People vs Medel Tangliben

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

People vs Medel Tangliben
G.R. No. L-63630
April 6, 1990

Facts:

On or about the March 2, 1982, in the municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, accused MEDEL TANGLIBEN y BERNARDINO, knowing fully well that Marijuana is a prohibited drug; have in his possession, control and custody one (1) bag of dried marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of one (1) kilo. He transported to Olongapo City, without authority of law to do so.

In his defense, the married accused with one child, declared that he was able to meet Nena Ballon at 6:00 o'clock in the evening and he stayed in Nena's house up to 8:00 o'clock because he had a drinking spree with Nena's son. He failed to catch the 8:00 o'clock trip to Manila from Olongapo City but was able to take the bus only by 9:00 o'clock that evening on a Victory Liner Bus, already tipsy, he did not notice that the bus was only bound for San Fernando, Pampanga.

Upon alighting at the Victory Liner Compound at San Fernando, Pampanga he crossed the street to wait for a bus going to Manila. While awaiting for a bus, a man whom he came to know later as Patrolman Punzalan, approached him and asked him if he has any residence certificate. When he took out his wallet, Pat. Punzalan got the wallet and took all the money inside the wallet amounting to P545.00 and told him he'll be taken to the municipal building for verification as he may be an NPA member. In the police station, Pat. Silverio Quevedo took the marijuana from him, promised that it shall be returned to him but that it was never returned to him; thereafter, he was placed under detention and was told to him that he is being charged with possession of marijuana and if he would like to be bailed out. When his wife visited him, he told her that Patrolman Silverio Quevedo took away all his money and not to complain anymore since would be useless.

Issue:

Whether the accused violated Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended?

Held:

No. The appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Third Judicial Region at San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41, found appellant Tangliben guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the costs.

Limited Defense

The appellant chose to limit his defense to his own testimony. He could have availed himself through compulsory court processes of several witnesses to buttress his defense. Since not one other witness was presented nor was any justification for the non-appearance given, the inadequacy of his lone and uncorroborated testimony remains. It cannot prevail vis-a-vis the positive testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses.

Evidence

The dried marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused weighs one (1) kilo, more or less. The intent to transport the same is clear from the testimony of Pat. Silverio Quevedo who declared, among other things, that when he confronted the accused that night, the latter told him that he (accused) is bringing the marijuana leaves to Olongapo City. Moreover, considering the quantity of the marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused and the place he was arrested which is at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place where the accused is not residing, it can be said that the intent to transport the marijuana leaves has been clearly established.
Conviction of a crime with an extremely severe penalty must be based on evidence which is clearer and more convincing than the inferences in this case. What was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport the marijuana leaves but his actual session.