G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO - March 1992 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

11/3/2020 G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I.
ANDO I. SANTIAGO : March 1992 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
March 1992 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 >

March 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO:
THIRD DIVISION
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992marchdecisions.php?id=69 1/26
11/3/2020 G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO : March 1992 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…
[G.R. No. 94472. March 3, 1992.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

FERNANDO SANTIAGO y IBAY, Accused-Appellant.
The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972;

SALE OF PROHIBITED DRUG CONSUMMATED ONCE SALE
TRANSACTION IS ESTABLISHED; DELIVERY OF THE DRUG
PURCHASED, MATERIAL. — The commission of the crime of
illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated
once the sale transaction is established (People v. Enrique,
Jr., G.R. No. 90738, December 8, 1991 and other cases
cited) We ruled in People v. Fabian, G.R. No. 83329,
December 10, 1991, citing People v. de la Cruz (191 SCRA
160 [1990]) "that when a police officer went through the
motions of buying prohibited drugs and his offer to buy was
accepted by the accused-seller, the crime was
consummated by mere delivery of the drug purchased." cralaw virtua1aw library
2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; DRUG

PUSHERS SELL THEIR PROHIBITED WARES TO
STRANGERS. — The appellant’s theory that "it is unlikely
and hard to believe that the appellant, if indeed a pusher,
would readily sell shabu to a buyer he does not know"
deserves scant consideration. We have consistently ruled in
the past that "retail drug pushers sell their prohibited wares
to customers, be they strangers or not, in private as well as
in public places." (People v. Fabian, supra, citing People v.
Sanchez, 173 SCRA 305 [1989]; People v. Paco, 170 SCRA
681 [1989]).
3. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS;

PRESUMPTION THAT OFFICIAL DUTIES ARE REGULARLY
PERFORMED APPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. — Moreover, the
fact that the police team which conducted the buy bust
operation did not personally know the identity of the
appellant at the time of the sale transaction and the
appellant questions the veracity of the operation against
him does not erode the credibility of the team. What
matters is the fact that the appellant sold and delivered
shabu, a prohibited drug, to Patrolman Ancayan who acted
as poseur buyer. The prosecution witnesses are police
officers and are presumed to have regularly performed
their duties in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(People v. Mariano, 191 SCRA 136 [1990]; People v. Catan,
G.R. No. 92928, January 21, 1992.)
4. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972;

PROPER DESIGNATION OF PENALTY; LIFE IMPRISONMENT
NOT RECLUSION PERPETUA. — The penalty imposed by the
trial court is reclusion perpetua. This should be life
imprisonment.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT, NOT

IMPOSABLE. — Applying the rule that when the penalty
imposed is higher than prision correccional no subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit (Article 39
(3) Revised Penal Code; People v. Andiza, 164 SCRA 642

[1988]; People v. Bati, 189 SCRA 97 [1990] we agree with
the appellant that the trial court committed an error in
sentencing him to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency.
DECISION
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
Accused-appellant Fernando Santiago y Ibay was charged with

violation of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for the sale and possession of
prohibited drugs in Criminal Cases Nos. 89-2515 and 89-2516,
respectively. The appellant was also indicted for illegal
possession of live ammunitions in Criminal Case Nos. 822517.
The three (3) informations read as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Criminal Case No. 89-2515
That on or about the 6th day of May, 1989, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, Fernando Santiago y Ibay @
Pandong, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and
control marijuana leaves, a prohibited drug.
x x x
That on or about the 6th day of May, 1989, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the abovenamed accused, Fernando Santiago y Ibay @
Pandong, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
without authority of law, sell and deliver to a third person

Japanese Synthetic Cocaine, otherwise known as ‘Shabu’ a
regulated drug, for the amount of P150.00.
x x x
That on or about the 6th day of May, 1989, in Pasay, Metro

Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused Fernando Santiago y Ibay @
Pandong, without authority of law, did then and there wiliftilly,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and
control twenty (20) pieces of live ammunitions for M16 rifle,
without first securing the necessary license and/or permit to
possess the same." (Rollo, p. 5)
Upon arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty.
The trial court summarized the prosecution’s evidence as

follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . [D]uring the hearing the prosecution presented witnesses

