People vs. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279, G.R. No. 126252 August 30, 1999

11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313
VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 279

People vs. Garcia
*
G.R. No. 126252. August 30, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

JESUS GARCIA y MANABAT, accused-appellant.
Courts; Judges; Criminal Procedure; Under the Rules on

Criminal Procedure, a decision is valid and binding only if penned
and promulgated by the judge during his incumbency.—A decision
promulgated after the retirement of the judge who signed it is null
and void. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, a decision is
valid and binding only if penned and promulgated by the judge
during his incumbency. To be precise, a judgment has legal effect
only when it is rendered: (a) by a court legally constituted and in
the actual exercise of judicial powers, and (b) by a judge legally
appointed, duly qualified and actually acting eitherdejure or de
facto.
Same; Same; Same; A judge de jure is one who exercises the
office of a judge as a matter of right, fully invested with all the
powers and functions conceded to him under the law.—A judge de
jure is one who exercises the office of a judge as a matter of right,
fully invested with all the powers and functions conceded to him
under the law. A judge de facto is one who exercises the office of
judge under some color of right. He has the reputation of the
officer he assumes to be, yet he has some defect in his right to
exercise judicial functions at the particular time.
Same; Same; Same; Where the term of the judge has
terminated and he has ceased to act as judge, his subsequent acts
in attempting to dispose of business he left unfinished before the
expiration of his term are void.—In the case at bar, the decision
under review was validly promulgated. Although the effectivity of
Judge de Guzman, Jr.’s disability retirement was made
retroactive to February 16, 1996, it cannot be denied that at the
time his subject decision was promulgated on February 20, 1996,
he was still the incumbent judge of the RTC, Branch LX of Baguio
City, and has in fact continued to hold said office and act as judge
thereof until his application for retirement was approved in June
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000175c9b48e0d8c8f3d64003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
1996. Thus, as of February 20, 1996 when the decision convicting

appellant was promulgated,
____________________
* EN BANC.
280
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Garcia
Judge de Guzman, Jr. was actually discharging his duties as a de

facto judge. In fact, as of that time, he has yet to file his
application for disability retirement. To be sure, as early as 1918,
we laid down the principle that where the term of the judge has
terminated and he has ceased to act as judge, his subsequent acts
in attempting to dispose of business he left unfinished before the
expiration of his term are void. However, in the present case, as
Judge de Guzman, Jr. was a de facto judge in the actual exercise
of his office at the time the decision under review was
promulgated on February 20, 1996, said decision is legal and has
a valid and binding effect on appellant.
Same; Same; Criminal Law; Arbitrary Detention and
Expulsion; Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for some legal
ground and fail to deliver him to the proper authorities for 36
hours for crimes punishable by afflictive or capital penalties.—
Neither do we find anything irregular with the turnover of
appellant to the CIS Office. At the trial, it was sufficiently
clarified that this has been the practice of the arresting officers as
their office had previously arranged with the CIS for assistance
with respect to investigations of suspected criminals, the CIS
Office being more specialized in the area of investigation. Neither
can the police officers be held liable for arbitrarily detaining
appellant at the CIS Office. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, penalizes a public officer who shall detain another
for some legal ground and fail to deliver him to the proper
authorities for 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties. In the present case, the record bears that
appellant was arrested for possession of five (5) kilos of marijuana
on November 28, 1994 at 2 p.m., a crime punishable with reclusion
perpetua to death. He was detained for further investigation and
delivered by the arresting officers to the court in the afternoon of
the next day. Clearly, the detention of appellant for purposes of

investigation did not exceed the duration allowed by law, i.e., 36
hours from the time of his arrest.
Evidence; Witness; Testimony; The testimony of a single
witness, if positive and credible, is enough to convict an accused.—
We find the testimony of Senior Inspector Enmodias credible to
sustain a judgment of conviction. We reiterate the familiar rule
that the testimony of a single witness, if positive and credible, is
enough to convict an accused. For indeed, criminals are convicted
not on the
281
VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 281
People vs. Garcia
number of witnesses presented against them, but on the

