9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

TodayisWednesday,September21,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.175222July27,2007
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,
vs.
RAMONQUIAOIT,JR.,AccusedAppellant.
DECISION
CHICONAZARIO,J.:
ForreviewistheDecision1oftheCourtofAppealspromulgatedon12July2006inCAG.R.CRH.C.No.00803
entitled,"PeopleofthePhilippinesv.RamonQuiaoit,Jr.yDeCastro,"affirmingtheDecision2dated1December
2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 65, in Criminal Case No. 13229, finding appellant guilty
beyondreasonabledoubtofviolationofArticleII,Section5ofRepublicActNo.9165,otherwiseknownas"The
ComprehensiveDangerousDrugsActof2002."
Theinformationagainstappellantreadsasfollows:
Thatataround3:45oclockinthemorningofApril13,2004,atTarlacCity,Philippines,andwithinthejurisdiction
ofthisHonorableCourt,accused,didthenandthere,willfully,unlawfullyandcriminallysell,dispenseanddeliver
0.851gramofMethamphetamineHydrochloride,knownasShabu,adangerousdrug,toposeurbuyerPO1Mark
AnthonyBaquiranforP500.00,withoutbeingauthorizedbylaw.3
Appellantpleadednotguiltywhenarraignedon5May2004.4
During the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: P/Sr. Insp. Ma. Luisa G. David, a Forensic
ChemicalOfficerofthePhilippineNationalPolice(PNP)CrimeLaboratoryassignedattheTarlacProvincialCrime
LaboratoryPO2RonnieDuea,amemberofthebuybustoperationteamandtheonewhoarrestedappellant
andPO1MarkAnthonyBaquiran,amemberofthePNPandthedesignatedposeurbuyer.
Theprosecutionsversionofthecaseisasfollows:
At around 11:00 oclock in the evening of 12 April 2004, the Tarlac PNP received a report from a confidential
informantthatsomeonewassellingshabuattheGoldenMiles,5avideokebarlocatedinBarangaySanRoque,
Tarlac City. Acting on said information, a team was immediately organized by PNP Provincial Director Rudy
GamidoLacadintoconductasurveillanceinordertoverifytheinformationandperformabuybustoperation.
Shortlythereafter,theteamwenttoGoldenMileswheretheyinitiallyobservedthemovementsofappellantwho
waswiththeconfidentialinformantatthattime.Later,theinformantintroducedPO1Baquirantoappellantandthe
two negotiated the sale of shabu. According to PO1 Baquirans testimony, appellant handed to him a plastic
sachetcontainingwhitecrystallinesubstanceinfrontofTheGoldenMilescomfortroomwhichwaslocatedatthe
back of said establishment.6 In return, he gave appellant a marked P500.00 bill. As soon as the exchange
between appellant and PO1 Baquiran took place, the latter gave his companions the prearranged signal by
scratchinghishead.PO2DueasandPO1Cabradillamovedintoarrestappellant.Theplasticsachetcontaining
whitecrystallinesubstancewaslatermarkedRID1byPO2Dueas.
OntheirwaybacktoCampMakabulos,theinformantallegedlytoldthebuybustteam,throughatextmessage,
thatappellantstillhadinhispossessionillegaldrugsotherthanthatwhichhehadsoldtoPO1Baquiran.Thus,
upon reaching the camp, they frisked appellant and this yielded six more plastic sachets, the contents of which
weresimilartothoseearlierboughtbyPO1Baquiran.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

