Test of credibility

To be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. Without such proof the accused shall be acquitted. This is illustrated in the case of Carlos.

Carlos was charged with the crime of violating Section 11 Article II of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” for willfully, unlawfully and feloniously having in his possession, custody and control two (2) small, heat-sealed, transparent sachets containing “shabu” with a total weight of .02 gram.

To prove his guilt the prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Franco, Police Inspector Garcia and Police Officer Lazaro of the town where it happened. According to the three officers, they were conducting anti-illegal drug operations in a barrio and entered a small alley, where Franco noticed two men talking to each other “as if they were having a transaction,” with one of them holding in his left hand “a transparent plastic sachet which appears to contain grounded candies.” After watching them for a while, Franco was able to catch the man holding the transparent plastic sachet and asked him what they were talking about. The two men then ran, but Franco was able to catch the man holding the sachet and seized the sachets containing white substance. Then in the presence of a representative from the media named “Mando Morales,” Franco inventoried and marked said sachets as CM-1 and CM-2 and informed the man who was identified as “Carlos Magno” of his constitutional rights. Meanwhile, Garcia and Lazaro claimed that they tried to run after the other man but they were not able to catch him.

After investigation, they brought Carlos to the Municipal Health Center for physical examination. Thereafter they prepared a certificate of inventory and photographed Carlos and the sachets and prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination of the contents, which they sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame.

On the other hand, Carlos testified that at that time, he was at the house of his friend Amado to borrow the tricycle in the latter’s possession. So Amado left the house to ask the permission of the owner. Then suddenly two men armed with guns entered the house and told him not to run, turn his back then handcuffed and frisked him but was not able to recover anything from him. They also asked him where was “bukol Alyas,” which he replied he does not know. Then they forcibly took him out of the house and brought him to the Police Station where two other men uttered “yan ba?” Then the two men who brought him there replied, “hindi namin inabutan.” The men asked for Carlos’ identity and other information and brought him to the Prosecutor’s office, where he found out that he was charged with violation of the dangerous drugs law. He also learned that the two men who forcibly took him were PO1 Franco and PO1 Lazaro. Franco hit him on the forehead with a piece of metal then pushed him to the ground face down.

After trial the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Carlos of the crime charged and sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment as minimum to 15 years maximum on the strength of the testimonies of the police officers who were presumed to have regularly performed their duties and have no ulterior motive to testify falsely. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals despite Carlos’ contention that the procedure outlined in the Dangerous Drugs Law was not complied with and that the chain of custody was broken. The CA ruled non-compliance with the procedure outlined by the law did not automatically render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible. Besides, the CA said that Carlos’ defense of frame-up could easily be feigned and fabricated.

The Supreme Court (SC), however, ruled otherwise. According to the SC, the prosecution’s version fails to pass the test of credibility. According to PO1 Franco, they only found out that the name of the man holding the bag was “Carlos Magno” later on at the police station. Yet the markings, “CM-1 and CM-2” on the seized items were made immediately at the place of arrest, which clearly stands for the initials of the accused “Carlos Magno.” These discrepancies in the testimonies of PO1 Franco and PO1 Lazaro cast grave and serious doubts as to the credibility of their testimonies.

In this case also, only a representative from the media was present in the conduct of the inventory, which is in violation of the law requiring also the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice and any elected public official who shall sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof (Section 21). This is a mandatory requirement and failure to comply with it renders the items seized inadmissible as evidence. It militates against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The SC also said that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or harass individuals. The RTC and the CA therefore erred in brushing aside the frame-up defense of Carlos, especially in the light of the questionability of the Prosecution’s version. So Carlos should be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt and should be released immediately. (Casilag vs. People, G.R. 213523, March 18, 2021)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]