VOL.

429,MAY25,2004 169
Peoplevs.LiKaKim
*
G.R.No.148586.May25,2004.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LI KA KIM alias

ED,appellant.

Actions Pleadings and Practice Motions Newly Discovered

Evidence Requisites The requisites of newly discovered evidence in order
tojustifyanewtrialarethefollowing.Therequisitesofnewlydiscovered
evidence in order to justify a new trial are that(a) the evidence is
discoveredaftertrial(b)suchevidencecouldnothavebeendiscoveredand
produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence and (c)
the evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or
impeaching, and of such weight that, if admitted, would likely change the
judgment.
Criminal Law Dangerous Drugs Act (Republic Act No. 6425)
RequisitesInaprosecutionforillegalpossessionofdangerousdrugs,itis
enough to show the following.In a prosecution for illegal possession of
dangerousdrugs,itisenoughtoshowthat(1)theaccusedisinpossession
ofanitemoranobjectidentifiedtobeaprohibitedoraregulateddrug(2)
suchpossessionisnotauthorizedbylawand(3)theaccusedhasfreelyand
consciouslypossessedtheprohibiteddrug.Neitherapriorsurveillanceofthe
suspected offender nor the presentation of the informant would be an
indispensablerequirementtothesuccessfulprosecutionofadrugcase.
SameSameEvidenceWitnessesTheCourthasgreatrespectforthe
judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of witnesses.
The Court has great respect for the judgment of the trial court in passing
uponthecredibilityofwitnesses.Itisoftensaidthat,unlessthereappearsin
the record some fact or circumstance of weight and substance, and there is
none,whichhasbeenoverlookedorthesignificanceofwhichhasbeen

_______________

*ENBANC.

170
170 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Peoplevs.LiKaKim

misinterpreted,anappellatecourtwillnotinterfereinthefactualfindingsof
thetrialcourt.
Criminal Procedure Retroactivity of the Rules are applicable to
actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage.The
provisionsoftheRevisedRulesonCriminalProcedure,particularlySection
8,Rule110,thereof,mustbegivenretroactiveeffectinthelightofthewell
settledrulethatstatutesorrulesregulatingtheprocedureofthecourtwillbe
construed as being applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the
timeoftheirpassage.

AUTOMATICREVIEWofadecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtof
ParaaqueCity,Br.258.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
TheSolicitorGeneralforappellee.
AlexanderLlanesAcain,Jr.forappellant.
**
VITUG, J.:

Facedwiththegrimscenarioofhavingtosuffertheextremepenalty
of death, appellant is now before this Court urging to overturn his
convictionforviolationofSection15,Article111,ofRepublicAct
No.64257assoamendedbyRepublicAct7659.
The Information filed against appellant was to the following
effectviz.:

That on or about September 19, 1999, in Paraaque City, Philippines, and

withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,accusedLiKaKimaliasEd,
fortheamountofFourHundredThousand(P400,000.00)Pesos,Philippine
currency, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell,
deliverandgiveawaytoaposeurbuyer,NINEHUNDREDNINETYFOUR
POINT SEVEN SEVEN THREE (994.773) grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride commonly know as Shabu, a regulated 1
drug without
authorityoflaworthecorrespondinglicensetherefor.

Appellant, acting upon advice of counsel, did not enter any plea
during his arraignment the court was thus constrained to enter a
pleaofnotguiltyinhisbehalf.
Theprosecutionpresenteditsevidence.