credibility of the testimony of even one witness. It bears stress
that it is the quality, not the quantity, of testimony that counts.
To be sure, a corroborative testimony is not necessary where the
details of the crime have been testified to with sufficient clarity.
As there was nothing to indicate in this case that police officer
Enmodias was inspired by ill-motive to testify mendaciously
against appellant, the trial court had every reason to accord full
faith and credit to his testimony.
Criminal Law; Modifying Circumstances; Penalties; The
death sentence originally imposed on appellant was correctly
modified by the trial court and reduced to reclusion perpetua as
there was no aggravating circumstance present in the commission
of the crime.—The death sentence originally imposed on appellant
was correctly modified by the trial court and reduced to reclusion
perpetua as there was no aggravating circumstance present in the
commission of the crime. However, both the Decision and Order of
the trial court omitted to impose the penalty of fine.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Baguio City, Br. 60.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Juan Antonio Reyes Alberto III for accused-appellant.
PUNO, J.:
For review is the conviction of accused-appellant JESUS

GARCIA y MANABAT for illegal possession of five (5) kilos
of marijuana for1which he was initially sentenced to death.
The Information against him reads:
“That on or about the 28th day of November, 1994, in the City of

Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, un-
__________________
1 Rollo, p. 5.
282

People vs. Garcia
lawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and

control five (5) kilos of compressed marijuana dried leaves,
without the authority of law to do so, in violation of the abovecited
provision of the law.”
“CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pled not guilty.

The prosecution’s case hinges on the testimony of Senior
Inspector OLIVER ENMODIAS. He recounted that on
November 28, 1994, he and SPO3 JOSE PANGANIBAN
boarded a passenger jeepney from their office in Camp
Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, en route to Baguio City. He
took the seat behind the jeepney driver while SPO3
Panganiban sat opposite him. They were in civilian attire.
When the jeepney reached Km. 4 or 5, accused JESUS
GARCIA boarded the jeepney carrying a plastic bag. He
occupied the front seat, beside the driver and placed the
plastic bag on his lap. After a couple of minutes, the
policemen smelled marijuana which seemed to emanate
from accused’s bag. To confirm their suspicion, 2 they
decided to follow accused when he gets off the jeepney.
The accused alighted at the Baguio City hall and the
police officers trailed him. The accused proceeded to Rizal
Park and sat by the monument. Half a meter away, the
police officers saw the accused retrieve a green travelling
bag from the back pocket of his pants. He then transferred
five (5) packages wrapped in newspaper from the plastic
bag to the green bag. As the newspaper wrapper of one of
the packages was partially torn, the police officers saw the3
content of the package. It appeared to be marijuana.
Forthwith, the policemen approached the accused and

identified themselves. The accused appeared to be nervous
and did not immediately respond. The policemen then
asked the accused if they could inspect his travelling bag.
The accused surrendered his bag and the inspection
revealed that it contained five (5) bricks of what
__________________
2 March 1, 1995 TSN, pp. 4-6, 12-13.

3Ibid., pp. 6-7, 14-17, 19.
283
VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 283

People vs. Garcia
appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. The police officers

then arrested the accused and seized his bag. The accused
was turned over to the CIS Office at the Baguio Water
District Compound for further investigation. He was
appraised of his custodial rights. At about 5 p.m., the
arresting officers left for the crime laboratory at Camp
Dangwa, Benguet, for chemical analysis of the items seized
from the accused. The next day, the policemen executed
their joint affidavit of arrest and transferred the accused to
the Baguio city jail. Verification by the arresting officers of
the records at the Narcotics Command revealed 4
that the
accused’s name was in the list of drug dealers. The result
of the chemical analysis of the five (5) items seized from the
accused confirmed that they were dried 5
marijuana fruiting
tops, weighing a total of five (5) kilos.
For his part, the accused admitted being at the locus
criminis but denied possessing marijuana or carrying any
bag on November 28, 1994. He alleged that on said day, at
about 8:00 a.m., he left his residence in Angeles City to
visit his brother, NICK GARCIA, whom he had not seen for
ten (10) years. He arrived in Baguio City at 12:30 p.m.
Before proceeding to his brother’s house, he took a stroll at
the Rizal Park. At about 2:00 p.m., two (2) men accosted
him at the park. They did not identify themselves as police
officers. They held his hands and ordered him to go with
them. Despite6
his protestations, he was forcibly taken to a
waiting car and brought to a safe-house. There, he was
asked about the source of his supply of illicit drugs. When
he denied knowledge of the crime imputed to him, he was
brought to a dark room where his hands were tied, his feet
bound to a chair, his mouth covered by tape and his eyes

blindfolded. They started mauling him. Initially, he
claimed he was kicked and punched on the chest and
thighs. When asked further whether he suffered bruises
and broken
___________________
4Ibid., pp. 6-8, 10-12, 20-23.

