Case Digest (G.R. No. 86555)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Augusto Manzano y Reyes, G.R. No. 86555, November 16, 1993, Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.
An information dated September 5, 1983, charged Augusto Manzano y Reyes with violation of Section 4, Article II in relation to Section 2(e)(i), Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, alleging that on about September 2, 1983 the accused sold seven tea-bag–size plastic sachets containing marijuana flowering tops at P5.00 per sachet in the City of Manila. Trial began before Judge Oscar C. Fernandez. When Judge Romeo J. Callejo later assumed the case, he ordered submission of stenographic transcripts; inconsistencies surfaced — one reporter’s transcriptions (Mercedes Velasquez) were incomprehensible and no stenographic notes appeared to have been taken during the testimony of defense witness Leonardo Quiambao.
Defense counsel moved for retaking of certain testimony because of the defective transcripts. The trial court ordered retaking of the testimony of Patrolman Gaudencio Quebuyen and defense witness Leonardo Quiambao and permitted cross-examination of Patrolman Paterno Banawel; additional documentary evidence was also admitted. On October 2, 1987, the trial court found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, imposed accessory penalties and a P25,000 fine, declared the marijuana forfeited, and credited the accused for his detention during the pendency of the case subject to compliance with jail rules.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the accused assigned errors alleging (a) inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and (b) failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s case rested on a series of police operations: a “trial-buy” earlier in the day, and a later “buy-bust” where a civilian informer (poseur-buyer) allegedly paid with four marked P5.00 bills and received four tea-bag–size plastic bags containing marijuana; the informer signaled and officers arrested the accused, recovering only one of the marked bills. Laboratory tests by NBI forensic chemist Neva Gamosa confirmed the seized material to be marijuana.
The records, however, disclosed material inconsistencies: witnesses disagreed on the number of sachets taken from the accused (three versus four), the name and presence of an additional patrolman (Borlongan) surfaced without clarification, conflicting accounts existed as to whether the accused had a companion (defense witness Quiambao claimed he was arrested with the accused while a police witness denied Qu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the accused’s signing of the booking sheet and arrest report without counsel a violation rendering the evidence inadmissible?
- Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused sold and knowingly delivered marij...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)