G.R. No. 182419 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows: In Criminal Case No. 03-3693, the accused WILFREDO ENCILA y SUNGA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of the (sic) life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00; and In Criminal Case No. 03-3694, the accused WILFREDO ENCILA y SUNGA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as maximum pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended). The accused is likewise ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.00. The period during which the accused was under detention shall be considered in his favor pursuant to existing rules. [19] Aggrieved by the decision, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, informing the trial court that he was appealing the same to the Court of Appeals. [20] He thereafter filed his appellant's brief on 18 October 2006. The Office of the Solicitor General filed the People's brief on 19 March 2006. In a Decision dated 11 October 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the challenged RTC decision, disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED and the questioned Decision dated February 21, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 03-3693 & 03-3694 is AFFIRMED. [21] Accused-appellant then filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals on 30 October 2007 to appeal its decision before this Court. [22] In the meantime, accused-appellant remained committed at the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City. [23] Presented before this Court, via Notice of Appeal, is accused-appellant's lone assignment of error: THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. The core issue for resolution is whether or not error attended the trial court's findings, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. In praying for his acquittal, accused-appellant denies the charges and claims that the prosecution's evidence failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to the defense, the trial court relied heavily on the deficiency or weakness of the defense evidence, [24] instead of looking at the weight of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The defense argued that the trial court erred in finding fault in every minor and inconsequential discrepancy in the testimony of the defense witnesses -- such as discrepancies in Jocelyn Encila's age, the residence of accused-appellant, the number of policemen who apprehended the accu