Case Title Case # 71: Espano vs Court of Appeals

G.R. no. GR. No. 120431

Main Topic Searches and Seizures
Other Related Topic
Date: April 1, 1998

DOCTRINES
1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; FINDINGS
OF TRIAL
COURTS ON THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES DESERVE A HIGH
DEGREE OF RESPECT;
CASE AT BAR. — It is a well-settled doctrine that findings of trial courts on the
credibility of witness deserve a high degree of respect. Having observed the
deportment of witnesses during the trial, the trial judge is in a better position to
determine the issue of credibility and, thus, his findings will not be disturbed
during appeal in the absence of any clear and showing that he had overlooked,
misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance which could have altered the conviction of the appellants. In this
case, the findings of the trial court that the prosecution witnesses were more
credible that those of the defense must stand. Petitioner failed to show that
Pat.
Pagilagan, in testifying against him, was motivated by reasons other than his
duty to curb drug abuse and had any intent to falsely impute to him such a
serious crime as possession of prohibited drugs. In the absence of such ill
motive, the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duty
must prevail.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIM OF FRAME-UP, LIKE ALIBI, IS A DEFENSE THAT HAS
BEEN
INVARIABLY VIEWED BY THE COURT WITH DISFAVOR; CASE AT BAR. —
The defense set up by petitioner does not deserve any consideration. He
simply contended that he was in his house sleeping at the time of the incident.
This court has consistently held that alibi is the weakest of all defenses; and for
it to prosper, the accused has the burden of proving that he was not at the
scene of the crime at the time of its commission and that it was physically
impossible for him to be there. Moreover, the "claim of 'frame-up,' like alibi, is a
defense that has been invariably viewed by the Court with disfavor for it can
just as easily
be concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common and standard line of
defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act." No clear and convincing evidence was presented by petitioner to prove
his defense of alibi.
 FACTS:
 Based on The testimony of Pat. Romeo Pagilagan
- On July 14, 1991, he and other officers of the WPD Narcotics Division went to Pandacan
and Zamora to check reports of a drug dealer.
- When they saw a person who seems to be selling to another person.
- They identified themselves a policemen and frisked him. The searched yielded tea bags of
Marijuana. They asked if he had more. The petitioner said in his home which resulted to
them visiting his residence prior going to the headquarters where he was charged.
 Defense of Petitioner
- He was asleep in his house and was awakened when policemen handcuffed him.
- Alleged that policemen were looking for his brother and when they couldn’t find him, he
was the one arrested instead. (His wife Myrna, corroborated his story)
 RTC & CA
- Rodolfo Espano guilty under the Dangerous Drugs Act
- Imprisonment and fines
- Appealed at CA, but affirmed RTC’s decision
 Petition
- RTC & CA erred in convicting him in basis of a. inadmissible evidence, b. violation of
constitutional right on presumption of innocence s, c. denied constitutional right of
confrontation and compulsory process, and d. conviction based on irrelevant evidence

ISSUE:
If the evidences were inadmissible and would warrant reversal of the previous decisions.

HELD:
 No, evidence in buy-bust valid, but drugs at home are inadmissible. Petition Denied.
A. On Witnesses credibility
- Witnesses have a higher degree of respect, and the judge is in a better position to
determine the issue of credibility. Defense failed to show that Pat. Pagilagan was
motivated by other reasons to falsely impute him.
- People vs Velasco: Doctrine of Presumption of Regularity
“In absence of any proof of any intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely
impute such crimes, presumption of regularity in performance must prevail over self-
serving claims.
B. On Failure to present alleged informant in court
- Without merit, since failure of prosecution to produce informant is of no moment
especially when he is not best witness to case
- Pt. Pagilagan already identified him hence satisfactorily proved case against petitioner.
C. On admissibility (Most important issue)
- Rule 113, Section 5(a) Rules of Court (in flagrante delicto)
“When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense”
- Petitioner was caught in flagranti as a result of buy-bust operation. His arrest was
therefore lawful.
- However those found in his residence are inadminissible
Article 3, Section 2:
“
- Marijuana seized at petitioner’s house do not fall under the said exceptions.
People vs Lua: Search cannot fall under search made incidental to a lawful arrest the
same being limited to body search and to that point within reach or control of person
arrested.
(In case at hand, petitioner was outside the house, hence out of his control)