Emilia Rosaldez, Pat. George Baculinao, Pat. Ernesto Ancayan
and Pat. Luisito Silvano. They alleged that on May 6, 1989 a
team of policemen conducted a buy bust operation against one
alias Pandong who had been the subject of numerous
complaints from concerned residents, for drug pushing. The
team directed by Capt. Gaudencio Cordora, the ISOG and
Narcotics Unit Chief of the Pasay City Police Station, was
formed after surveillance (sic) alias Pandong was identified with
the help of a Confidential Informant (CI). The team was
composed of Pat. Ancayan, who acted as poseur buyer with
Pat. Baculinao, Pat. Silvano, Pat. Taylay and others (sic) were
back-ups and perimeter guards. They proceeded to the vicinity
of Leveriza near the corner of Fresno St., in Pasay City at
around 1 pm. There, Pat. Ancayan, saw the suspect who was
identified later as Fernando Santiago standing alone infront of
his house near the door. He then approached the suspect and
told him that he will buy shabu worth P150.00. The accused
responded and he immediately left and went inside the house
and after a while he returned. Pat Ancayan then handed to the
accused the buy bust money consisting of 1pc. P100 and 1 pc.
50 peso bills. After he received the money, the accused handed
to Pat. Ancayan an aluminum foil and seeing that it contained
the shabu, Pat. Ancayan immediately took hold of the accused.
At that instance Pat. Baculinao who was just a few meters
away rushed to the accused helped (sic) in placing under
control. He then searched the accused and recovered the buy
bust money from his left front pant pocket. Also recovered
from the accused in his wallet was a small T-bag of suspected
dried marijuana leaves, and 20 live M-16 Armalite Rifle bullets
placed in a box was (sic) recovered in the house on top of a
table (TSN, June 5/89).
The suspected shabu (Exh. F-1) and marijuana leaves (Exh. E-

1) were taken to the office of the NBI for laboratory analysis,
and Emilia Rosaldez the Forensic Chemist who conducted the
examination certified, after the usual qualitative chemical,
physical and chromatographic or confirmation states that the
suspected shabu was positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug and the dried leaves positive
for marijuana. (TSN, June 5/89; Exh. D.C.)" (Rollo, p. 6) chanrobles.com : virtual law library
The appellant countered the prosecution’s version of the

incident of May 6, 1989 by presenting his own version, to
wit: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . That between the hours of 1 and 1:30 p.m., on May

6,1989 two (2) policemen whom he identified as Patrolmen
Bruno and Baculinao picked him from his house and brought
him to the Pasay City Police Station. That in the house before
the policemen came a certain Boy Morris whom he had known
for 2 weeks and talked to him (accused); that he was then
resting having just been sick of flu and told to come down; that
he refused and it was when (sic) the policemen came up the
house; they searched first the place, then they find (sic)
nothing they asked him to bring out shabu and when he could
not produce anything as there was none in the house they hit
him on the chest with fist blow. He denied that he was keeping
and selling shabu; that the ammunitions recovered in his house
belonged to Reynaldo Disposado, a member of the military
(navy) who has stayed with him; that at the police
headquarters a policeman showed him shabu and marijuana;
that he was being made to sign a document and when he
refused that (sic) he denied having sold shabu to Pat. Ancayan
and having received P150.00 from him (TSN., Aug. 2/89)."
(Rollo, pp. 6-7)
After joint trial of the three (3) cases, the Regional Trial Court
of Pasay City, Branch 115 found the appellant guilty as charged
in Criminal Case No. 89-2516. He was, however, acquitted in
the two (2) other cases. The dispositive portion of the joint
decision reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"All the premises considered, judgment is rendered finding the

accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of selling
or delivering to another, Japanese synthetic cocaine or shabu, a
regulated drug, defined and penalized under Section 15,
Republic Act 6425, as amended, and sentences him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the fine of
P20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
and the cost of this proceedings.
For insufficiency of the evidence the charges of illegal

possession of 20 rounds of M-1 6 live bullets and of illegal
possession of dried marijuana leaves in small quantity are
ordered dismissed.
The subject shabu and dried marijuana leaves and the live M-
16 bullets are confiscated and forfeited and the Branch Clerk is
directed to turn them to the Dangerous Drugs Board/Firearms
and Explosive Unit for disposition." (Rollo, p. 8)
The appellant now contends: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE

PROSECUTION MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF
THE ACCUSED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS

GUILTY AS CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
IN CASE OF INSOLVENCY.
As in most criminal cases of the same nature, the main issue

raised hinges on credibility of witnesses. chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
The appellant submits that the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses are inconsistent, contradictory, doubtful, incredible
and not sufficient to sustain conviction. He specifically
mentions the testimonies of Pat. George Baculinao and Pat.
Silvano. According to him, the testimonies of the two police
officers were presented to corroborate the testimony of
Patrolman Ancayan and to establish the veracity of the buy
bust operation. However, the two (2) officers testified that they
did not actually see the sale of the shabu between the poseur-
buyer who was Patrolman Ancayan and the Appellant.
The well-entrenched principle is that the commission of the

crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered
consummated once the sale transaction is established (People
v. Macuto, 176 SCRA 762 [1989]; People v. Dekingco, 189
SCRA 512 [1990]; People v. Enrique, Jr., G.R. No. 90738,
December 8, 1991) In the instant case, Patrolinan Ancayan,
the poseur-buyer testified as regards the sale transaction of
shabu between him and the Appellant.
Patrolman Ancayan categorically stated that after conducting a

surveillance wherein the identity of the accused as a drug
pusher was established, he, together with Cpl. Racquion, Pat.
Silvano, Pat. Baculinao and Pat. Monsod conducted a buy bust
operation. He acted as the poseur-buyer while the other
members of the operation positioned themselves not far from

the appellant’s residence. Pat. Ancayan, then proceeded to the
residence of the appellant and saw the latter standing in front
of his residence. He then approached the appellant and told
him that he wanted to buy shabu in the amount of Pl 50.00.
The appellant then went inside his house and after more or less
five (5) minutes, the appellant came out. After giving the
appellant the buy bust money the appellant handed him an
aluminum foil containing the shabu. The money and the shabu
were identified in court by Pat. Ancayan.
These facts, alone, unequivocably Prove the consummation of

the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drug. We ruled in People
v. Fabian, G.R. No. 83329, December 10, 1991, citing People v.
de la Cruz (191 SCRA 160 [[1990]) "that when a police officer
went through the motions of buying prohibited drugs and his
offer to buy was accepted by the accused-seller, the crime was
consummated by mere delivery of the drug purchased." cralaw virtua1aw library
Hence, the fact that Pat. George Bactllinao and Pat. Silvano
were not close enough to witness the sale transaction between
the appellant and Pat. Ancayan is immaterial. Moreover, these
police officers had satisfactorily explained why they did not
witness the sale transaction. Thus, Patrolman Baculinao
testified that he did not see the appellant delivering the
aluminum foil containing shabu since he was about five (5)
meters away from the appellant while Pat. Silvano was about
fifty (50) meters away from the appellant and Pat. Ancayan.
The appellant’s theory that "it is unlikely and hard to believe

that the appellant, if indeed a pusher, would readily sell shabu
to a buyer he does not know" deserves scant consideration. We
have consistently ruled in the past that "retail drug pushers sell
their prohibited wares to customers, be they strangers or not,
in private as well as in public places." (People v. Fabian, supra,
citing People v. Sanchez, 173 SCRA 305 [1989]; People v. Paco,
170 SCRA 681 [1989]). chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
Moreover, the fact that the police team which conducted the
buy bust operation did not personally know the identity of the
appellant at the time of the sale transaction and the appellant

questions the veracity of the operation against him does not
erode the credibility of the team. What matters is the fact that
the appellant sold and delivered shabu, a prohibited drug, to
Patrolman Ancayan who acted as poseur buyer. The prosecution
witnesses are police officers and are presumed to have
regularly performed their duties in the absence of evidence to
the contrary. (People v. Mariano, 191 SCRA 136 [[1990];
People v. Catan, G.R. No. 92928, January 21,1992.
The penalty imposed by the trial court is reclusion perpetua.

This should be life imprisonment. Applying, therefore, the rule
that when the penalty imposed is higher than prision
correccional no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon
the culprit (Article 39 (3) Revised Penal Code; People v. Andiza,
164 SCRA 642 [1988]; People v. Bati, 189 SCRA 97 [1990] we
agree with the appellant that the trial court committed an error
in sentencing him to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction appealed from is

AFFIRMED. The penalty imposed should, however, be life
imprisonment instead of reclusion perpetua and it is further
ordered that there shall be no subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency. Costs against the Appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.
Back to Home | Back to Main
Search
ChanRobles
Professional Review,
Inc.
ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review
ChanRobles CPA
Review Online
ChanRobles Special
Lecture Series
March-1992
Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 86150

March 2, 1992 -
GUMAN, BOCALING &
CO. v. RAOUL S.V.
BONNEVIE
A.M. No. P-88-255

March 3, 1992 -
MANUEL U. DEL
ROSARlO v. JOSE T.
BASCAR, JR., ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 46460-61

March 3, 1992 - DIWA
NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU
v. AMADO G. INCIONG,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 82511

March 3, 1992 -
GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE
AND RADIO
CORPORATION v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85479

March 3, 1992 -
PERFECTO ESPAÑOL v.
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 93003

March 3, 1992 -
CARMELITA REYES v.
EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94472