5 Testimony of forensic officer Police Senior Inspector Alma Margarita
Villasenor, February 2, 1995 TSN, pp. 3-10; Chemistry Report No. D-064-
94, Original Records, p. 31.
6 April 25, 1995 TSN, pp. 2-6.
284

People vs. Garcia
ribs, he answered in the negative. Thereafter, he explained

that there were no visible signs of physical abuse on his
body as he was only punched, not kicked. Notwithstanding
the maltreatment he suffered, the accused claimed he stood7
firm on his denial that he was dealing with illicit drugs.
To corroborate accused’s testimony, the defense
presented MANUEL DE GUZMAN, a resident of Baguio
City and a neighbor of accused’s brother Nick Garcia. He
came to know the accused in 1994 when accused visited his
brother Nick, a few months before accused was arrested in
November that same year. He recounted that in the
afternoon of November 28, 1994, while he was walking
along Rizal Park, he noticed two (2) men holding the
accused’s hands and forcing him to a car. He was then
about 8-10 meters away. He did 8
not see the accused or any
of the two men carrying a bag.
In a Decision, dated January 29, 1996, RTC Judge
Pastor de Guzman, Jr.9 found the accused guilty of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs and sentenced him to suffer
the maximum penalty of death. The dispositive portion
reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused

Jesus Garcia y Manabat guilty of the violation of Section 8, Art. II
of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659, involving possession of
marijuana weighing 5 kilograms, beyond reasonable doubt.
“The penalty for the possession of marijuana weighing 5
kilograms as provided under R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659
is Death. The Court has no recourse but to sentence the accused
Jesus Garcia y Manabat to suffer the death penalty. The law is

harsh but it must be followed and obeyed, ‘dura lex sed lex.’ ”
“SO ORDERED.”
__________________
7Ibid., pp. 7-9.

8 June 20, 1995 TSN, pp. 2-11.
9 Presiding Judge, Branch LX, Baguio City; Rollo, pp. 17-22.
285
VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 285

People vs. Garcia
The decision was promulgated on February 20, 1996.

On February 10
26, 1996, the accused moved for
reconsideration. He reiterated his position that the
uncorroborated testimony of prosecution witness Inspector
Enmodias was insufficient to establish his guilt. He further
contended that he should only be punished with reclusion
perpetua.
On April 12, 1996, Judge de Guzman, Jr. filed an
application for disability
11
retirement. This Court, in its en
banc Resolution, dated June 18, 1996, approved his
application. The effectivity of his retirement was made
retroactive to February 16, 1996.
On August 6, 1996, Acting Presiding 12
Judge Eulogio
Juan R. Bautista issued an Order granting in part
accused’s Motion for Reconsideration. For lack of
aggravating circumstance, the accused’s penalty for illegal
possession of marijuana was reduced from death to
reclusion perpetua.
In the case at bar, appellant impugns his conviction on
the following grounds: (a) the decision convicting him of the
crime charged was not validly promulgated as the
promulgation was
__________________
10 Original Records, pp. 178-182.

11 “A.M. No. 8868-Ret.—Re: Application for disability retirement of
Judge Pastor V. de Guzman, Jr.—Acting on the application for disability
retirement filed by Judge Pastor V. De Guzman, Jr., Regional Trial Court,
Branch 60, Baguio City, under R.A. No. 910, as amended by R.A. No. 5095
and P.D. No. 1438, effective February 16, 1996 and it appearing that
applicant is: (a) over 69 years of age with more than 41 years of
government service and (b) suffering from Parkinson’s disease, Stage IV,
Hypertension, Stage II, Organic Brain Syndrome, Mild to Moderate, a
condition which falls within the classification of permanent total disability
per memorandum of Dr. Ramon S. Armedilla, Medical Officer IV, dated
April 2, 1996, concurred in by Dr. Cecilia C. Villegas, Director III and Dr.
Rosa J. Mendoza, Director I, this Court’s Clinic, the Court resolved to
APPROVE the aforesaid application for disability retirement of Judge
Pastor V. de Guzman, Jr., under the above-cited law, effective February
16, 1996, but payment of the benefits shall be subject to the availability of
funds and the usual clearance requirements.”
12 Original Records, pp. 198-200.
286