1/8

9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

AllsevenpiecesoftheplasticsachetswerethenforwardedtotheProvincialCrimeLaboratoryforexamination.
ThetestwasconductedbyP/Sr.Insp.David,andherreport7containedthefollowingpertinentinformation:
SPECIMENSUBMITTED:
Seven (7) heatsealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "RID1" through "RID7" and marked as
specimen"A"through"G,"respectively,eachcontainingwhitecrystallinesubstancehavingatotalweightof0.851
gram.xxx.
PURPOSEOFLABORATORYEXAMINATION:
Todeterminethepresenceofdangerousdrugsxxx
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the abovestated specimen gave POSITIVE results to the tests for the
presenceofMethylamphetamineHydrochloride,adangerousdrug.xxx.
CONCLUSION:
Specimen"A"through"G"containMethylamphetamineHydrochloride,adangerousdrug.xxx.8
Expectedly,appellantpresentedadisparatenarrationoftheincident:
Appellant claimed that at around 1:00 oclock in the morning of 13 April 2004, he went to the Golden Miles in
ordertomeetafriendofhis.Whilehewashavingdrinks,PO1Baquiransawhimandaskedifhehadcompany
andherepliedthathewasbyhimself.HeallegedthatheknewPO1Baquiranasheusedtobeapoliceasset.
PO1 Baquiran then inquired if he was familiar with a certain August Medrano who was a drug pusher in their
place. When he answered in the affirmative, PO1 Baquiran supposedly instructed him to buy P500.00 worth of
shabufromMedrano.HewasalsoallegedlyorderedbyPO1BaquirantobringMedranowithhimtoGoldenMiles.
He initially declined to follow PO1 Baquirans instructions since he no longer worked with the police. PO1
Baquiran, however, represented that he was the one who would buy shabu from Medrano and not appellant.
Despitethis,appellantallegedthathewas"forced"9tobuyshabuhimselfafterPO1Baquirantoldhimthat"(they)
needAugustMedrano."10
Andso,fromGoldenMiles,appellantproceededtoMedranoshouse.HeinformedMedranothatsomeonewas
interestedinbuyingshabubuttheprospectivebuyerwantedtotalktohiminperson.Medranorefusedappellants
invitation claiming that he had to go somewhere else instead, he gave the plastic sachet containing shabu to
appellantandthelattergavehimtheP500.00 earlier given by PO1 Baquiran. After this, appellant went back to
GoldenMilestoinformPO1BaquiranofwhathadjusttranspiredbetweenhimandMedranoincludingthelatters
refusal to go with him. He also handed over to said police officer the plastic sachet containing shabu which he
bought from Medrano. All of a sudden, PO1 Baquiran placed his hand over appellants shoulder and the latter
wasthentakentoCampMakabulos.
Atthecamp,PO2DueascalledforacertainPO4Donatoforwhomappellantusedtoactasapoliceasset.PO4
Donato allegedly asked appellant if it was possible for him to buy some more shabu from Medrano. Appellant
purportedlyrepliedinthenegativeclaimingthatthepersonnelatGoldenMilesalreadyknewabouthisarrest.To
this, PO4 Donato reportedly retorted, "How could we release you when this August Medrano is not yet
arrested."11 Appellant claimed that he was surprised by PO4 Donatos statement since he was only doing the
policeforceafavor.
Appellantalsodeniedhavingpossessedtheothersixplasticsachetsofshabu,insistingthatheboughtonlyone
heatsealedplasticsachetfromMedranowhichheturnedovertoPO1Baquiran.
Aftertrial,thecourtaquofoundappellantguiltyascharged.ThedispositiveportionofthetrialcourtsDecision
reads:
Wherefore,theprosecutionhavingestablishedtheguiltofthe[appellant]beyondreasonabledoubtofthecrimeof
ViolationofSec.5,Art.IIofRA9165,theaccusedRAMONQUIAOITJR.yDECASTROissentencedtoundergo
aprisontermoflifeimprisonment,topayafineofPhp500,000.00andtopaythecost.12
On 8 February 2005, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.13 The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 12 July
2006,affirmedthefindingsandconclusionofthetrialcourt,thus:
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED. The December 1, 2004 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
TarlacCity,Branch65,inCriminalCaseNo.13229,isherebyAFFIRMEDintoto.14
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