_______________

**ActingChiefJustice.

1Rollo,p.8.
 171

VOL.429,MAY25,2004 171
Peoplevs.LiKaKim

Atsixoclockonthemorningof19September1999,theRegional
Intelligence and Investigation Division (RIID) of the Philippine
NationalPolice,RegionIVOfficeatCampVicenteLim,Calamba,
Laguna, received a report from an informer, named Boy, that a
certain alias Ed, known to be a drug dealer operating in the
southernpartofMetroManila,waslookingforabuyerofshabu.At
seventhirty that morning, PO2 Christian Trambulo, an officer of
RIID,madeinitialcontactwithEdthroughaphonecallusingBoys
cellularphone.Boy2
introduced PO2 Trambulo to Ed as Rollie, a
buyerofshabu. Thepartiesagreedtomeetattheparkingspaceof
McDonaldsatUniwideCoastalMallinParaaqueCitybetween
fouroclockandfivethirtyintheafternoonwhereEdwassupposed
togivePO2Trambulo(a.k.a.Rollie)akiloofshabuandthelatterto
pay for it an amount of P400,000.00. After the phone call, PO2
TrambulowasinstructedbyP/ChiefInspectorJuliusCaesarManato
betheposeurbuyerandwasgivenP4,000.00infour(4)P1,000.00
genuinebillswhichwasarrangedinsuchawayastomakeitappear
3
tobetheagreedamountofP400,000.00inboodlemoney.
Attheagreedtimeandplaceofthetransaction,PO2Trambulo,
together with sixteen (16) other officers of the RIID, waited for
appellant. PO2 Trambulo noticed a red Honda Civic car passing
several times in front of him. Finally, a Chineselooking man
alightedfromthedriverssideofthevehicle.BoyintroducedPO2
Trambulo(a.k.a.Rollie)toappellant(a.k.a.Ed)whoalsointroduced
himself to Rollie, using broken Tagalog language. Ed then gave
Rollie a brown paper bag containing a white crystalline substance
wrappedinaChristmaswrapper.Afterlookingatthecontentsofthe
wrapperandpinchingittotestthecrispinessofthesubstance,Rollie
gaveEdthebuybustmoney.WhenEdreachedforthemoneywith
his hands, Rollie informed Ed that he was a police officer. Police
Inspector Emerito Estrada came and informed Ed of his
constitutional rights.
4
Appellant was arrested and the boodle money
wasrecovered.
At the trial, PO2 Trambulo pointed to appellant as being the
selleroftheconfiscatedshabuandpositivelyidentifiedthebrown

_______________

2TSN,02March2000,pp.68.

3Ibid.,pp.911.

4Ibid.,pp.1316.

172
172 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.LiKaKim

paperbaggiventohimbyappellantcontainingtheprohibiteddrug 5
whichhemarkedCVT,hisinitials(ChristianVenturaTrambulo).
Appellanthadadifferentstorytotell.
Testifying through an interpreter, appellant claimed to be a
Chinese, jobless, and born in Fookien, China, unable to speak
EnglishorFilipino,whocametothePhilippinesonatouristvisaon
13May1999,wheninvitedbyhisfriendTanEngHong.According
toappellant,hestayedwithTangEngHongatRoom1003Gotesco
Building, Manila, up until 19 September 1999. He denied having
been in Southern Tagalog. About two to three oclock on the
afternoonof19September1999,heandTanEngHongwentoutand
took a ride going to the airport. He did not know the name of the
commercialcenterbuthewassurethatitwasleadingtotheairport.
Upon their arrival, Tan Eng Hong alighted from the car and went
inside the mall. While waiting for Tan Eng Hong and smoking a
cigarette, five persons accosted him. At the point of a gun, he was
forcedinsidethecar,whichheandTanEngHongusedingoingto
themall.Thepoliceofficers,whowereallarmed,broughthimtoa
gasolinestationwherehewasfriskedbuttheywerenotabletofind
anything on him except for a pack of cigarettes. He heard one of
them saying wala and one of them slapped him. He was asked
things he did not understand. Later, he was brought to the police
station. A Chinese woman approached him while he was at the
policestation,andhethenexplainedwhathadhappened.Hedenied
thatTrambulowasintroducedtohimbyBoy,theinformer,whomhe
didnotknow.TheChinesewomantoldhiminthepresenceofthree
or four police officers that if he could produce P1,000,000.00 and
give it to the police officers who brought him there, he would be
allowedtogohome.
Thecourtaquoadjudgedthecasefortheprosecution.
Thetrialcourtdebunkedappellantsdefenseofdenial.Thecourt
found it hard to believe that appellant would be singled out by the
police officers from scores of people at the mall where he was
arrested and later indicted for selling shabu. Strangely, the court
observed,appellantsfriend,acertainTanEngHong,didnotappear
incourttocorroboratehistestimony.Thecourtlikewisenotedthat
thecar,aswellasthelicenseplate,usedbyappellanthad

_______________

5Ibid.,pp.1718,ExhibitC7.

173

VOL.429,MAY25,2004 173
 Peoplevs.LiKaKim

been stolen, and that appellant was an undocumented

6
alien as so
shownbytheletter,dated13October2000, ofthenCommissioner
on Immigration and Deportation Rufus B. Rodriguez, to State
ProsecutorReynaldoJ.Lugtu.
Findingtheprosecutionsevidencefarmorecrediblethanthatof
thedefenseandtohaveoverwhelminglyestablishedtheelementsof
thecrimecharged,thetrialcourtconvictedappellantanddecreedthe
penaltyofdeath.Inarrivingatthatpenalty,thetrialcourtconsidered
theuseofamotorvehicletobeanaggravatingcircumstance.
Appellantassignedthefollowingerrorssupposedlycommitted
bythecourtaquo:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSEDAPPELLANT

GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSEDAPPELLANT IS
GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, NONETHELESS, THE TRIAL
COURTERREDINIMPOSINGUPONHIMTHESUPREMEPENALTY
7
OFDEATH.