People vs. Garcia
made four (4) days after the retirement of the judge who
penned the decision; (b) the uncorroborated testimony of
prosecution witness Senior Inspector Enmodias is
insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
First, we shall thresh out the procedural matter raised by
appellant. 13
In his Motion for Clarification, appellant contends that
since the decision under review was promulgated on
February 20, 1996, four (4) days after the approved
retirement of Judge de Guzman,
14
Jr., his decision is void
and has no binding effect.
We reject this contention. Undisputably, a decision
promulgated after the retirement of the judge who signed it 15
is null and void. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure,
a decision is valid and binding only if penned and
promulgated by the judge during his incumbency. To be
precise, a judgment has legal effect only when it is
rendered: (a) by a court legally constituted and in the
actual exercise of judicial powers, and (b) by a judge legally
appointed, 16duly qualified and actually acting either de jure
or de facto. A judge de jure is one who exercises the office
of a judge as a matter of right, fully invested with all the
powers and functions conceded to him under the law. A
judge de facto is one who exercises the office of judge under
some color of right. He has the reputation of the officer he
assumes to be, yet he has some defect in his 17
right to
exercise judicial functions at the particular time.
_________________
13 Rollo, pp. 38-39.

14 In response to the Order of this Court for the filing of his Brief in this
case, appellant manifested that he adopts the contents of his
Memorandum and Motion for Reconsideration before the trial court as his
Brief; SeeAdoption of Pleadings in Lieu of Filing Appellant’s Brief; Rollo,
pp. 42-43.
15 Rule 120, Section 6.
16 Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, 37 Phil. 186 (1917).
17Ibid.
287
VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 287

People vs. Garcia
In the case at bar, the decision under review was validly

promulgated. Although the effectivity of Judge de Guzman,
Jr.’s disability retirement was made retroactive to
February 16, 1996, it cannot be denied that at the time his
subject decision was promulgated on February 20, 1996, he
was still the incumbent judge of the RTC, Branch LX of
Baguio City, and has in fact continued to hold said office
and act as judge thereof until his application for retirement
was approved in June 1996. Thus, as of February 20, 1996
when the decision convicting appellant was promulgated,
Judge de Guzman, Jr. was actually discharging his duties
as a de facto judge. In fact, as of that time, he has yet to file
his application for disability retirement. To be sure, as
early as 1918, we laid down the principle that where the
term of the judge has terminated and he has ceased to act
as judge, his subsequent acts in attempting to dispose of
business he
18
left unfinished before the expiration of his term
are void. However, in the present case, as Judge de
Guzman, Jr. was a de facto judge in the actual exercise of
his office at the time the decision under review was
promulgated on February 20, 1996, said decision 19
is legal
and has a valid and binding effect on appellant.
On the merits, we likewise
20
affirm appellant’s conviction.
In his Memorandum before the trial court, appellant
insisted that the prosecution was unable to discharge its
onus of
__________________
18 Garchitorena vs. Crescini, 37 Phil. 675 (1918).

19 It is noteworthy that a different outcome would have resulted had
Judge de Guzman, Jr. applied for optional retirement instead of disability
retirement. In cases of optional retirement, SC Circular No. 16, dated

December 2, 1986, specifically provides that the application for optional
retirement should be filed at least two (2) months prior to its specified
effective date (guideline #2) and when the specified date of retirement is
reached without the applicant receiving any notice of approval or denial of
his application, he shall automatically cease working and discharging his
functions unless directed otherwise (guideline #4); See also People vs.
Labao, 220 SCRA 100 (1993).
20 Original Records, pp. 161-168; This was adopted by appellant as part
of his Brief.
288

People vs. Garcia
establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He

maintained that the uncorroborated testimony of the
prosecution’s main witness, Senior Inspector Enmodias, is
incredible and unreliable. Firstly, appellant pointed out
that if the police officers indeed smell the marijuana he
was allegedly carrying while they were all on board the
jeepney, they should have immediately arrested him
instead of waiting for him to alight and stroll at the Rizal
Park. Secondly, appellant faulted the procedure adopted by
the arresting officers who, after the arrest, took him to the
CIS Office at the Baguio Water District Compound for
investigation instead of bringing him to the nearest police
station, as mandated under Section 5, Rule 113 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure. Finally, appellant theorized
that the prosecution’s omission or failure to present the
other arresting officer, SPO3 Panganiban, to corroborate
the testimony of its witness Senior Inspector Enmodias was
fatal to the prosecution’s case as the lone testimony of
Enmodias failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
These contentions of appellant fail to persuade. The
prosecution was able to prove appellant’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. There is nothing irregular in the manner
appellant was apprehended by the police authorities. On
the contrary, we find that, without compromising their
sworn duty to enforce the law, the police officers exercised
reasonable prudence and caution in desisting to apprehend
appellant inside the jeepney when they initially suspected
he was in possession of marijuana. They sought to verify
further their suspicion and decided to trail appellant when
the latter alighted from the jeepney. It was only after they
saw that one of the packages with the torn wrapper

