VOL.

211,JULY24,1992 805
People vs. Martos

*
G.R. No. 91847. July 24, 1992.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. CARLITO MARTOS, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Evidence; Findings of

facts of the trial courts deserve great weight and respect,
exceptions.—There is no dispute that the findings of facts of the
trial courts deserve great weight and respect for they have the
privilege of examining the demeanor of the witnesses while on the
witness stand and determine the veracity of their testimonies.
The rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, such as (1) when
the conclusion is a finding based entirely on speculations; (2)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when
the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) when
the court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the
case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee.
Same; Same; Same; Court agrees with the appellant and the
Solicitor General that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
are replete with inconsistencies.—We agree with the appellant and
the Solicitor General that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses are replete with inconsistencies. One point raised is
that in the testimony of Sgt. Raguine, it was not established
whether the P50.00 bill was really handed to the appellant.
Although he related in his direct examination that he gave the bill
to the accused before giving the signal to his companions, he did
not reiterate this fact during the cross-examination and instead
insisted that upon ascertaining that the stuff was marijuana he
immediately gave the pre-arranged signal to his men. No
corroboration on the handling of the P50.00 bill to the accused
was made by the other two prosecution witnesses, Sgts. Benito
and Padilla who were likewise present.
Same; Same; Same; In prosecuting a case for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, the prosecution must be
able to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the person
charged at a particular time, date and place committed any of
such unlawful acts.—In prosecuting a case for violation of Section
4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, the prosecution must be able to
establish by clear and convinc-

________________

*SECOND DIVISION.

806

806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 People vs. Martos

ing evidence that the person charged at a particular time, date

and place committed any of such unlawful acts. As it is, We are
not convinced that the evidence of the prosecution could stand
ground sufficient to convict herein appellant.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Court cannot presume that official
duty was regularly performed by the arresting officers for it cannot
by itself prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence
accorded an accused person.—We cannot even presume that
official duty was regularly performed by the arresting officers, for
it cannot by itself prevail over the constitutional presumption of
innocence accorded an accused person. “If the inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill
the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction.” The accused is not even called upon to offer evidence
on his behalf. His freedom is forfeited only if the requisite
quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence.

APPEAL from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Rosales, Pangasinan, Br. 53.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Emiliano S. Micu for accused-appellant.

NOCON, J.:

In an ordinary appeal from the decision of the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 53 of Rosales, Pangasinan, herein
petitioner seeks the reversal of the same, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds Carlito Martos guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the offense of selling marijuana, defined and
penalized under Article II, Section 4 of Republic Act 6425, as
amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of1 reclusion
perpetua and a fine of P30,000.00, and to pay the costs.”

________________

1Decision, p. 5.

807

VOL. 211,JULY24,1992 807

People vs. Martos

According to the Information dated March 20, 1989, the

crime was committed as follows:

“That on or about the lst day of February 1989, in barangay

Carmen East, municipality of Rosales, Pangasinan, New Republic
of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away and deliver fifty (50)
grams of dried marijuana leaves worth P50.00 to MSgt. Rogelio
Raguine, an incognito NARCOM2 agent, a prohibited drug and
without any authority of the law.”
The facts according to the version of the prosecution, reveal
that on February 1, 1989, acting on the tip of a confidential
informer (C.I.) or asset, a team from the First Narcotics
Regional Unit based in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, composed of
Sgts. Rogelio Raguine, Peregrino Benito and Ramon
Padilla, went to Bgy. Carmen East, Rosales, Pangasinan at
about P4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, in pursuit of a certain
“Lito” who was engaged in selling marijuana to students
and adults alike.
“Lito”, whose full name is Carlito Martos, was washing
his feet at the water pump near his house when Sgt.
Raguine and the CI approached him. Sgt. Raguine, acting
as poseur buyer, was introduced by the CI to “Lito”. The
former then inquired if “Lito” had “stuff” for sale, and upon
eliciting an affirmative answer, ordered P50.00 worth of
stuff.
Lito went inside his house and returned after a while to
where Sgt. Raguine and the CI were. He handed the stuff
contained in a small plastic bag, to Sgt. Raguine while the
latter gave Carlito Martos a P50.00 bill, which 3 serial
number was earlier recorded by him in a log book. After
being convinced that the content of the plastic bag was
marijuana, Sgt. Raguine immediately signalled Sgt. Benito
and Padilla, who were then positioned in separate places
some 10 meters away from the water pump, to close in and
effect arrest.
After identifying themselves as NARCOM agents, Sgts.
Benito and Padilla seized Carlito Martos, but the latter
was able to

_________________

2Rollo, p. 5.
3TSN, August 9, 1989, p. 14.

