FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 88589. April 16, 1991.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARLITO

LINSANGAN y DIAZ , accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Camilo R. Murillo for accused-appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; ENTITLED TO GREAT

RESPECT UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY ARE CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE ARBITRARY. — The
court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses is entitled to great
respect unless and until they are clearly shown to be arbitrary, which the defense failed to
do.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; POLICEMEN'S CATEGORICAL DECLARATIONS GIVEN MORE CREDENCE
THAN APPELLANT'S DENIALS; REASON. — Appellant's conviction was not based on the
presence of his initials on the P10 bills, but on the fact that the trial court believed the
testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually engaged in selling
marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party. The trial court gave more
credence to their categorical declarations than to the appellant's denials (People vs. Tan,
145 SCRA 614). That is as it should be for as law enforcers, they are presumed to have
performed their official duties in a regular manner. Their task of apprehending persons
engaged in the deadly drug trade is difficult enough without legal and procedural
technicalities to make it doubly so.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS; NO DENIAL OF DUE
PROCESS WHERE APPELLANT'S RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS NOT
VIOLATED. — The appellant was not denied due process during the custodial investigation.
Although he was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the P10-bills that the police
found tucked in his waist, his right against self-incrimination was not violated for his
possession of the marked bills did not constitute a crime; the subject of the prosecution
was his act of selling marijuana cigarettes.

DECISION

GRIÑO-AQUINO , J : p

This is an appeal from the decision dated April 26, 1988, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
XLIX, Manila, in Criminal Case No. 87-58968-SCC, finding the accused guilty of the crime of
Violation of Section 4 of Article II in relation to Section 21, Art. IV of Republic Act 6425
(The Dangerous Drugs Law), as amended, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua with all the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay a fine of P20,000 plus
costs.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The information dated November 13, 1987, charged:
"That on or about November 13, 1987 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, give away to another or
distribute any prohibited drug, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully sell,
deliver or give away to another ten (10) handrolled sticks of marijuana cigarettes,
which is a prohibited drug." (p. 15, Rollo.)

Upon arraignment on November 27, 1987, the appellant, assisted by counsel de parte,
pleaded not guilty to the charge.
It was established during the trial that in early November, 1987, police operatives of the
Drug Enforcement Unit, Police Station No. 3 of the Western Police District were informed
that there was rampant drug using and pushing on Dinalupihan Street, Tondo, Manila. The
pusher was described to them as a boy of about 20 years, 5'5" in height, and of ordinary
build. He allegedly sold marijuana to anybody, regardless of age ("walang gulang"). In light
of these reports, Police Lieutenant Manuel Caeg and the other members of the unit
organized a "buy-bust" operation on November 13, 1987 at Dinalupihan St., Tondo, Manila,
to effect the arrest of the notorious drug pusher. Patrolman Roberto Ruiz, a member of the
WPD since October 1, 1978 and assigned to the Drug Enforcement Unit since October,
1987, doing surveillance and arrest operations, was designated as the team leader, Pfc.
Eleazar Lahom, Patrolmen Tomasito Corpuz and Jesus Saulog were designated as team
members (pp. 1-19, t.s.n., December 16, 1987).
Five (5) days before the appointed date, the police operatives conducted a "test-buy"
operation on Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila. They arrested a person for violation of Section
8 of Republic Act 6425, as amended (Possession or Use of Prohibited Drug). Under
questioning by the police operatives, the person informed them that he bought marijuana
at Dinalupihan Street in Tondo. Cdpr

On November 13, 1987 at 10 o'clock in the morning, before the group left the office for the
area of operation, two (2) ten-peso bills were given to Pat. Corpuz who had marked them
with his initials "T.C." He gave one of the marked bills to the informer. Then, they proceeded
to Dinalupihan, using an owner-type jeep driven by Pat. Lahom. They were all in civilian
clothes. Pat. Corpuz wore a pair of maong shorts and a white t-shirt placed over his
shoulders. They parked the jeep on Dinalupihan Street near Pampanga Street in Tondo.
After briefing by the teamleader, Pat. Corpuz and the confidential informant approached
the appellant. Pat. Lahom and Saulog remained in the jeep while Pat. Ruiz stood beside the
jeep to watch the transaction.
As Patrolman Corpuz and the confidential informant walked together, they conversed
about the suspect. Pat. Corpuz asked the informant where the suspect was and the
informer pointed to the appellant, who was seated by the gutter about six (6) meters away
from them, seemingly waiting for someone. He was wearing blue-and-green shorts and a
sando (undershirt). The informer raised his hand as a signal to the appellant, who rose and
walked toward them. They walked toward a wooden house with a wooden fence and a
store on the left side. The informer told the appellant: "Kukuha ako." The informer asked?
"Magkano?" The informer told the accused that he would buy P10 worth of marijuana while
his "compadre" (referring to Patrolman Tomasito Corpuz), would also get P10 worth. P20
would fetch ten (10) cigarette sticks of handrolled marijuana at P2.00 per stick. The
policeman and the informer impressed upon the accused that they were in dire need of
marijuana. The accused took the P20 from Pat. Corpuz and tucked it in his front waist. The
accused went inside the wooden house, while Pat. Corpuz and the informer waited outside.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The accused emerged shortly and handed over to Pat. Corpuz ten (10) cigarette sticks of
handrolled marijuana. Pat. Corpuz took them with his right hand and at the same time he
grabbed the accused with his other hand, saying: "Pulis ito, h'wag kang pumalag!" Pat. Ruiz
saw the signal and rushed over to them. The accused tried to resist but was overpowered.
The informer took to his heels (pp. 1-35, t.s.n., Jan. 13, 1988).
Pat. Ruiz frisked Linsangan and retrieved the marked ten-peso bills (Exhs. A-1 and A-2)
tucked in his waist. He asked the appellant to sign his name on the two P10 bills. They
boarded the jeep and returned to the police station. Pat. Ruiz prepared a letter-request to
the NBI for the laboratory examination of the ten suspected marijuana sticks. The
appellant also put his initials "C.L." on each stick (December 18, 1987, t.s.n.).
Before Pat. Ruiz investigated the appellant, he prepared the booking sheet and arrest
report, the affidavit of arrest, crime report, and referral letter to the Fiscal's Office. Just
when the appellant was being apprised of his constitutional rights, his uncle, a neighbor,
and the barangay chairman arrived. According to Pat. Ruiz, Linsangan's uncle offered P500
to Pat. Corpuz in the presence of Pat. Lahom, to let the accused go. He was requested by
the barangay chairman, who is allegedly a compadre of Major Yangquiling, commander of
the arresting officers, not to proceed with the case. LibLex