Initially,appellant,inthisappeal,wasrepresentedbyAtty.Eldorado
Lim, who filed a brief for the defense. On 04 October 2002,
Fernandez, Pacheco & Dizon Law Offices filed its entry of
appearance as being the new counsel for appellant only to be
substitutedlaterbyGuzman,Tanedo,&AcainLawOffices.On10
June2003,theCourtnotedandgrantedtherequestofthelawfirmto
be furnished with copies of all motions, orders, resolutions and
judgment in connection with the case. On 01 September 2003,
appellant filed a motion to remand the case for new trial. In his
motion,appellantwouldattempttooverturnhisconvictionor,atthe
very least, to be given a chance for a new trial, citing Section 14,
Rule 121, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, because of newly
discoveredevidence,i.e.,hispassportwhichwouldestablishhistrue
identity as Huang Xiao Wei, a Chinese National, and as having
enteredthePhilippinesasatourist.Invokinghisconstitutionalright
to an effective counsel, appellant chides his former counsel for
havingfailedtosecureandpresenthistraveldocuments.

_______________

6ExhibitMRebuttal.

7Rollo,p.76.

174

174 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
 Peoplevs.LiKaKim

TheCourtisnotconvinced.
Therequisitesofnewlydiscoveredevidenceinordertojustifya
newtrialarethat(a)theevidenceisdiscoveredaftertrial(b)such
evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial
evenwiththeexerciseofreasonablediligenceand(c)theevidence
is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching,
and of such
8
weight that, if admitted, would likely change the
judgment.
Not one of the requisites mentioned is attendant. Appellants
passportcouldhaveeasilybeenpresentedandproducedduringthe
trial. Then, too, the presentation of appellants passport, would
hardly be material to the outcome of the case. Appellant was
positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as being the
perpetratorofthecrime.Mostimportantly,appellantevenidentified 9
himselfasLiKaKimatthetrialandnotasHuangXiaoWei, that
bolsterstheconclusionthatappellantdeliberatelyconcealedhistrue
identityinthenefariousenterprise.
Nowtothemerits.
The totality of evidence presented is convincing and points to
appellantasbeingapersonengagedinthesaleofillegaldrugs.The
testimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessesidentifyingappellanttobea
sellerofillegaldrugsappearstobecategoricalandunfabricated.No
ill motive on the part of the witnesses has been shown to tarnish
theirtestimony.Suchpositiveevidencecertainlyprevailsovermere
denialandalibiwhich,ifnotsubstantiatedbyclearandconvincing
evidence,arenegativeandselfservingunworthyofcredibleweight
10
inlaw.

_______________

8Peoplevs.Tirona,G.R.No.128907,22December1998(300SCRA431)Tiniovs.

Manzano,G.R.No.132102,19May1999(307SCRA460)Olanvs.CourtofAppeals,
G.R.No.116109,14September1999(314SCRA273).
9TSN,September27,2000,pp.34.

10Peoplevs.Naguita,G.R.No.130091,30August1999(313SCRA292)People

vs.Hillado,G.R.No.122838,24May1999(307SCRA535)Peoplevs.Mores,G.R.
No.107746, 28 July 1999 (311 SCRA 342) People vs. Acuno, G.R. No. 130964, 03
September1999(313SCRA667)Peoplevs.Arlee,G.R.No.113518,25January2000
(323SCRA201)People vs. Suelto,G.R. No. 126097, 08 February 2000 (325 SCRA
41).