808

808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martos

wrench himself free from his captors and escaped. The

three agents pursued him, but when Carlito Martos heard
a shot, he stopped running, raised his hands and
surrendered. It turned out that the shot was fired from the
gun of
4
Sgt. Padilla which accidentally hit the CI on the left
arm. Thereupon, Carlito Martos was brought to the
NARCOM office in Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
The stuff, which was marked as Exhibit “D” was turned
over to the
5
PC/INP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, for
analysis. Lauena Layador, Assistant Chief of the
Chemistry Branch of PC/INP Crime Laboratory Service
conducted a microscopic, chemical and chromatographic
examination, to determine 6
whether the specimen
submitted was marijuana. The report, Exhibit 7
“C”
confirms the fact that the stuff was marijuana.
In his defense, Carlito Martos, a jeepney conductor,
testified that in the afternoon of February 1, 1989, between
4:00 and 5:00 o’clock, as he was washing his feet at a pump
well, some 3 meters away from his house, he heard a
person shout, “dadiay ni, dadiay ni, paltogan yon.” He then
saw three men coming down from the dike, two of whom
drew their guns. Frightened, he tried to run away, but
when he heard a shot, he stopped and raised his hands.
When the three men overtook him, one of them
handcuffed him while the other two started hitting him
with the butt of their guns, boxing and kicking him. As a
tricycle was being called, one of the men took “a plastic bag
with leaves
8
inside” from his pocket and placed it in his
hands.9 Carlito refused to hold it and instead dropped the
thing. The above testimony
10
was corroborated by two other
defense witnesses.
At the NARCOM station in Urdaneta, the agents tried
to

_________________

4TSN,ibid, p. 39, August 24, 1989, p. 30.

5TSN, October 30, 1989, p. 6.
6TSN,ibid, p. 9-10.
7Exhibit “C”.
8TSN, October 31, 1989, p. 40.
9Ibid, p. 51.
10See TSN, October 31, 1989, Testimonies of Dionisio Seguba, Jr. (pp. 2-
18) and Armando Javier (pp. 18-31)

809

VOL. 211,JULY24,1992 809

People vs. Martos

force appellant to sign a document, but the latter refused.

The agents even called a CLAO lawyer who also insisted
that he sign
11
the documents since “there is nothing wrong”
about it. He claims that12
he was also forced to sign his
name on a 13cellophane and cajoled to settle the case for
P25,000.00. He was then 14
jailed and only released at 1:00
o’clock the following day.
In his appeal, Carlito Martos’ argues that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove his
guilt beyond15 reasonable doubt of the crime he was
convicted of. The Solicitor General 16
joins the appellant in
the latter’s plea for acquittal. They alleged that the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are highly
improbable, self-contradictory and contradictory. Thus,
they outlined several inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses.
There is no question that persons who sell prohibited
drugs deserve the severest sanctions of the law for the
misery they caused our people, especially the youth, many
of whom have lost their future because of the evil influence
of drugs. While this Court strongly commends the efforts of
the law enforcement officers who are engaged in the
difficult and dangerous task of apprehending and
prosecuting drug traffickers, the Court cannot simply
disregard the many reports of false 17
arrest of innocent
persons for extortion and blackmail.
There is no dispute that the findings of facts of the trial
courts deserve great weight and respect for they have the
privilege of examining the demeanor of the witnesses while
on the witness stand and determine the veracity of their
testimonies. The rule, however, admits of certain
exceptions, such as (1) when the conclusion is a finding
based entirely on speculations; (2) when the inference made
is manifestly mistaken,

_________________

11Ibid, p. 43.
12Id.

13Ibid, p. 44.
14Id.

15Appellant’s Brief, p. 1.
16Solicitor General’s Manifestation, Rollo, pp. 33-79.
17People v. Zapanta y Centeno, G.R. No. 90853, 195 SCRA 200 (1991);
People v. Kalubiran, G.R. No. 84079, 196 SCRA 644, (1991).

