People V. Lacbanes Mar. 20, 1997. G.R. No.

88684
J. Romero
Facs! Cesar Lacbanes was convicted by the Palo, Leyte RTC for violating Art. II
Sec. 4 of RA 64! "#angero$s #r$gs Act%. In this a&&eal he clai's entra&'ent was
never clearly established by the &rosec$tion(s evidence. The &rosec$tion relied on
the testi'ony of P)C Rosales, 'e'ber of the Tacloban Police Station *arcotics
Section.
"#ens accor$%n& o Rosales+ his co''and received info that Lacbanes had been
selling 'ari,$ana cigarettes in Tacloban City. S$rveillance was done, then a b$y-b$st
o&eration was set $&. 4+.! &.'.,/ct. 0, .126 at the corner of 3$rgos and Tarcela
Streets, Tacloban City, their confidential agent told P)C Rosales and tea' 'e'bers
Patrol'en Ar&on and 3$ena, Sgt. 4adriaga and Lt. Saran5a, that he contacted
Lacbanes. The tea' &ositioned the'selves to see the sale clearly. The agent tal6ed
to Lacbanes, handed hi' 'ar6ed P!.77 bills and received s$s&ected 'ari,$ana
cigarettes. The tea' a&&roached, said they were 'e'bers of the *arcotics Section
and arrested Lacbanes. They fo$nd the bills and 0 stic6s of s$s&ected 'ari,$ana
cigarettes with hi'. 8e was bro$ght to the station. Lacbanes was infor'ed of his
rights &rior to investigation, and he $nderstood the'. 8e ad'itted that the 'ari,$ana
with hi' was for sale and that his friend was the so$rce. 3$t they forgot to &$t the
ad'ission of g$ilt down in writing.
"#ens accor$%n& o Lacbanes! he was slee&ing at ho'e fro' -4 &.'., and
wo6en $& by his dad, who told hi' that Lt. Saran5a, "with Ar&on and 3$ena% wanted
to ta6e hi' to the station. 8e was as6ed if he 6new the whereabo$ts of Cresencio de
la Cr$59$&on denial, he was forced to sign a &a&er which t$rned o$t to be a recei&t
for sei5ed &ro&erty "the bills and 'ari,$ana%. 8e denied 6nowing Rosales and said
he was not there. Since the agent was not &resented in co$rt, he also clai's that
Rosales: testi'ony was e;$ivalent to hearsay, and it a'o$nted to a violation of his
constit$tional right to 6now the witnesses against hi' and 'eet the' in co$rt. 8e
also alleged that the 'ar6ed bills weren:t &resented as &roof before the trial co$rt.
'ss(e! 's )e con#%c%on s%ll #al%$*
+el$! ,es. R-. /FF'RM"0. The 'ar6ed bills were &resented as &roof d$ring
Rosales: direct e<a'ination, and the agent:s testi'ony wo$ld only be $sed to
corroborate Rosales: testi'ony, since Rosales saw the entire e<change and the bills
and cigarettes are there as &roof. -)e es%mon1 o2 a lone prosec(%on 3%ness,
as lon& as % %s pos%%#e an$ clear an$ no ar%s%n& 2rom an %mproper mo%#e o
%mp(e a ser%o(s o22ense o )e acc(se$, $eser#es 2(ll cre$%. Lacbanes: denial
is not eno$gh9if he wanted to $se his alibi of being at ho'e, he sho$ld:ve
&resented his father to testify. The defense of =fra'e $&> is not valid here either
beca$se there:s no clear or convincing evidence of it. 8owever, the Co$rt sa%$ )a
)e rece%p p(rpore$l1 s%&ne$ b1 Lacbanes 3as %na$m%ss%ble as e#%$ence,
beca(se )e prosec(%on 2a%le$ o pro#e )a )e 3as ass%se$ b1 co(nsel a )e
%me4ma5%n& % a #%ola%on o2 )%s r%&) o rema%n s%len.
Lesly Rodiel 3ries