175

VOL.429,MAY25,2004 175
Peoplevs.LiKaKim
Appellants argument that a surveillance or a test/buy should have
first been conducted deserves scant consideration. In a prosecution
forillegalpossessionofdangerousdrugs,itisenoughtoshowthat
(1)theaccusedisinpossessionofanitemoranobjectidentified
to be a prohibited or a regulated drug (2) such possession is not
authorized by law and (3) the11 accused has freely and consciously
possessed the prohibited
12
drug. Neither a prior surveillance of the
suspectedoffender northepresentationoftheinformantwouldbe
anindispensablerequirementtothesuccessfulprosecutionofadrug
13
case.
Appellantwascaughtinflagrantedelicto selling 994.773 grams
ofshabutotheposeurbuyeronthemorningof19September1999.
He handed over the bag containing shabu to the poseur buyer, in
exchange of P400,000.00 in buy bust money. He was promptly
arrested and taken into custody after being informed of his
constitutional rights. Clearly, all the elements of the sale of illegal
drugswereestablished.
TheCourthasgreatrespectforthejudgmentofthetrialcourtin
passinguponthecredibilityofwitnesses.Itisoftensaidthat,unless
thereappearsintherecordsomefactorcircumstanceofweightand
substance, and there is none, which has been 14
overlooked or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted, an appellate court
willnotinterfereinthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt.
Thereismerit,however,inappellantscontentionthatthecourta
quoerredinimposingthepenaltyofdeath.Rule110oftheRuleson
Criminal Procedure requires the recitation in the information of
aggravating or qualifying circumstances in order to be appreciated
assuch.Theuseofamotorvehicleconsideredbythetrialcourtin
decreeingthedeathpenaltyisinappropriate,thataggravating

_______________

11Peoplevs.ChenTizChang,G.R.Nos.13187273,17February2000,325SCRA

776.
12Peoplevs.Lacbanes,G.R.No.88684,20March1997,270SCRA193Peoplevs.

Ganguso,G.R.No.115430,23November1995,250SCRA268.
13People vs. Cheng Ho Chua, G.R. No. 127542, 18 March 1999, 305 SCRA 28

Peoplevs.Boco,G.R.No.129676,23June1999,309SCRA42.
14Peoplevs.Enolva,G.R.Nos.13163334,25January2000,323SCRA295.

176

176 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Peoplevs.LiKaKim

circumstancenothavingbeenaptlyallegedintheInformation.The
pertinentprovisionsoftherulesread:
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense.The complaint of information shall
state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
referenceshallbemadetothesectionorsubsectionofthestatutepunishing
it.
Sec.9.Causeoftheaccusation.Theactsoromissionscomplainedof
asconstitutingtheoffenseandthequalifyingandaggravatingcircumstances
must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the
language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
commonunderstandingtoknowwhatoffenseisbeingchargedaswellasits
qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment.(italicssupplied.)

Therequirementsaremandatorynotonlytoaffordtheaccusedthe
right to object to the presentation of evidence showing such
aggravating circumstances not so alleged but also to preclude the
court from
15
even taking such aggravating circumstances into
account.
Quite recently, the Court has held that the provisions of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 8, Rule
110,thereof,mustbegivenretroactiveeffectinthelightofthewell
settledrulethatstatutesorrulesregulatingtheprocedureofthecourt
will be construed as being applicable16 to actions pending and
undeterminedatthetimeoftheirpassage.
The quantity of the drugs seized from appellant, which is
994.773 grams of shabu, warrants the application of the penalty
under Section 16, in relation to Section 17, of Republic Act No.
7659,otherwisealsoknownasAnActtoImposetheDeathPenalty
on Certain Heinous Crimes, of reclusion perpetua to death and a
finerangingfromfivehundredthousandpesostotenmillionpesos.
ApplyingtheprovisionsofArticle63oftheRevisedPenalCode,the
lesserpenaltyshouldbeimposed,therebeingneither

_______________

15RubenE.Agpalo,HandbookonCriminalProcedure,2001Edition,p.54.

16Peoplevs.Arrojado,G.R.No.130492, 31 January 2001, 350 SCRA 679citing

Ocampo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79060, 08 December 1989, 180 SCRA 27
Alday vs. Camilon,G.R. No. L60316, 31 January 1983, 120 SCRA 521 People vs.
Sumilang,G.R.No.49187,18December1946,77Phil.764.

177

VOL.429,MAY27,2004 177
Bonvs.Ziga
 mitigatingnoraggravatingcircumstancesthatcanbeconsidered,for
17
thecommissionoftheoffense.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction against appellant Li
Ka Kim, a.k.a. Ed, is AFFIRMED with modification in that the
penalty of DEATH imposed by the trial court is hereby reduced to
RECLUSION PERPETUA. In other respects, the judgment of the
courtaquoissustained.Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.

Panganiban, Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, Sandoval

Gutierrez, Carpio, AustriaMartinez, Corona, CarpioMorales,
Callejo,Sr.,AzcunaandTinga,JJ.,concur.
Davide,Jr.(C.J.)andPuno,J.,OnOfficialLeave.

Judgmentaffirmedwithmodification.
Note.When an accused is charged with illegal possession or
transportation of prohibited drugs, the ownership thereof is
immaterial.(Peoplevs.DelMundo,366SCRA471[2001])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.