People v.

Magundayao
Feb. 29, 2012 | de Castro, J. | Appeal of CA decision | Competence and Credibility

PETITIONER: People of the Philippines

RESPONDENT: Rosemarie Magundayao
SUMMARY: The defendant was arrested in a buy-bust operation for selling shabu and for possession of the same. One
of her defenses was that she was framed up by the police because they barged into her house an ransacked it, then tried
to extort money from her in the jail. However, she did not present any evidence. Also, the testimonies of Memoracion
and Arago were inconsistent, particularly because Arago said the informant came to the police station and gave the tip
to the policemen, who then relayed the information to P/Chief Insp. Paat; while Memoracions testimony said the
informant directly gave the tip to the Chief. The SC said that the factual findings of the trial court were adequately
supported by the evidence. The testimonies of Memoracion and Arago were sufficient, plus the evidence gathered
during the buy-bust operation.

DOCTRINE: Credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts;
and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings

FACTS:
1. Two separate informations filed against Rose
Magundayao for viol sec 5 of RA 9165 (sale of
drugs) and sec. 11 (illegal possession). She pleaded
not guilty.
2. Prosecution testimony:
According to PO3 Arago, an informant
came to the police station and reported
about an alias Rose who was peddling
illegal drugs along ML Quezon St. cor. Paso
St. in Bagumbayan, Taguig. This
information was then relayed to P/Chief
Insp. Paat, who afterwards talked to the
informant. The team then planned a buy bust
operation. PO2 Memoracion and the
informant alighted the vehicle and went to
the seller. They were followed by PO3
Arago. He saw the poseur-buyer PO2
Memoracion and the seller talking, then
something was handed over to Memoracion.
The latter then removed his cap, which was
the signal for the team to arrest
Magundayao. The subject of the buy bust
was marked RAM 1 while another sachet
was found in the pocket of Magundayao,
which was marked RAM 2.

According to PO2 Memoracion, the

informant talked directly to Paat and told
him of the information about the drug
peddler. In the buy bust operation, he told
Magundayao he would purchase 200php

worth of shabu. A sachet was handed to him

and he gave the signal to the team. He then
informed the accused that he was a police
officer and would arrest her. The sachets
were marked. The substance was found to be
methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
3. Defense:
Magundayao said she was framed by the
police. She was at home when five
unidentified males opened their door
looking for an alias Luga, who she did not
know. They then ransacked her house but
weren't able to find illegal items. She was
then brought to the Tuktukan jail, where the
men tried to extort money from her. She was
subjected to inquest proceedings. Evidence
were not shown to her.
No documentary evidence was presented by
Magundayao.
4. RTC: Magundayao guilty of the charges because
of the existence of shabu sold to Memoracion, the
recovery of the buy bust money, and the recovery of
another sachet. Defense offered no proof that she
was framed up, that she did not engage in peddling
at the time of arrest. No proof she complained to the
inquest prosecutor about the framing up.
5. CA upheld RTC. Non compliance with sec. 21 of
RA 9165 does not render evidence inadmissible nor
the arrest illegal. What is of utmost relevance is
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value

of the confiscated illegal drugs, because this

determines guilt or innocence.
6. In SC, accused said there are inconsistencies
between the testimony of PO3 Arago and PO2
Memoracion, because PO3 Arago said the
informant gave the tip to the team then relayed it
to Paat, while Memoracion said the informant gave
the tip directly to Paat.
Also, inventory did not have signatures of
media representative, DOJ representative, or any
elected public official. Evidence were not
photographed in presence of the same. Therefore,
they violated sec. 21 of RA 9165, so police failed to
perform their duty properly. No presumption of
regularity, therefore she must be acquitted.

2. The charges of illegal possession and illegal sale

are supported.
Elements of illegal possession as provided in
P vs. Lazaro:
1. accused is in possession of item or
object identified to be a prohibited
drug
2. possession is not authorized by law
3. accused freely and consciously
possessed said drug
-

The third was proven by the fact that a

sachet was produced when she was asked to
empty her pockets.

Elements of illegal sale, as stated in P vs.

Hernandez:
1. identity of buyer and seller, object of
sale, and consideration
2. delivery of thing sold and payment
thereof
Memoracion was poseur buyer, and
Magundayao was identified as the seller.
Object was the sachet containing .08 grams
of shabu, consideration was 200php marked
money. Memoracion testified that the object
was handed to him after he gave the marked
money.

ISSUE: W/N Magundayaos guilt was proved

beyond reasonable doubt - YES
RATIO:
1. Citing People v. Santos: Fundamental is the
principle that findings of the trial courts which are
factual in nature and which involve the credibility
of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring
errors; gross misapprehension of facts; and
speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions
can be gathered from such findings. The reason for
this is that the trial court is in a better position to
decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard
their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds
an even more stringent application where said
findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.
In this case, the factual findings were
supported by evidence. Details of the buy-bust
operation were adequately proven by the
testimonies of Arago and Memoracion:
initial contact between PO2 Memoracion
and the accused-appellant;
the said police officers offer to purchase;
the statement of the amount he was willing
to pay; and
the consummation of the sale by the
accused-appellants delivery of the shabu to
PO2 Memoracion.

3. Inconsistencies in testimonies of Arago and

Memoracion are unpersuasive. As held in P vs.
Lazaro, for discrepancy or inconsistency in the testi
of witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must
refer to the significant facts vital to the guilt or
innocence of the accused for thr crime charged. An
inconsistency which has.nothing to do with the
elements of the crime cannot be a ground for
acquittal.
In this case, it does not matter whether
informant relayed the info to team members or to
the P/Chief Insp. Paat himself. What is important is
that an informant gave a tip to the police which
became the basis for the buy bust operation to
apprehend Magundayao.
DECISION: CA decision upheld.