THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229385. June 7, 2017.]
WILLY POTENCION, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 7, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 229385 (Willy Potencion vs. People of the Philippines). — This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated April 14, 2016 and Resolution 2 dated January 6, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36037, affirming with modification the Decision 3 dated July 15, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55 of Alaminos City in Criminal Case No. 5666-A finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3 (c) of P.D. 1602, as amended by R.A. 9287.
The information charged petitioner Willy Potencion with violation of Sec. 3 (c) of P.D. 1602, to wit:
That on or about July 3, 2009 in the morning in Palamis, Alaminos City, Pangasinan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally participate in illegal numbers game by engaging directly in collecting bets for illegal numbers games of jueteng and confiscated from his control and possession were the following: one (1) plastic containing thirty nine (39) pieces of jueteng papelitos with number game combinations, quart (sic) wristwatch, one (1) wallet colored brown containing cash in various denominations amounting to Php1,439.50, used as bet money for jueteng.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Evidence for the Prosecution
As culled from the assailed Decision, the facts are as follows:
The petitioner was previously convicted for violation of RA No. 9287 (Illegal Game of Jueteng) but was later released on probation. Notwithstanding, he was placed under surveillance by the Public Order and Safety Office (POSO). Thereafter, on July 3, 2009, the POSO received information that petitioner was on his way to collect jueteng bets. Accordingly, Rolando Asia (Asia) and Jesus Vallejo (Vallejo) together with their chief, Genaro Bacala (Bacala), and asset proceeded to Brgy. Palamis, Alaminos, Pangasinan and posted themselves at De Guzman Store. At around 10:00 in the morning, they saw petitioner walking along the shoulder lane of Marcos Avenue. Later on, he stopped while an unidentified person handed him a transparent plastic bag which he placed between his armpit. The POSO team immediately approached the two but the unidentified person fled leaving the petitioner. They held the petitioner who remained mum at that time. Meanwhile, the plastic bag tucked in his armpit fell to the ground as he raised his arms. Asia and Vallejo picked up the bag and found inside jueteng papelitos and some cash. Petitioner was immediately placed under arrest and brought to the POSO Office where he was photographed together with the confiscated items. Petitioner then signed a receipt of the items taken from his possession, to wit: thirty nine (39) jueteng papelitos; one brown wallet containing list of phone numbers and cash amounting to three thousand twenty pesos (Php3,020.00) in different bill denominations and coins amounting to four hundred nineteen pesos and fifty centavos (Php419.50). Thereafter, the POSO team prepared the complaint affidavit.
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented the testimony of the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that on July 3, 2009, he was arrested in front of the kambingan in Brgy. Palamis, Alaminos, Pangasinan because he was being mistaken as a "kabo" of jueteng which he vigorously denied. He stated that at around 10:00 in the morning of the same day, he was standing beside the highway waiting for Cesar Danao (Danao), a jueteng "kabo", to have the Php2,000.00 in large bills of his employer be changed to smaller bills and Php500.00 of loose coins since he knew very well that as "kabo", Danao has smaller bills and loose coins. After meeting Danao and exchanging with him his large bills into smaller bills and coins, the two walked together along the highway. Suddenly, a van stopped beside them and a certain "Boy Tito" alighted therefrom. Sensing something wrong, Danao suddenly gave him the papelitos and fled. Petitioner insisted that his arrest was illegal because the papelitos were not his although he admitted that Danao is a collector of jueteng. He also claimed that Boy Tito is also a maintainer of jueteng and has a grudge against him because he refused to work with him in his jueteng operations.
The petitioner did not deny the fact that he was previously convicted for violation of P.D. 1602 but was later released on probation. At the time of his arrest he has already completed the term of his probation.
Accordingly, the RTC rendered the assailed Order dated July 15, 2013. The dispositive portion states:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds the accused WILLY POTENCION GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 3 (c) of P.D. 1602 as amended by RA 9287 and hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day to nine (9) years, including the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the cost.