2/8

9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

Aggrieved, appellant is now before us assailing the abovementioned Decision of the Court of Appeals. In our
Resolution of 21 January 2007, we required the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs if they so
desired. Appellant manifested that he was adopting the Appellants Brief dated 7 September 2005 which he
previouslyfiledbeforetheCourtofAppealsinordertoavoidtherepetitionofsubstantiallythesamearguments.15
Similarly,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralmanifestedthatitwasnolongerfilingasupplementalbrief.16
Inhisbrief,appellantimpugnsthetrialcourtsdecisiononthefollowinggrounds:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABSOLUTORY
CIRCUMSTANCEOFINSTIGATION.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS DEFENSE OF
FRAMEUP.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONSFAILURETOIDENTIFYTHECORPUSDELICTI.
IV
THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINCONVICTINGTHEACCUSEDAPPELLANTOFVIOLATIONOF
SECTION 5, ARTICLE II, OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165, WHEN THE LATTERS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN
BEYONDREASONABLEDOUBT.17
Inessence,appellantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredinnotfindingthatthebuybustteaminstigatedhiminto
buyingshabufromMedranoandthattheprosecutionfailedtoprovehisguiltbyitsfailuretoproperlyidentifythe
sachetofshabuallegedlyboughtfromhimbyPO1Baquiran.
In support of the first error, appellant argues that the facts obtaining in this case reveal that he was a victim of
instigation perpetrated by PO1 Baquiran. He emphasizes that despite his initial resistance to participate in the
policeoperationthatnight,PO1Baquiran,nevertheless,insistedthathepurchaseshabufromMedranowiththe
specific instruction to bring the latter to Golden Miles. Appellant, likewise, points out that the money he used in
acquiringshabuwassuppliedbyPO1Baquiranhimself,thus,provingthatitwassaidpoliceofficerwhoinitiated
theeventswhichledtohiseventualarrest.
Appellant further assails the existence of a valid buybust operation on the ground that the buybust team was
composedofuntrainedandincompetentpoliceofficers.Heclaimsthatitwas"inconceivable"18forsuchateamto
bemadeupofpoliceofficerswhohadinsufficientknowledgeofhowtoproperlyconductabuybustoperationas
shownbytheirfailuretofriskappellantatthesceneofthecrime.
The demarcation line distinguishing "instigation" from "entrapment" is clearly drawn. In the case of People v.
Quintana,19weexplainedthedistinctionbetweenthetwo,towit
Thereisawidedifferencebetweenentrapmentandinstigation,forwhileinthelattercasetheinstigatorpractically
inducesthewillbeaccusedintothecommissionoftheoffenseandhimselfbecomesacoprincipal,inentrapment
waysandmeansareresortedtoforthepurposeoftrappingandcapturingthelawbreakerintheexecutionofhis
criminalplan.
Instigation and inducement must be distinguished from entrapment. The general rule is that instigation and
inducementtocommitacrime,forthepurposeoffilingcriminalcharges,istobecondemnedasimmoral,while
entrapment, which is the employment of means and ways for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law
breaker, is sanctioned and permissible. And the reason is obvious. Under the first instance, no crime has been
committed,andtoinduceonetocommititmakesoftheinstigatoracocriminal.Underthelastinstance,thecrime
hasalreadybeencommittedandallthatisdoneistoentrapandcapturethelawbreaker.20
Inthecaseatbar,wefindappellantsclaimofinstigationtobebaseless.Torecallappellantsversionofthestory,
PO1BaquiranapproachedhimthatnightinquiringaboutMedrano,theallegedobjectofthebuybustoperation.
PO1BaquiranthengavehimaP500.00 bill to be used for purchasing shabu from Medrano but PO1 Baquiran
hadanadditionalinstructionforappellantwhichwastobringalongMedranotoGoldenMiles.Whileappellantwas
able to talk with Medrano, he was unable to convince the latter to accompany him back to Golden Miles. Such
beingthecase,wefailtoseeanymorereasonforhimtostillbuyshabuconsideringthatheknewfullywellthathe
would be unable to fully abide by PO1 Baquirans instructions. Furthermore, we scrutinized the records of this
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