810

810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martos

absurd or impossible; (3) where there is grave abuse of

discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts; and (5) when the court, in
making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and
the same are contrary to18 the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee.
The case at bar calls for a careful scrutiny of the records
due to the irreconcilable differences in the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses which weakens the case for the
People. We cannot but observe that the trial judge did a
poor analysis and synthesis of the facts as to deserve
admonition.
For instance, the P50.00 bill which was supposed to
have been offered to the accused-appellant to purchase
19
the
marijuana was not formally offered in evidence although
it was marked as exhibit for 20
the prosecution during the
testimony of Sgt. Raguine. Notwithstanding,
21
the trial
court referred to it as Exhibit “C” in one part 22of its
decision, then again as Exhibit “D” in another part and
even relied on it to support its23 findings that said evidence
consummated the transaction. The decision further states
that 24the confidential informer was wounded on the right
arm, when all the testimonies of both the prosecution and
defense witnesses consistently state that the informer was
hit on the left arm.
Our Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a “judge
should be the 25embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence.” He is expected to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
such that he is likewise expected to be studious and
cautious in making decisions. He should exhibit an
industry and application commensurate

_________________

18People v. Canada, L-63728, 144 SCRA 121, (1986); People v. Taruc, L-

74655, 157 SCRA 178 (1988).
19TSN, October 30, 1989, p. 20-21; see also conflict in minutes of the
hearing dated August 24, 1989 and October 30, 1989.
20TSN, August 24, 1989, p. 3.
21Decision, Footnote 2, p. 2.
22Ibid, p. 5.
23Ibid, p. 4, 5.
 24Decision, p. 2.
25Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

811

VOL. 211,JULY24,1992 811

People vs. Martos

with the duties imposed upon him. Sadly, the same is

wanting among the virtues of the trial judge in the case at
bar.
We agree with the appellant and the Solicitor General
that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
replete with inconsistencies. One point raised is that in the
testimony of Sgt. Raguine, it was not established whether
the P50.00 bill was really handed to the appellant.
Although he related in his direct examination that he gave
the bill to 26the accused before giving the signal to his
companions, he did not reiterate this fact during the
cross-examination and instead insisted that upon
ascertaining that the stuff was marijuana he immediately
gave the pre-arranged signal to his men. No corroboration
on the handling of the P50.00 bill to the accused was made
by the other two prosecution witnesses, Sgts. Benito and
Padilla who were likewise present.
Sgt. Raguine further testified that he recorded the serial
number of the P50.00 bill in their 27
logbook before the buy-
bust operation was to take place. But strangely enough, in
his subsequent testimony, he was not able to produce the
logbook, allegedly
28
because it could no longer be found in
their office. Sgt. Raguine also testified that the P50.00 bill
was surrendered 29
by the accused when they were at their
headquarters, yet in his later testimony he gave another
version and said that the bill was recovered in “(the
appellant’s) right front pocket of his pants”30
right after his
arrest “at the vicinity of his house” (sic).
Sgt. Raguine was supposed to be the star witness of the
prosecution, having 31
acted as the posuer-buyer, but, in a
short span of time he seems to have had a poor recall of
the incidents relative to the arrest of accused-appellant.
Not only that: he hedged, hesitated and involved himself in
apparent inconsistencies in his relation of the facts:

________________

26TSN, August 9, 1989, p. 14.

27Ibid., p. 17.
28TSN, August 24, 1989, p. 3.
29TSN, August 9, 1989, p. 17.
30TSN, August 24, 1989, p. 5.
31More or less six months, from the time the crime was supposed to
have been committed to the time he gave his testimony in court.

812

812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martos

Q And according to you, you found the accused standing

near his residence?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, he was then in a place where an
artesian well was situated, am I correct?
A I don’t know exactly sir.
Q But the accused was then in a process of washing his
face and hands at that time, is that not correct?
32
A I did not notice, sir.
  xxx
Q Now according to you, your CI contacted the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q How did your CI contacted (sic) the accused?
A Because he was standing when we reached the vicinity,
he approached him immediately, sir.
Q How far were you to the CI and the accused when the
accused was contacted by your CI?
A About one (1) meters (sic), sir.
Q So, you heard the conversation between your CI and
Martos?
33
A Yes, sir.
  xxx
Q When the CI introduced you to the accused, what kind
of dialect did he use?
A We used Tagalog, sir.
Q Now, Mr. Witness, what kind of dialect did the CI use in
talking to the accused?
A I can no longer remember what kind of dialect, sir.
Q You cannot remember whether the CI talked in Ilocano
or Tagalog
34
to the accused when he was introducing you
to him?
  xxx
Q You said that the accused brought to you a 50 kilogram
marijuana, where was this 50 kilogram placed. What
was the container?
A It was wrapped in a plastic cellophane. I am sorry, your
Honor, but I could no longer remember the container.
Q You have a poor memory. You know that you are going
to be called as witness in Court and you did not take
note of

__________________

32TSN, August 9, 1989, p. 27.

33Ibid, p. 28.
34Ibid, p. 36.