The gambling paraphernalia and other instrument of the crime including the money bets are hereby forfeited in favor of the State and once this Decision becomes final, the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the amount of Php1,439.50 to the Bureau of Treasury. She is further instructed to make a manifestation of compliance herewith.
SO ORDERED.
The CA, in its Decision dated April 14, 2016, affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision dated July 15, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55 of Alaminos City, Pangasinan finding accused-appellant WILLY POTENCION guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3 (c), PD 1602, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the total amount to be forfeited to the State through the Bureau of Treasury should be in the amount of Php3,439.50.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this petition.
Issues
I. Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioner's arrest was valid.
II. Whether the CA erred in affirming the Decision of the RTC despite the prosecution's failure to establish the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling of this Court
Where there is no showing that the trial court overlooked or misinterpreted some material facts or that it gravely abused its discretion, then We do not disturb and interfere with its assessment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. This is clearly because the judge in the trial court was the one who personally heard the accused and the witnesses, and observed their demeanor as well as the manner in which they testified during trial. 4 Thus, the RTC is in a better position to assess and weigh the evidence presented during trial.
In the case at bench, petitioner brought before Us the instant petition, claiming that the appellate court erred in affirming the mistaken appreciation of facts by the trial court. Petitioner argues that his warrantless arrest was illegal and that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
We have carefully reviewed the records of the case and found that neither the RTC nor the CA committed any misappreciation of facts in rendering the assailed Decisions and Resolution.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
We agree with the CA that all requisites for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest have been complied with in light of the following facts and circumstances which were established by the prosecution: (a) petitioner was previously convicted of violation of RA No. 9287 but was later released on probation; (b) notwithstanding his probation, petitioner was placed under surveillance by the POSO officers; (c) on July 3, 2009, the POSO officers received an information that petitioner was on his way to collect jueteng bets; (d) the POSO Officers posted themselves and actually saw the petitioner receiving the plastic bag containing the jueteng papelitos and cash from an unidentified person; (e) before the POSO Officers approached the petitioner, the latter already had complete possession and control of the plastic bag containing the jueteng papelitos and cash which he placed on his armpit; and (f) when the POSO Officers approached the petitioner, the unidentified person from whom petitioner received the plastic bag containing the jueteng papelitos and cash fled.
With the foregoing facts and circumstances, We deem it reasonable to conclude that the POSO officers had personal knowledge of facts and circumstances justifying the petitioner's warrantless arrest. These circumstances qualify as the POSO Officers' personal observation, which are within their personal knowledge, prompting them to make the warrantless arrest. As correctly held by the CA, the POSO Officers had the authority to cause the arrest of the petitioner at that time because he was transacting with a fellow jueteng collector in plain view. They had sufficient reasons to believe that when they saw the petitioner receiving a bag containing papelitos and coins, he was committing the crime of illegal numbers game particularly jueteng. Consequently, with the valid warrantless arrest of the petitioner, the eventual confiscation of the jueteng paraphernalia is also legal.
Moreover, as held by both the RTC and the CA, petitioner's explanation — that the cash that was taken from him was from his employer, Jenny Raroque, who instructed him to have the cash exchanged for smaller change, and that the plastic bag which was confiscated from him was just given to him by the "kabo" who ran away — is self-serving and incredible. The kind of transaction that petitioner allegedly had with the unidentified person, the place where it was made and his possession and control of the jueteng paraphernalia, all of which were not sufficiently and convincingly explained by the petitioner nor corroborated, are not only highly improbable but also contrary to experience. We note that petitioner did not even present Jenny Raroque to corroborate his statements. We have consistently ruled that whatever is repugnant to the standards of human knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie outside judicial cognizance. For evidence to be believed, it must proceed not only from the mouth of the credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind. 5
All told, We find that both the RTC and the CA correctly convicted the petitioner of the crime charged.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed April 14, 2016 Decision and January 6, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Court DENIES the petition and, thus, AFFIRMS said Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 36037, finding petitioner Willy Potencion guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 3 (c), PD 1602, as amended.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-44. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2.Id. at 46-47.
3.Id. at 60-66.
4.People v. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010.
5.Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003).