3/8

9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

caseandfailedtodiscernany"force"thatwasexerteduponhimbyPO1Baquiran.Infact,nowhereinappellants
testimonydidheaverthatPO1BaquiraninsistedthathebuyshabufromMedrano.Wenotethatafterappellant
had initially refused to take part in the buybust operation that night, PO1 Baquiran merely told him that "(they)
neededAugustMedrano"andnothingmore.
THECOURT:
Q:Whatwillyoubuy?
A:Shabuworth5hundredpesos,sir.
Q:Didhegiveyouthemoney?
A:Yes,sir.
ATTY.ABELLERA:
Q:WhatagainPO1Baquiransaystobuyandwhatelse?
A:"Takehimalongwithyou".
Q:Where?
A:AtGMAGoldenMiles,sir.
Q:Andhowmuchmoneydidhehandtoyou?
A:Fivehundred,sir.
Q:Andhowmanyitemswillyoubuy?
A:Onesachet,sir.
Q:Andhowmuchisonesachet?
A:FiveHundred,sir.
Q:Now,yousaidthatheaskedyoutobuyfromthisMedrano,didyoucomply?
A:Yes,sir.
Q:Bytheway,whatdidyoutellPO1Baquiranconcerningthetaskthatheisaskingyoutodo?
A:ItoldhimIwasalreadypassedonthatmatter,Iamnowworking.Thenhetoldmethathewillbetheoneto
buybutIwasforcedtobuy,sir.
Q:Howdidheforceyou,Mr.Witness?
A:Hetoldme,"WeneedthatAugustMedrano."
Q:AndhowdidyoufindthisAugustMedrano?
A:IwenttohishouseinSuizo,sir.
Q:WhotoldyouthathelivesinSuizoatthattime?
A:Myfriend,sir.
Q:Whatisthenameofyourfriend?
A:NoelMallari,sir.
Q:Whatdidyouuseingoingthere?
A:Singlemotorcycle,sir.
Q:Andwereyouable[to]purchaseasachetofshabufromMedrano?
A:Yes,sir.21
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

