THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217659. January 24, 2018.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. HILSON HUECAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 24, 2018, which reads as follows: cHaCAS
"G.R. No. 217659 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HILSON HUECAS, Accused-Appellant.) — The accused was charged with a violation of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for the unlawful possession of 956.4 grams of dried marijuana leaves, seeds and stalks in the Regional Trial Court in Digos City, Davao del Sur (RTC). 1 The information dated November 23, 1999 alleged:
x x x That on or about 15 September 1999, in Matanao, Davao del Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused aforenamed, without authority of law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control about 956.4 grams of Marijuana leaves, seeds and stalks, a prohibited drug, contained in a black bag, to the damage and prejudice of the public.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
The CA summed up the evidence of the parties in the assailed decision, 3 as follows:
In a joint affidavit made by several police officers and concurrently members of the civil security unit of Matanao, Davao del Sur, the prosecution's version of events was narrated in this guise:
On September 15, 1999 at about 10:30 in the morning, the Chief of Police briefed the members of the raiding team regarding their roles in the raid. The team proceeded to the house of Huecas, a.k.a. Sonny a.k.a. Toto at Barangay Tibongbong, Matanao, Davao del Sur.
At around 12:00 noon, the raiding team arrived at the target place and the members took their agreed posts surrounding the vicinity of the house. The team saw that there were five (5) customers in the store of Huecas, and they were having a drinking session, at the same time singing with the videoke. Three (3) of them immediately ran out of the store when they noticed the arrival of the policemen.
The raiding team showed their search warrant and informed Huecas of his constitutional rights. In the presence of the barangay officials, the raiding team started the search of the house. Inside the house, under the [sink], the raiding team found a black bag covered by a basin. The raiding team found dried marijuana leaves, seeds and stalks inside the black bag, which they inventoried witnessed by the barangay officials accompanying them.
The team inside the house heard some gunshots. They later found out that one of the three persons who ran away earlier, Jerson Deniola (Deniola), attempted to disarm a member of the team, SPO Rivera, so he was forced to give warning shots and to avoid further assault, SPO Rivera shot Deniola on his right leg. Deniola was then transported to a hospital in Digos, Davao del Sur.
While Deniola was transported, Hilson Huecas alias Toto, Ricardo Paglinawan (Paglinawan) and Maxquel Rabaño (Rabaño) were brought to the police station for further questioning.
The policemen also attested that Huecas had been under surveillance not only by the police officers but also by their assets in the barangay.
Upon questioning, Paglinawan and Rabaño stated that on September 15, 1999, at around 9:30 in the morning, they were both in the house of Huecas, which has a store in front. They consumed three bottles of Pilsen (a local beer) and then ordered a half gallon, of tuba wine while singing the videoke. While they were singing, three persons arrived, Jerson Deniola, Arman Quirante and Sonny Brasan. Knowing these people, they were offered some glasses for tuba wine. While they were drinking and singing, at around 12:00 noon, police operatives of Matanao arrived. The three ran away so Paglinawan and Rabaño were left behind. The police instructed them not to go out of the house. They found out that the police were there to search the vicinity and that the police located and confiscated dried marijuana leaves, seeds and stalks placed in a black bag. They both heard four gun shots and when they got out of the house, they saw that Deniola was already wounded on his right leg, allegedly caused by a gunshot.
A preliminary investigation was conducted by an MCTC Judge on September 16, 1999. On October 29, 1999, the MCTC issued a Resolution finding probable cause for the case against Huecas. Upon arraignment, Huecas pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial proceedings were terminated. 4
xxx xxx xxx
To prove his innocence, Huecas narrated his version as to how the events unfolded, as follows: DACcIH
In the morning of September 15, 1999, Huecas was tending his sari-sari store. Suddenly, policemen arrived and they surrounded his house. He was made to sit in his store, and they showed him a bundle of marijuana, placing it on top of his table. His father and his neighbours were there when this marijuana was shown to him. Then, the policemen immediately handcuffed him and brought him to jail.
Huecas also presented his father to corroborate his version. 5
On October 26, 2009, the RTC convicted the accused, and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, 6viz.:
WHEREFORE, by the evidence presented by the prosecution, this court finds accused HILSON HUECAS, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the above-cited offense and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and to pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP500,000.00). The 956.4 grams of marijuana leaves seized from the accused is hereby ordered confiscated to be destroyed in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated its assailed decision on February 27, 2015 affirming the conviction and the penalties imposed, holding and ruling thusly:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court, Digos City, Davao del Sur, in Criminal Case No. 572 (99) is hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED. 7
Hence, this appeal, in which the parties reiterate their submissions in the CA, waiving the filing of supplemental briefs. 8
Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
This criminal prosecution was the offshoot of the service of the search warrant at the place owned and controlled by the accused. The search, which appeared to have been conducted with regularity by the serving team of lawmen, yielded 956.4 grams of dried marijuana leaves and seeds that were the subject of the information. The laboratory examination resulted in findings that positively established the presence of marijuana, a prohibited substance under Republic Act No. 6425. On his part, all that the accused could muster was his denial of the charge, and his allegation of being the victim of a frame-up. However, denial and frame-up have been generally considered and treated as the weakest defences that did not overcome the positive testimonies of the State's witnesses. This judgment will not vary from the general rule.
Moreover, the accused has not shown any fact or circumstance that the CA overlooked or did not properly appreciate in affirming the conviction. On the contrary, a careful review indicates that the CA thoroughly reviewed the records and correctly affirmed the conviction of the accused by the RTC. In this regard, we adopt with approval the cogent observations by the CA, as follows:
The evidence presented by the prosecution established with moral certainty the guilt of Huecas. The prosecution was able to provide the quantum of proof necessary to reach the conclusion of guilt. "In all criminal prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond doubt." The fundamental essence of any criminal proceedings is that the suspect was afforded the opportunity to be heard and to present his side to defend his innocence. In the absence of any fact or circumstance that would show that his rights were disregarded, or that the outlined criminal procedure was not followed, the findings of the lower court is usually accorded respect, even to the point of finality.
Thus, absent any factual or legal basis that would controvert the findings of the lower court, there is no reason to disturb its decision. The case falls squarely within the definition of illegal possession, and the self-serving denial and insinuation of frame-up fail in light of the positive identification and documented evidence of the police and the barangay officials. 9
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 27, 2015; and ORDERS the accused to pay the costs of suit. (Martires, J., on wellness leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 45-53; penned by Presiding Judge Carmelita Sarno-Davin.
2.Id. at 45.
3.Rollo, pp. 3-10; penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras with the concurrence of Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos.
4.Id. at 4-6.
5.Id. at 6.
6. CA rollo, p. 53.
7.Rollo, p. 10.
8.Id. at 53, whereby the PAO-Regional Special and Appealed Cases Unit-Cagayan De Oro City, as counsel for the accused, manifested in writing that the accused would not be filing any supplemental brief; the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a similar manifestation.
9.Id. at 9-10.