Doubtful credibility

To be believed, testimonial evidence should come only from the mouth of a credible witness. If the credibility of a lone witness is under a heavy cloud of doubt, the accused must be acquitted. This rule is illustrated in this case of Simon.

Simon together with Doming were charged with drug pushing for selling and delivering 108.40 and 105.84 grams of shabu in consideration of P2,000 on or about May 11, 1998 in Navotas Metro Manila. The charge was an offshoot of an alleged buy-bust operation following a tip from an informant conducted by the Navotas Police team with PO3 Alan acting as poseur-buyer, the confidential informant, and several police operatives as back-up.

According to PO3 Alan who was the lone prosecution witness, they proceeded to a house in the target place at about 11:15 in the evening where Doming answered the knocking at the door. Thereupon the confidential informant introduced him to Doming and then and there he expressed his desire to buy shabu. Doming replied that he did not have enough supply of shabu but marijuana was available. When he insisted on buying shabu, Doming allegedly told him that someone would be delivering shabu.

PO3 Alan continued that after waiting for a few minutes, a man, who turned out to be Simon, arrived. Following the usual introduction Alan said that Simon led him to his motorcycle then took out a bag containing two plastic sachets of shabu while at the same time asking for payment. Alan said he examined the contents then gave Simon four P500 marked bills placed in between boodles or fake money. Thereafter he identified himself as a police officer and arrested Simon. On signal, the back-up officers joined the scene and frisked Simon and Doming. Simon was found in possession of a 38 paltik revolver, buy bust money and more shabu while Doming had marijuana and shabu. Alan further said that the seized items were then sent to a forensic chemist for laboratory examination and were found positive for shabu and marijuana per Physical Science No. D-411-98.

During the trial, Alan also identified Simon and Doming, the marked money used and the shabu confiscated from them. With regards to the boodles or fake money where he placed the marked money in between, Alan explained that they are no longer available as they were confiscated by another policeman when he himself was arrested for indulging in a pot session in violation of Section 27 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

For their defense both Simon and Doming denied that there was a buy bust operation and that the charges were just fabricated against them. They said that policemen led by PO3 Alan just barged into the house of Doming and pointed the guns at the people inside including Simon who was visiting Doming at the time. Then they were told to lie face down and stripped of their belongings. The policemen also took the motorcycles of Simon and Doming and brought them to the headquarters and then demanded payment for their release. But only the members of Doming’s household were released as both Doming and Simon were further detained. When they could not pay the amount demanded, charges were filed against them.

Simon further said that PO3 Alan had been a drug user and in fact had already been dismissed from the service. Indeed, Simon said that when they were in the headquarters he saw PO3 Alan and two others sniffing shabu.

After trial however, the RTC gave full credence to the testimony of PO3 Alan and convicted Simon and Doming of the crime charged. Was the RTC correct?

No. PO3 Alan’s involvement as a police officer in illegal drug activities makes him a polluted source and renders his testimony against Simon and Doming suspect at best. It is like a pot calling the kettle black. Given his service record, PO3 Alan can hardly qualify as a witness worthy of full faith and credit under the limited confines of this case. It must not be overlooked that PO3 Alan is a rogue cop, having been arrested for indulging in a pot session per his own admission, then eventually charged and dismissed from the police service. It would thus appear that PO3 Alan had been a user. His arrest for joining a pot session only confirms this undesirable habit. His involvement in drugs and his alleged attempt to extort money from Simon for the latter’s freedom has put his credibility under a heavy cloud.

While the rule is that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police buy-bust operators and that the trial court’s finding on the credibility of a police-witness deserves respect, acquittal or the least liability is in order when there are circumstances that would support a reasonable doubt in favor of the accused like in this case where PO3 Alan’s credibility is under a heavy cloud because of his involvement in illegal drugs. The constitutional presumption of innocence requires courts to take a more casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt proving the innocence of an accused (People vs. Sitco and Bagtas, G.R. 178202, May 14, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]