sold illegal drugs to a
poseur-buyer. It has been held, time and again, that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of
witnesses do not destroy the witnesses’ credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a
rehearsed testimony. It bears stressing, too, that the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses,
when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect.

People vs. Moner DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Moner DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Moner DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TENG MONER y ADAM, accused-appellant.

Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** J.:

Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.

You might also like