contained what looked like marijuana fruiting tops did they
accost appellant and make the arrest. At that precise time,
they had obtained personal knowledge of circumstances
indicating that appellant had illicit drugs in his possession.
They had reasonable ground upon which to base a lawful
arrest without a warrant.
Neither do we find anything irregular with the turnover
of appellant to the CIS Office. At the trial, it was
sufficiently clarified that this has been the practice of the
arresting offi-
289
VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 289

People vs. Garcia
cers as their office had previously arranged with the CIS

for assistance with respect to investigations of suspected
criminals, the CIS21
Office being more specialized in the area
of investigation. Neither can the police officers be held
liable for arbitrarily detaining appellant at the CIS Office.
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
penalizes a public officer who shall detain another for some
legal ground and fail to deliver him to the proper
authorities for 36 hours for crimes punishable by afflictive
or capital penalties. In the present case, the record bears
that appellant was arrested for possession of five (5) kilos of
marijuana on November 28, 1994 at 2 p.m., a crime
punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. He was
detained for further investigation and delivered by the
arresting officers to the court in the afternoon of the next
day. Clearly, the detention of appellant for purposes of
investigation did not exceed the duration allowed by law,
i.e., 36 hours from the time of his arrest.
Coming now to appellant’s defense, we find that his
simplistic version of what transpired that fateful day
utterly failed to rebut the overwhelming evidence
presented by the prosecution. His testimony is not worthy
of credence. Firstly, appellant insists he did22 not bring any
travelling bag or personal items with him. However, we
find it baffling that one would visit a relative in a distant
province and fail to bring clothes and other personal
belongings for the duration of his stay. Secondly, while
appellant repeatedly emphasized that he went to Baguio
City to23
visit his brother whom he had not seen for ten
years, his corroborating witness, de Guzman, adamantly
insisted that the first time

24
he met appellant was only
months before the arrest. Thirdly, we find it altogether
disturbing that appellant, without compunction,
acknowledged in open court that he lied when he initially
claimed he was kicked by the police officers while under
their custody. After
__________________
21 March 1, 1995 TSN, pp. 20 & 25.

22 April 20, 1995 TSN, p. 12.
23Ibid., p. 11.
24 June 20, 1995 TSN, pp. 5-6.
290

People vs. Garcia
testifying that he was kicked and punched on the chest and

thighs, appellant unwittingly declared that he suffered no
broken ribs or internal injury as a result of the alleged
mauling. Realizing the improbability of his claim of
maltreatment, he promptly altered his previous testimony.
He sought to explain the lack of visible signs of physical
abuse on his body by clarifying that he 25was only punched,
not kicked, by the police authorities. Lastly, it runs
counter to common experience that an innocent person,
wrongly accused of a crime and subjected to alleged
physical abuse by the authorities would keep mum about
his plight. Yet, appellant, through all the sufferings he
supposedly underwent, would have us believe that he has
not confided to anyone, not even to his brother, his version
of the incident, not to mention the maltreatment he 26
supposedly endured in the hands of the police authorities.
In sum, appellant’s defense lacks the ring of truth.
Neither did the testimony of appellant’s corroborating
witness aid the defense as it is equally flawed. De Guzman
testified that he saw appellant being held by two men and
being forced into a car, yet he never revealed what he saw
to appel-lant’s brother Nick. No explanation was offered for
this omission. Although de Guzman thought that the two
men harbored ill intentions in abducting appellant, he
never reported the incident to the police nor told Nick,
appellant’s brother, about what he witnessed. In fact, it
was when Nick told him that appellant was in jail that de
Guzman 27
allegedly mentioned to Nick what he saw days
earlier.
Treated separately, the incongruent details in the
defense theory may appear innocuous at first blush.
However, the inconsistencies eventually add up, striking at
the very core of appellant’s defense—the real purpose of his
presence at the crime scene. The contradictions become
disturbing as they remain unsatisfactorily explained by the
defense and unrebutted on record.
__________________
25 May 3, 1995 TSN, pp. 5-7.