813

VOL. 211,JULY24,1992 813

People vs. Martos

  all those things? So you are not sure as to what was the
container?
35
A I am not sure, your Honor.
These are merely excerpts of Sgt. Raguine’ testimony,
during the cross, re-direct and re-cross examination.
Considering the nature of his testimony, We cannot but
question his credibility.
The Solicitor General further observed that “there was
no evidence presented to prove that the marijuana, marked
as Exhibits “D” to “D-4” (inclusive) in Court is the same
marijuana allegedly
36
sold by the accused-appellant to the
buy-bust team.” To substantiate his observation, the
Solicitor General called attention to the fact that the
endorsement letter was first sent to Camp Dangwa, La
Trinidad, Benguet, without the alleged marijuana stuff.
Luena Layador, the chemist who conducted the
examination of the specimen, testified that she had to go
personally to Camp Dangwa
37
to get the specimen, together
with other specimens; that she can only identify the said38
specimen through the names written on the plastic bag;
and that she does not know, however, those39 persons whose
names appear on the said plastic bag. Nevertheless,
examination of this witness reveals that:

PROSECUTOR ISRAEL:
Q I show you this plastic bag, Madam Witness, will you
please state the names of the members of the unit?
ATTY. MICU:
  The witness will be incompetent to testify on that
because definitely this witness does not know who were
the members of unit that delivered that specimen to
Camp Dangwa, your Honor.
COURT:
  Just to read the names.
ATTY. MICU:
  If just to read, I will not object, your Honor.

____________________

35Ibid, pp. 40-41.

36Manifestation, p. 41.
37TSN, October 30, 1989, p. 12.
38Ibid, p. 13.
39Ibid, p. 19.

814

814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Martos

WITNESS:
A Sgt. Padilla and M/Sgt. Raguine.
PROSECUTOR ISRAEL:
  Your Honor please, I would like to mark the names of
the members of the unit appearing in the plastic bag as
Sgt. Padilla, Sgt. Benito and Sgt. Raguine be marked as
Exhibi ts “D-”, “D-3” and “D-4” (sic).
COURT:
40
  Mark them.
Notwithstanding, during the prosecution’s formal offer of
evidence, Exhibit “D” was offered and admitted as follows:

“PROSECUTOR ISRAEL:

After the testimony of the prosecution Chemist, the prosecution is

now ready to rest its case, but before doing so, the prosecution
would like that the following documentary exhibits be admitted:
x      x      x
Exhibit “D” is the subject marijuana leaves and Exh. “D-1” is
the Chemistry Report No. 132-89; Exhs. “D-2”, “D-3” and “D-4”
are the names of the persons appearing in the plastic bag are the
same persons41 who apprehended the accused during the incident.
(italics ours)

Despite the vehement objections of the counsel for the

defense, the court admitted 42all exhibits “for the purpose
they are offered in evidence.”
In prosecuting a case for violation of Section 4, Article II
of Republic Act 6425, the prosecution must be able to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that the person
charged at a particular43 time, date and place committed any
of such unlawful acts. As it is, We are not convinced that
the evidence of the prosecution could stand ground
sufficient to convict herein appellant. We cannot even
presume that official duty was regularly performed by the
arresting officers, for it cannot by itself prevail over the
constitutional presumption of innocence accorded an
accused person. “If the inculpatory facts and circum-

__________________

40Ibid, p. 18.
41Ibid, p. 19-21.
42Ibid, p. 22.
43People v. Rojo, G.R. No. 82737, 175 SCRA 119 (1989).

815

VOL. 211,JULY24,1992 815

People vs. Martos

stances are capable of two or more explanations one of

which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and
the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does
not fulfill the test of moral
44
certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction.” The accused is not even called upon
to offer evidence on his behalf. His freedom is forfeited only
if the requisite45quantum of proof necessary for conviction
be in existence.
As manifested by the Solicitor General in his
“Manifestation” for accused-appellant’s acquittal:

“x x x An assiduous and thorough analysis of the evidence on

record disclosed that accused-appellant’s conviction has no basis.
The prosecution’s evidence in support of its theory is not
convincing. If there was any evidence presented, it was so slender
and shaky, not presented with care and thoroughness which the
gravity of the offense demanded and, taken in its entirety, is
utterly 46 insufficient to produce conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.”

All considered, We hold that the guilt of appellant Carlito

Martos has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
 WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, and the appellant is hereby ACQUITTED
on grounds of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.

          Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Padilla and Regalado,

JJ., concur.

Decision reversed and set aside.

Note.—Element of sale of prohibited drugs must be

established for conviction of the accused (People vs. Ramos,
186 SCRA 184).

——o0o——

_________________

44People v. Taruc, supra; People v. Parayno, 24 SCRA 3; People v.

Palana, 47 Phil. 48.
45People v. Malilay, 63 SCRA 420.
46Page 67, Rollo.

816

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.