Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EVELYN PATAYEK y CALAG, et al.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EVELYN PATAYEK y CALAG, et al.

          Evelyn Patayek (Patayek) and Arlene Goya (Goya) were charged with the crime of violation of Section IV, Article II of R.A. 6425 as amended by R.A. 7659 for selling and delivering approximately three (3) kilos of suspected marijuana dried leaves with flowering tops wrapped with newspaper pages and light brown masking tape placed in a black travelling bag with yellow strap, a prohibited drug, well knowing that the sale and delivery of such drug is prohibited without authority of law to do so.

           Based on the testimonies of SPO1 Modesto Carrera (Carrera) who was designated as the poseur-buyer during an entrapment operation, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both of the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale and delivery of three (3) kilos of marijuana as charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of SPO1 Modesto Carrera

HELD:

Two basic elements for the charge of sale of prohibited drugs to prosper are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The prosecution has proven the elements of the crime charged. The object of the sale was found by the PNP chemist positive for marijuana. The buy-bust money was recovered from them after the transaction. All the elements of the crime were in fact established through Carrera‘s testimony.

Patayek and Goya assail the credibility of Carrera‘s testimony as not straightforward, claiming that he even appeared reluctant to testify in court and had, along with other NARCOM operatives, the propensity to fabricate cases. While the trial court observed that Carrera “has time and again given himself away as clumsy in testifying,” it nevertheless held that “such detracts nothing from the core of the testimony he has given in the case at bench which exonerably points to the guilt of the accused.”

Patayek and Goya‘s defense that they were merely framed-up does not thus persuade. It bears emphasis that frame-up as a defense has been invariably viewed with disfavor, for it can easily be concocted and is a common standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. That is why clear and convincing evidence is required to prove the defense which, in their case, they failed to discharge.

Absent any proof of intent on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such a serious crime against Patayek and Goya, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty, as well as the doctrine that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, must prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of appellants that they had been framed-up.

Share this:

Leave a Reply