March 3, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. FERNANDO I.
SANTIAGO
G.R. No. 95696

March 3, 1992 -
ALFONSO S. TAN v.
SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 101753

March 3, 1992 -
CIPRIANO
PEÑAFLORIDA v.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-42987

March 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. VICENTE REBULADO,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 84363

March 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MATEO B. ALILIN, ET
AL.
G.R. Nos. 88158 &

97108-09 March 4,
1992 - DANIEL
GARCIA, ET AL. v.
ERNESTO DE JESUS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 91745

March 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JULIO MANLIGUEZ,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 96607

March 4, 1992 - OSCAR
QUILOÑA v. GENERAL
COURT MARTIAL, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 97296

March 4, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. PEDRO B.
CANCILLER
G.R. Nos. 102653,

102925, 102983 March
5, 1992 - NATIONAL
PRESS CLUB v.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 58879

March 6, 1992 -
EXPEDITA LIBREA v.
EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 62088

March 6, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. SAMSON SAMILLANO
G.R. No. 66641

March 6, 1992 -
FILINVEST CREDIT
CORPORATION v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 77744

March 6, 1992 -
TEODORA CLAVERIAS
v. ADORACION
QUINGCO, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 89983-84

March 6, 1992 -
LORENZO S.
MENDIOLA v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL., ET AL.
G.R. No. 92501

March 6, 1992 -
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 92878

March 6, 1992 -
EDUARDO PATNA-AN v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 93851

March 6, 1992 - MARK
BAYQUEN v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94530

March 6, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. DANTE DONATO, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 103102

March 6, 1992 -
CLAUDIO J.
TEEHANKEE, JR. v. JOB
B. MADAYAG, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 95370 &

101227 March 10,
1992 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL., ET AL. v. EFREN
O. RAMOS, ET AL.
A.C. No. 2405 March

11, 1992 - PERLA
COMPANIA DE
SEGUROS, INC., v.
OLEEGARIO
SANTISTEBAN
G.R. No. 40243

March 11, 1992 -
CELESTINO TATEL v.
MUNICIPALITY OF
VIRAC, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-47815

March 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE’S BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY v.
TOMAS R. LEONIDAS,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 84612

March 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. DIOSDADO AVILA,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 86744

March 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. PEDRO
BUENAVENTURA, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 91662

March 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MARIO AGUILUZ
G.R. No. 94129

March 11, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ANTONIO RIVERA
G.R. No. 95594

March 11, 1992 -
ITALIAN VILLAGE
RESTAURANT, ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 57630

March 13, 1992 -
CLARA BADAYOS v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 100926

March 13, 1992 -
INDEPENDENT SAGAY-
ESCALANTE PLANTERS,
INC. v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
A.M. No. 3216

March 16, 1992 -
DOMINGA VELASCO
ORDONIO v.
JOSEPHINE PALOGAN
EDUARTE
G.R. Nos. 74306 &

74315 March 16, 1992
- ENRIQUE RAZON v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 91122

March 16, 1992 -
DIONY RAPIZ, ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 93234

March 16, 1992 -
PEDRO S. RAVELO, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 94803

March 16, 1992 -
TALAGA BARANGAY
WATER SERVICE
COOPERATIVE v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 95692

March 16, 1992 -
SUNDAY MACHINE
WORKS, INC. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 98030

March 17, 1992 -
ALEJANDRO J.
CUADRA, ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 85469

March 18, 1992 - JOSE
RAMIREZ, ET AL. v.
AL.
G.R. No. 87148

March 18, 1992 -
MARCIANA
CONSIGNADO, ET AL.
ET AL.
G.R. No. 94810

March 18, 1992 -
EASTERN
METROPOLITAN BUS
CORP., ET AL. v.
EDILBERTO PANGAN,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 94929-30

March 18, 1992 - PORT
WORKERS UNION OF
THE PHILIPPINES v.
BIENVENIDO E.
LAGUESMA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 97357

March 18, 1992 -
VIRON GARMENTS
MANUFACTURING, CO.,
INC., ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 100727

March 18, 1992 -
COGEO-CUBAO
OPERATORS AND
DRIVERS
ASSOCIATION v.
AL.
G.R. No. 71238

March 19, 1992 -
LUFTHANSA GERMAN
AIRLINES v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 75308

March 23, 1992 - LOPE
SARREAL, SR. v. JAPAN
AIR LINES CO., LTD.,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 75907

March 23, 1992 -
FAMILY PLANNING
ORGANIZATION OF
THE PHIL., INC. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 80658-60

March 23, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MAXIMINO
TINAMPAY, ET AL.
G.R. No. 90519