The ten (10) handrolled cigarette sticks were referred to the NBI's forensic chemist, Carina
Javier, for examination. She found them positive for marijuana. As soon as Pat. Ruiz
received the NBI report on the examination, he booked the appellant for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law and filed the case with the fiscal's office.
Linsangan denied the charge. He alleged that at around 10:30 in the morning of November
13, 1987, he was in the vendor's stand of his neighbor Emeterio Balboa, alias Rey
Galunggong, on Dinalupihan Street to buy his breakfast, for he had just awakened. He lived
with his widowed mother, Erlinda, on the ground floor of a two-storey house on the alley at
1284 Dinalupihan Street, Tondo, Manila. The upper floor was occupied by his mother's
brother, Geosito Diaz, who is engaged in the second-hand tire business. Although once in a
while, his uncle helped them financially, he earned his living by driving a tricycle on a 5 p.m.
to 12:00 p.m. shift. He admitted that he had witnessed some men in Dinalupihan engaged
in drinking sprees and smoking marijuana.
The appellant alleged that the police officers fabricated the charge against him for in the
last week of September, 1987, Patrolmen Corpuz and Ruiz tried to board his tricycle, which
he was driving that night, to arrest someone, but he did not allow them to board his
tricycle, for fear of being involved in the case.
Appellant's neighbor Emeterio Balboa testified that at around 10:30 a.m. on November 13,
1987, two persons alighted from an owner-type jeep parked near his store. They asked the
appellant, who was standing about one-and-a-half arms-length away if he was Carlito
Linsangan, and when the appellant said "yes," they introduced themselves as policemen,
frisked him and took him away.
The appellant presented a Certification from his Barangay Chairman, Crisanto Guansing of
Brgy. 206, Zone 19, attesting to his good moral character. Nevertheless, the trial court
found him guilty of the charge of drug pushing. The dispositive part of its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the Accused CARLITO
LINSANGAN Y DIAZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of violation of
Section 4 of Republic Act 6425, as amended and hereby sentences him to the
penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA, with all the accessory penalties of the law, and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 to pay a fine of P20,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs.

"The ten (10) cigarette sticks of handrolled marijuana (Exhibits 'F-2' to 'F-11')
subject matter of this case are hereby confiscated in favor of the government.
"The Accused shall be entitled to the full period of his detention at the City Jail
provided that he agreed in writing to abide by and comply strictly with the rules
and regulations of the City Jail." (pp. 32-33, Rollo.)

The accused appealed to this Court alleging that the lower court erred:
1. in not finding that the prosecution witnesses, Pfc. Ruiz and Corpuz, were
motivated by ill-feelings against the appellant, and that their testimonies were
fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies;
2. in not finding that it was the informer and not the accused, who handed ten
sticks of hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes to Pat. Corpuz;
3. in not holding that the marked money was planted evidence; and

4. in not holding that when the policemen required him to initial the P10-bills,
they violated his constitutional right to counsel, to remain silent, and not to
incriminate himself while under custodial investigation.

The appeal has no merit.

The court's assessment of the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses is entitled to
great respect unless and until they are clearly shown to be arbitrary, which the defense
failed to do (People vs. Caldito, 182 SCRA 554). Although some inconsistencies were
noted by the appellant in the affidavit of arrest prepared by Pat. Corpuz, they involve minor
details which do not affect the over-all picture of the case.
The alleged motive of the policemen for fabricating the charge against him and planning
marked money on his person is not credible. The Court is unable to imagine that a lowly
tricycle driver would have the temerity to defy a pair of armed policemen by refusing to
give them a ride in his tricycle to pursue a law violator.
The appellant was not denied due process during the custodial investigation. Although he
was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the P10-bills that the police found tucked in
his waist, his right against self-incrimination was not violated for his possession of the
marked bills did not constitute a crime; the subject of the prosecution was his act of
selling marijuana cigarettes (People vs. Layuso, 175 SCRA 47; People vs. Macuto, 176
SCRA 762; Mejia vs. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457). His conviction was not based on the
presence of his initials on the P10 bills, but on the fact that the trial court believed the
testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually engaged in selling
marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party. The trial court gave more
credence to their categorical declarations than to the appellant's denials (People vs. Tan,
145 SCRA 614). That is as it should be for as law enforcers, they are presumed to have
performed their official duties in a regular manner (People vs. de Jesus, 145 SCRA 521;
People vs. Ale, 145 SCRA 50). Their task of apprehending persons engaged in the deadly
drug trade is difficult enough without legal and procedural technicalities to make it doubly
so.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit. The judgment of the trial court in
Criminal Case No. 87-58968-SCC is hereby affirmed except the penalty imposed on the
accused, Carlito Linsangan y Diaz, which shall be life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000,
with costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com