G.R. No. 200598 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. DENNIS E. TANCINCO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, this court finds the accused GUILTY as charged and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty-three (23) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00. The full period of preventive detention shall be credited in the service of this sentence. Finally, the 3 packs of shabu , Exhibit B are confiscated in favor of the state for proper disposition. [4] On appeal, the appellate court rejected Tancincos claim of frame-up as against the straightforward, direct and positive testimony of the police officers who arrested Tancinco in the regular performance of their official duties. In this appeal before us, Tancinco maintains his innocence; he was merely framed-up. He then points to inconsistencies in the police officers accounting of his arrest that supposedly make up reasonable doubt for his acquittal. Obviously, Tancinco relies on the presumption of innocence and contends that the prosecution did not establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As the lower courts were, we are not convinced. We find no cause to disturb their factual findings that Tancinco was lawfully arrested without a warrant after information of his being armed and engaging in a pot session with other persons was given to the police officers who then investigated and pursued the lead of the BIN informant. Incident to the lawful warrantless arrest of Tancinco is a search on his person made by the police officers which then yielded his illegal possession of shabu . On more than one occasion, we have ruled that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight. This is because the trial judge has the distinct advantage of closely observing the demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the manner in which they testify, and is in a better position to determine whether or not they are telling the truth. [5] On that score alone, Tancincos appeal ought to have been dismissed outright. We affirm the lower courts uniform rulings that Tancinco was searched as an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful . A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person. (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a war