26 April 20, 1995 TSN, p. 11.
27 June 20, 1995 TSN, pp. 6-11.
291
VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 291

People vs. Garcia
In sum, we find the testimony of Senior Inspector Enmo-

dias credible to sustain a judgment of conviction. We
reiterate the familiar rule that the testimony of a single
witness, if positive and credible, is enough to convict an
accused. For indeed, criminals are convicted not on the
number of witnesses presented against them, but 28
on the
credibility of the testimony of even one witness. It bears
stress that it29 is the quality, not the quantity, of testimony
that counts. To be sure, a corroborative testimony is not
necessary where the details 30
of the crime have been testified
to with sufficient clarity. As there was nothing to indicate
in this case that police officer Enmodias was inspired by ill-
motive to testify mendaciously against appellant, the trial
court had every
31
reason to accord full faith and credit to his
testimony.
On a final note: The death sentence originally imposed
on appellant was correctly modified by the trial court and
reduced to reclusion perpetua as there was no aggravating
circumstance present in the commission of the crime.
However, both the Decision and Order 32
of the trial court
omitted to impose the penalty of fine.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Order, dated August 6, 1996,
affirming the conviction of appellant JESUS GARCIA y
MANABAT for violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A.
6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, but reducing his penalty to
reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED, subject to the
modification that additional penalty of fine in the amount

of ten million (P10,000,000.00) pesos is likewise imposed on
him. Costs against appellant.
___________________
28 People vs. Matubis, 288 SCRA 210 (1998); People vs. Correa, 285
SCRA 679 (1998).
29 Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 171 (1998).
30 People vs. Correa, supra.
31 People vs. Arellano, 282 SCRA 500 (1997).
32 Section 8 of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, provides the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos for illegal possession of
prohibited drugs.
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 292

People vs. Naguita
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Appealed decision affirmed with modification.
Notes.—A judge who has retired could no longer

continue working on a pending case. (Re: Judge Luis B.
Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519 [1995])
When the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, the
consistent rule is that appellate courts will generally not
disturb the findings of the trial court. (People vs. Sotto, 275
SCRA 191 [1997])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279, G.R. No. 126252 August 30, 1999

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

People vs. Garcia, 313 SCRA 279, G.R. No. 126252 August 30, 1999

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

11/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 279

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

Courts; Judges; Criminal Procedure; Under the Rules on

1996. Thus, as of February 20, 1996 when the decision convicting

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Garcia

Judge de Guzman, Jr. was actually discharging his duties as a de

the next day. Clearly, the detention of appellant for purposes of

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 281

People vs. Garcia

number of witnesses presented against them, but on the

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

For review is the conviction of accused-appellant JESUS

“That on or about the 28th day of November, 1994, in the City of

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

lawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pled not guilty.

Forthwith, the policemen approached the accused and

2 March 1, 1995 TSN, pp. 4-6, 12-13.

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 283

appeared to be dried marijuana leaves. The police officers

bound to a chair, his mouth covered by tape and his eyes

4Ibid., pp. 6-8, 10-12, 20-23.

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ribs, he answered in the negative. Thereafter, he explained

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused

Jesus Garcia y Manabat to suffer the death penalty. The law is

7Ibid., pp. 7-9.

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 285

The decision was promulgated on February 20, 1996.

10 Original Records, pp. 178-182.

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

13 Rollo, pp. 38-39.

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 287

In the case at bar, the decision under review was validly

18 Garchitorena vs. Crescini, 37 Phil. 675 (1918).

retirement. In cases of optional retirement, SC Circular No. 16, dated

288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He

saw that one of the packages with the torn wrapper

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 289

cers as their office had previously arranged with the CIS

insisted that the first time

21 March 1, 1995 TSN, pp. 20 & 25.

290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

testifying that he was kicked and punched on the chest and

25 May 3, 1995 TSN, pp. 5-7.

VOL. 313, AUGUST 30, 1999 291

In sum, we find the testimony of Senior Inspector Enmo-

modification that additional penalty of fine in the amount

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 292

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan,

Appealed decision affirmed with modification.

Notes.—A judge who has retired could no longer

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen