GR 96318; (June, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96318 June 26, 1992
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO ABELITA y LUQUIAS, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On February 16, 1990, in Navotas, Metro Manila, accused Reynaldo Abelita y Luquias was charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). The Information alleged that he sold three handrolled marijuana cigarette sticks to a poseur-buyer for a marked P10.00 bill and was found in possession of thirty-seven more marijuana sticks contained in a Bonna milk can. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on the testimony of P/Sgt. Wilfredo V. Mendoza, who recounted that during a patrol, an informant approached them about “Toto” (the accused) selling marijuana at Gilmar Beerhouse. Sgt. Mendoza gave the informant a marked P10.00 bill. The informant entered the beerhouse, gave the money to the accused, and received a small white package. The police, positioned outside, witnessed the transaction. They then entered, recovered the marked money and the milk can containing 37 marijuana sticks from the accused, and received the package (with 3 marijuana sticks) from the informant. The substances were confirmed as marijuana by the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section. The accused denied the charges, claiming he was merely drinking with a friend when arrested and that he did not own the marijuana. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a fine, and costs. The accused appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence due to the non-presentation of the NBI forensic expert and the informant, and challenging the credibility of Sgt. Mendoza’s testimony.
ISSUE
1. Whether the failure of the prosecution to present the NBI forensic expert to testify on the laboratory report is fatal to the case.
2. Whether the failure to present the confidential informer as a witness and the reliance on the testimony of P/Sgt. Mendoza alone warrant acquittal on grounds of insufficient evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding no reversible error.
1. The non-presentation of the NBI forensic expert was not fatal. During the pre-trial conference, the accused and his counsel admitted the due execution and genuineness of the forensic chemist’s report (Exhibits A, B, C, D, D-1 to D-37). This admission was embodied in a court order dated April 11, 1990. The prosecution, therefore, dispensed with the expert’s testimony. The accused, having failed to object to the pre-trial order, was bound by this stipulation.
2. The non-presentation of the informant was not fatal. The Court ruled that where the informant’s testimony would be merely corroborative or cumulative, its absence does not undermine the prosecution’s case. The positive and clear testimony of P/Sgt. Mendoza, who witnessed the transaction, was sufficient. There was no evidence showing any improper motive on the part of Sgt. Mendoza to fabricate charges against the accused. His testimony, given in the regular performance of duty, was accorded full credit. The trial court’s assessment of credibility was upheld. The accused was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 .