Jamon y Aranjuez v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 205806. June 10, 2013.]

ALLAN JAMON Y ARANJUEZ, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 June 2013which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 205806 (ALLAN JAMON Y ARANJUEZ, petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent).

This is a Petition for Review [on Certiorari] under Rule 45 seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals' Decision convicting Allan (Jamon) y Aranjuez of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Version of the Prosecution: At around two o'clock in the afternoon of 6 July 2009, Feliz Macaraig Tabora (Tabora), a member of the AFP-Philippine Marine Corps, while cleaning his tricycle in front of his house in Barangay Guadalupe, Nueva, Makati City, overheard three men talking while staring at a small sachet being toyed by one of them, later identified as the accused, Jamon. Tabora took a closer look and suspected that the plastic sachet seemed to contain shabu. He then approached the three men, introduced himself as a military man and instructed them not to move. The three men immediately ran away and threw the sachet on the ground. However, Tabora, with the help of the people in the neighborhood, got hold of Jamon. Tabora then picked up the sachet and showed the item to the accused who, in turn, denied ownership. Tabora soon after informed him that he was being apprehended for having violated the law. Jamon was brought by the Bantay Bayan of the place to the barangay office to have the incident reported. Thereafter, he was brought to the Police Station and was apprised of his constitutional rights. Tabora, who accompanied the accused to the police station, marked the item with his initials "FMT." The plastic sachet was endorsed to the Station Anti-Illegal Operations Task Group of the Makati Police Station for formal charges. The content was eventually brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing and yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. TAaHIE

Version of the Defense: According to the accused, he was walking along a street in Barangay Guadalupe, Makati City when two men approached and offered him a digital camera. He refused the offer and replied that he had no money. The men again offered him another item, but this time, a plastic sachet of shabu worth P500.00. He again refused and reiterated that he had no money. He was surprised when an armed man he identified as Tabora asked for the plastic sachet and ordered them not to run away. One of them gave the plastic sachet to Tabora and immediately ran. As he was not part of the transaction, Jamon remained in his position. However, he was brought by the members of the Bantay Bayan to their office for statement and later transferred to the police station for investigation.

On 23 February 2010, the trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby finds the accused, ALLAN JAMON ARANJUEZ, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of Section 11, Article II, R. A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

On 24 September 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier decision of the trial court, the fallo whereof reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 23 February 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SCADIT

The petition should be denied. There is no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.

The accused before this court is alleging error on the part of the appellate court when it convicted the accused based solely on the testimony of Tabora and the illegality of the warrantless arrest.

We disagree.

It should be emphasized that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is sufficient to support a conviction even in the charge of murder. The findings of trial courts on the credibility of Tabora deserve a high degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could reverse a judgment of conviction. In fact, in many instances, such findings are even accorded finality. This is so because the assignment of value to a witness' testimony is essentially the domain of the trial court, not to mention that it is the trial judge who has the direct opportunity to observe the demeanor of a witness on the stand, which opportunity provides him the unique facility in determining whether or not to accord credence to the testimony or whether the witness is telling the truth or not. 1

We also do not see any fault on the part of Tabora, as a member of the military, when he conducted a warrantless arrest. Under Sec. 5 of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. EScAHT

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolves to DENY the petition for failure of the petition to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision dated 24 September 2012 and Resolution dated 11 February 2013 as to warrant the exercise by this Court of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction in this case. (Per Special Order No. 1460 dated 29 May 2013, Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion is designated as Acting Chairperson in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio who is on official leave under the Court Wellness Program. Per Special Order No. 1461 dated 29 May 2013, Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen is designated as additional member).

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. People v. Manchu, G.R. No. 181901, 28 November 2008, 572 SCRA 752, 763 citing People v. Mapalo, G.R. No. 172608, 6 February 2007, 514 SCRA 689, 708-709.