March 23, 1992 -
UNION OF FILIPINO
WORKERS v. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 90527

March 23, 1992 -
RURAL BANK OF BAAO,
INC., ET AL. v.
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 92442-43

March 23, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. NESTOR DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 92740

March 23, 1992 -
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
INC. v. JAIME J.
RAMOS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 95022

March 23, 1992 -
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE v.
AL.
G.R. No. 95536

March 23, 1992 -
ANICETO G. SALUDO,
JR., ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 97346

March 23, 1992 -
RODOLFO YOSORES v.
EMPLOYEES’
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION
G.R. No. 101367

March 23, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ELMO CATUA, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 83583-84

March 25, 1992 -
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE v.
RIO TUBA NICKEL
MINING
CORPORATION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 84220

March 25, 1992 -
BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ
ET AL.
G.R. No. 84240

March 25, 1992 -
OLIVIA S. PASCUAL, ET
AL. v. ESPERANZA C.
PASCUAL-BAUTISTA, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 88942

March 25, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. MANOLO S. CARPIO
A.M. No. RTJ-87-98

March 26, 1992 -
AMELIA B. JUVIDA v.
MANUEL SERAPIO, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 93044

March 26, 1992 -
RADIO
COMMUNICATIONS OF
THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
v. NATIONAL WAGES
COUNCIL, ET AL.
G.R. No. 96697

March 26, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JAIME COMPETENTE,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 45425 &

45965 March 27, 1992
- CELSA L. VDA. DE
KILAYKO, ET AL. v.
ERNESTO TENGCO, ET
AL.
A.C. No. 3724 March

31, 1992 - JOAQUIN G.
GARRIDO v. RAMON J.
QUISUMBING, ET AL.
G.R. No. 64220

March 31, 1992 -
SEARTH COMMODITIES
CORPORATION, ET AL.
ET AL.
G.R. No. 68319

March 31, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. JESUS DELA CRUZ,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 76225

March 31, 1992 -
ESPIRIDION
TANPINGCO v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 87710

March 31, 1992 -
ROBERTO S.
BENEDICTO v. BOARD
OF ADMINISTRATORS
OF TELEVISION
STATIONS RPN, BBC
AND IBC
G.R. No. 94071

March 31, 1992 - NEW
LIFE ENTERPRISES, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 96319

March 31, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. RENATO ARCEGA
G.R. No. 97149

March 31, 1992 -
FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR.

ET AL.
G.R. No. 101556

March 31, 1992 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
v. ROBERTO ESTERA
G.R. No. 103956

March 31, 1992 - BLO
UMPAR ADIONG v.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO - March 1992 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO - March 1992 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I. SANTIAGO - March 1992 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/3/2020 G.R. No. 94472 March 3, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO I.

ANDO I. SANTIAGO : March 1992 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisi…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

March 1992 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 >

[G.R. No. 94472. March 3, 1992.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.

1. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972;

consummated by mere delivery of the drug purchased." cralaw virtua1aw library

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; DRUG

3. ID.; ID.; BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS;

4. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972;

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT, NOT

(3) Revised Penal Code; People v. Andiza, 164 SCRA 642

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Accused-appellant Fernando Santiago y Ibay was charged with

Criminal Case No. 89-2515

Criminal Case No. 89-2516

without authority of law, sell and deliver to a third person

Criminal Case No. 89-2517

That on or about the 6th day of May, 1989, in Pasay, Metro

Upon arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty.

The trial court summarized the prosecution’s evidence as

". . . [D]uring the hearing the prosecution presented witnesses

The suspected shabu (Exh. F-1) and marijuana leaves (Exh. E-

The appellant countered the prosecution’s version of the

". . . That between the hours of 1 and 1:30 p.m., on May

"All the premises considered, judgment is rendered finding the

For insufficiency of the evidence the charges of illegal

The appellant now contends: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS

As in most criminal cases of the same nature, the main issue

The appellant submits that the testimonies of the prosecution

The well-entrenched principle is that the commission of the

Patrolman Ancayan categorically stated that after conducting a

members of the operation positioned themselves not far from

These facts, alone, unequivocably Prove the consummation of

The appellant’s theory that "it is unlikely and hard to believe

appellant at the time of the sale transaction and the appellant

The penalty imposed by the trial court is reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction appealed from is

Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Romero, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 86150

A.M. No. P-88-255

G.R. Nos. 46460-61

G.R. No. 82511

G.R. No. 85479

G.R. No. 93003

G.R. No. 94472

G.R. No. 95696

G.R. No. 101753

G.R. No. L-42987

G.R. No. 84363

G.R. Nos. 88158 &