THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200028. February 5, 2014.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDWIN BALSOMO AND BERNALDO BALSOMO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 5, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200028 (People of the Philippines v. Edwin Balsomo and Bernaldo Balsomo). — The Public Prosecutor charged the accused brothers, Edwin Balsomo and Bernaldo 1 Balsomo, (collectively, the Balsomos) with cultivation of marijuana plants in violation of Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6425, as amended, 2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bais City in Criminal Case 2000-97-MY.
SPO1 Richard Teves testified that because of reports of proliferation of marijuana plants in Sitio Manugkalan, Barangay Tagpo, Bais City, on August 8, 2000 the Chief of Police instructed him and three other police officers to conduct an investigation patrol in that place. Upon arrival, they met barangay tanods Desenico Cadalso and Diomedes Indayo who informed them that the Balsomos were harvesting marijuana plants. 3 Indeed, when the police went to look for the brothers, they found them doing just that. Accused Edwin was using a bolo while accused Bernaldo was uprooting the plants with his hands.
The police immediately arrested the Balsomos and confiscated some 20 of their uprooted plants. The barangay tanods surveyed the area and recovered 26 more marijuana plants. 4 The police returned to their station with the Balsomos and the 46 plants seized from them that had been placed in a plastic bag. SPO1 Teves and SPO3 Crispin Lacorte placed the markings "EB" and "BB" 5 on the bag which they then sent to the police laboratory for analysis. SIacTE
Barangay tanods Cadalso and Indayo corroborated the story of SPO1 Teves. 6 Police photographer Florante Abrasaldo corroborated the same story and identified the photos he took of the seized marijuana plants. 7 Both Police Inspector Josephine Llena, the forensic chemist, and SPO3 Manuel Sanchez testified that they received a sack full of plants in a marked plastic bag. 8 Upon examination, these were confirmed to be marijuanas which are prohibited plants. 9
Finally, Rene Balbuena (a neighbor of the Balsomos) and Danny Kadusale (Balbuena's tenant) testified that the Balsomos planted the seized marijuana plants on their land. 10
The Balsomos denied the charge. They testified that on August 8, 2000 they were at their farm but when SPO1 Teves together with his team arrived. SPO1 Teves asked them if there were marijuana plants in the area. When they denied knowledge of those plants, the team searched their hut and gagged accused Bernaldo. 11 Afterwards, the police handcuffed both brothers and led them to a place where some marijuana plants had been uprooted. Photos were taken. 12 The brothers claimed that the plants had been cultivated at the Balbuena property and not on their land.
Barangay Captain Serafin Chavez also testified for the Balsomos. He said that on August 8, 2000 SPO1 Teves came and asked him for direction to the house of a certain Gaudencio Lagunero. 13 The defense theorized that it was actually Lagunero that the police were looking for, not the Balsomos.
After trial, the RTC found the Balsomos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and imposed on them the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The RTC also ordered them to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and costs. 14 It held that the Balsomos' defense of denial crumbled in the face of the clear and straightforward testimonies of the witnesses against them. On appeal in CA-G.R. CR 00276, 15 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on May 25, 2006 the RTC Decision. 16
The recitals from the records show that the prosecution has established through the testimony of SPO1 Teves and others that the Balsomos were caught harvesting marijuana plants. Their act constitutes cultivation and is punished under Section 9. 17 What is more, the prosecution established the integrity of the seized prohibited plants. The inconsistencies that the accused point out do not warrant their acquittal since the same refer only to trivial and immaterial points and do not affect the core of the prosecution's case. In the absence of imputations of bad faith or evil motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, the Court will not disturb the RTC and the CA's reliance on their testimonies.
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the appeal and AFFIRMSin toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 25, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR 00276.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Also referred to as Bernardo in some parts of the records.
2. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
3. TSN, November 24, 2000, pp. 8-9.
4. Id. at 17.
5. Id. at 21.
6. TSN, January 9, 2001, p. 5.
7. TSN, March 27, 2001, p. 9.
8. TSN, November 16, 2000, p. 5.
9. Id. at 6; TSN, January 10, 2001, p. 5.
10. TSN, July 11, 2001, pp. 3-5; TSN, February 11, 2002, pp. 3-4.
11. TSN, May 21, 2002, pp. 6-7; TSN, June 5, 2002, pp. 5-6.
12. TSN, May 21, 2002, id. at 8; TSN, June 5, 2002, id. at 7.
13. TSN, July 10, 2002, p. 3.
14. Decision dated January 9, 2004.
15. Docketed as CA-G.R. CR 00276.
16. Decision dated May 25, 2006.
17. Section 9. Cultivation of Plants Which are Sources of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall plant, cultivate or culture any medium Indian hemp, opium poppy (papaver sonmiferum) or any other plant which is or may hereafter be classified as dangerous drug or from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived. R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659.