4/8

9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

Toourmind,suchinnocuousstatementonthepartofPO1Baquiranisinadequatetoleadtotheconclusionthat
appellantwas"forced"bythepolicetoprocureshabu.Moreover,appellanthimselfadmittedthathewasallalone
whenhewenttoseeMedranoatthelattershouse,farfromthepryingeyesandtheperceivedinfluenceofPO1
Baquiran. Clearly, at that point, he could have easily desisted from buying shabu from Medrano and chosen
instead to go back to Golden Miles empty handed for he already knew before he bought the illegal drug that
Medrano could not accompany him back to the said videoke bar. The fact that he persisted in buying shabu
despite the absence of PO1 Baquiran betrays his contention that said police officer "forced" him to purchase
shabu.
In challenging the existence of a legitimate buybust operation, appellant casts questionable, if not improper,
motive on the part of the police officers. Unfortunately for appellant, jurisprudence instructs us that in cases
involvingthesaleofillegaldrugs,credenceisgiventoprosecutionwitnesseswhoarepoliceofficers,fortheyare
presumedtohaveperformedtheirdutiesinaregularmanner,unlessthereisevidencetothecontrary.22Where
there is nothing to indicate that the witnesses for the prosecution were moved by improper motives, the
presumptionisthattheywerenotsomovedandtheirtestimony,therefore,isentitledtofullfaithandcredit.23In
thiscase,therecordsarebereftofanyindicationwhichevenremotelysuggestsillmotiveonthepartofthepolice
officers.ThefollowingobservationoftheCourtofAppealsisindeedappropriate,thus:
In this case, the policemen categorically identified Quiaoit as the one subject of the "buybust" operation who
agreedtoselltoPO1Baquiranasachetof"shabu"infrontoftherestroomofGoldenMilesBeerhouseafterhe
wasbeingintroducedbytheinformant.Aspoliceofficers,PO1BaquiranandPO2Dueashadintheirfavorthe
presumption of regularity of performance of duty. Furthermore, the defense failed to present any evidence to
show that the police officers were improperly motivated to bear false witness against Quiaoit. While Quiaoit
claimedthathewasaformerassetofthepoliceandheknewthepoliceofficerswhoarrestedhim,yet,hedidnot
impute any illmotive as to why the police officers would implicate him to drug pushing. This fact bolsters the
policeofficersclaimthatQuiaoitwas,indeed,arrestedinabuybustoperation.
Quiaoitsclaimthathewasjustbeingframedupbythearrestingofficersdoesnotinspirebelief.Appellantfailed
toshowanymotivewhythepolicemenwouldimplicatehiminacrimeforillegalpossessionofprohibiteddrugs.It
isthesettledrulethatwherethereisnothingtoindicatethatawitnesswasactuatedbyimpropermotives,his/her
positiveandcategoricaldeclarationsonthewitnessstandmadeundersolemnoath,shouldbegivenfullfaithand
credence.(Peoplevs.DelaTorre,373SCRA104).
Moreover,thereisnothingintherecordthatthepoliceofficersweretryingtoextortmoneyfromQuiaoitduringhis
apprehensionuptothetimehewasbroughttothepolicestation.IfQuiaoitwasreallyavictimofframeup,then
he should have filed an administrative or criminal case against these policemen. But he did not. Hence, his
defenseofframeupmustfail.
Finally, Quiaoits defense of denial is a weak defense. Unless substantiated by clear and convincing proof, it is
selfservingandundeservingofanyweightinlaw(seePeoplev.Hampton,395SCRA156).Itcannotprevailover
the positive identification by PO1 Baquiran that it was Quiaoit who sold to him a sachet of "shabu" in the early
morningofApril13,2004atGoldenMilesBeerhouse.24
Neither can we give credence to appellants contention that the existence of a valid buybust operation was
betrayedbytheinadequatetrainingofthemembersoftheteamfor,itmustbestatedhere,thereisnotextbook
methodofconductingbuybustoperations.TheCourthaslefttothediscretionofpoliceauthoritiestheselection
ofeffectivemeanstoapprehenddrugdealers.25
Anentthesecondissue,appellantmaintainsthattheprosecutionfailedtoestablishhisguiltbeyondreasonable
doubt by its failure to properly identify the sachet of shabu which he sold to PO1 Baquiran. Again, we disagree
withappellantsproposition.
In order to successfully prove the existence of the illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution
mustbeabletoestablishthefollowingelementsofthecrime:(1)theidentityofthebuyerandseller,theobject,
andtheconsiderationand(2)thedeliveryofthethingsoldandthepaymenttherefor.26
InthecaseofPeoplev.Mala,27weheldthatwhatismaterialistheproofthatthetransactionactuallytookplace,
coupledwiththepresentationbeforethecourtofthecorpusdelicti.Itbearsemphasizingthatneitherthelawnor
jurisprudencerequiresthepresentationofanyofthemoneyusedinabuybustoperation,fortheonlyelements
necessarytoconsummatethecrimeisproofthattheillicittransactiontookplace,coupledwiththepresentationin
courtoftheillicitdrugasevidence.28Inthepresentcase,appellantinsiststhattheprosecutionfailedtoproperly
identify the sachet of shabu sold by appellant to PO1 Baquiran because of the buybust teams failure to
segregatethesaidsachetfromthoseconfiscatedfromhimatCampMakabulos.
ThepertinentportionsofthetestimonyofPO1Baquiranbeliesappellantsclaim:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

5/8

9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

ATTY.ABELLERA:
QMr.WitnessdidDueasmarktheseRIDbeforeQuiaoitwasfrisked?
FISCAL
Nobasis.
ATTY.ABELLERA
QMr.Witness,yousaidthatthisRID1,theseRID2andserieswheretheymarkthese(sic)?
ARID2andseriesweremarkedinCampMakabulos.
QDidhemarked(sic)themsimultaneouslyoroneatatime?
AOneatatimesir.
QHewasalreadymarkingafteryouhandedthistohim?
ATheRID1wasmarkedbeforeQuiaoitwasfrisked.29
ItisclearfromPO1Baquiransdeclarationthat,contrarytoappellantsassertion,thepacketofshabusoldtoPO1
BaquiranbyappellantduringthebuybustoperationwasproperlyidentifiedandmarkedasRID1byPO2Dueas
even before the police frisked appellant for more illegal drugs. With PO1 Baquirans testimony, there can no
longer be any basis for vacillation with respect to the identity of the object which he, acting as poseur buyer,
obtained from appellant. And, as the laboratory examination would later confirm, the contents of the sachet
bearingthemarkRID1waspositiveforshabu.
Alltold,astheillegalsaleofdrugshadbeenestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt,thisCourtisconstrainedto
upholdappellantsconviction.
Weshallnowdeterminetheproperimposablepenalty.
ThesaleofshabuispenalizedunderSection5,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.9165.Itreads:
SEC.5.Sale,Trading,Administration,Dispensation,Delivery,DistributionandTransportationofDangerousDrugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
awaytoanother,distribute,dispatchintransitortransportanydangerousdrug,includinganyandallspeciesof
opiumpoppyregardlessofthequantityandpurityinvolved,orshallactasabrokerinanyofsuchtransactions.
Under the law, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity and purity, is punishable by life
imprisonment to death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. The statute, in prescribing the range of
penalties imposable, does not concern itself with the amount of dangerous drug sold by an accused. With the
effectivity, however, of Republic Act No. 9346, otherwise known as "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines," the imposition of the supreme penalty of death has been proscribed. Consequently,
the penalty to be meted to appellant shall only be life imprisonment and fine. In this regard, this Court likewise
sustainsthepenaltyimposedbythecourtaquoandwhichwassubsequentlyaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals.
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantappealisDISMISSED.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsin
CAG.R.CRH.C.No.00803dated12July2006whichaffirmedintotothedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
Tarlac City, Branch 65, in Criminal Case No. 13229, finding appellant Ramon Quiaoit, Jr. y de Castro guilty of
violationofSection5,ArticleIIofRepublicActNo.9165,isAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
6/8

9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

AssociateJustice

AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby
certifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeElviJohnS.AsuncionwithAssociateJusticesJoseC.MendozaandArturo

G.Tayag,concurringrollo,pp.28.
2Records,pp.2227.
3Id.at1.
4Id.at7.
5Sometimesreferredtointherecordsas"GMGoldenMiles."
6TSN,3August2004,p.4.
7Exhibit"C"fortheprosecution.
8Id.
9TSN,30September2004,p.5.
10Id.
11Id.at8.
12Records,p.27.
13Id.at30.
14Rollo,p.8.
15Id.at25.
16Id.at10.
17CArollo,p.29.
18Id.at36.
19G.R.No.83888,30June1989,174SCRA675.
20Id.at679.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

7/8

9/21/2016

G.R.No.175222

21TSN,30September2004,pp.46emphasissupplied.
22Peoplev.Bongalon,425Phil.96,114(2002).
23Peoplev.Pacis,434Phil.148,159(2002).
24CArollo,p.78.
25Peoplev.Nicolas,G.R.No.170234,8February2007.
26Susonv.PeopleofthePhilippines,G.R.No.152848,12July2006,494SCRA691,699.
27458Phil.180,190(2003).
28Peoplev.Astudillo,440Phil.203,224(2002).
29TSN,3August2004,p.12.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_175222_2007.html

8/8