PD 27 encompasses only rice and corn land, i.e., agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy. In the instant case, since the landholdings cultivated by respondents are primarily devoted to vegetable production, it is definitely outside the coverage, and necessarily cannot properly be placed under the umbrella, of PD 27. Thus, as the RARAD found, the
landholdings cultivated by respondents which are portions of the subject lot were improperly placed under PD 27 through OLT.
FACTS:
In 1976, Conrada allowed respondent Sps. Amaya to construct a house on a 46-square meter portion of Lot No. 13333 on the condition that no additional improvements of such nature requiring additional lot space shall be introduced and that they shall leave the area upon a 90-day notice. A decade later, Conrada asked the Amayas to vacate. Instead of heeding the vacation demand, the Amayas built permanent improvements on their house, the new structures eating an additional 48 square meters of land space. As such, Conrada filed a Complaint against the Sps. Amaya before the DARAB-Region 7 for Ejectment, Payment of Rentals with Damages. In their answer, the Sps.Amaya contended that they had possessory rights over the area on which their house stands and the portion which they are cultivating, thereby placing the latter under OLT pursuant to PD 27.
Conrada discovered after making inquiries that herein emancipation patents (EPs) in favor of respondents have been generated over portions of Lot No. 13333. Aggrieved, Conrada filed a petition also before the DARAB-Region 7 praying for the cancellation of the EPs since the subject lot has been primarily devoted to vegetables production and cultivation, not to corn or rice, thus, outside the ambit of the OLT under PD 27.
The RARAD rendered a decision declaring the coverage of Lot No. 13333 under OLT improper, and cancelled the EPs issued in the name of respondents. Respondents thus appealed the decision to the DARAB proper. The DARAB issued a decision upholding the validity of the EPs issued to Manuel, thus effectively recognizing their tenurial rights over portions of Lot No. 13333. The DARAB further upheld the validity and efficacy of the EPs issued in the name of respondents and dismissed the complaints filed by Conrada for lack of merit.
Upon appeal to the CA, the DARAB decision was affirmed by the CA. Hence, this appeal under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject property is covered by PD 27. RULING:
The issue raised is essentially factual in nature. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions and errors of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Court. Not being a trier of facts, it is not the function of the Court to re-examine, winnow and weigh anew the respective sets of evidence of the parties. Corollary to this precept, but subject to well-defined exceptions,is the rule that findings of fact of trial courts or the CA, when supported by substantial evidence on record, are conclusive and binding on the Court. But for compelling reasons, such as when the factual findings of the trying court or body are in conflict with those of the appellate court, or there was a misapprehension of facts or when the inference drawn from the facts was manifestly mistaken, this Court shall analyze or weigh the evidence again and if necessary reverse the factual findings of the courts a quo. This is precisely the situation obtaining in this case. The findings, on the one hand, of RARAD Arrieta and, those of the DARAB and the CA, on the other, relative to the appreciation of evidence adduced in hearings before RARAD Arrieta, are incompatible with each other.
As determined by the RARAD on the basis of documentary and testimonial evidence, and the more conclusive judicial admissions made by respondents, vegetables are the primary crop planted in the areas respectively cultivated by respondents. But the DARAB would have none of the RARAD’s premised findings, relying instead on the presumptive correctness of the agrarian reform officers’ determination, supposedly reached after a tedious proceeding, as to the nature of the land subject of this case and the identity of the farmer-beneficiaries and their entitlement to lot award. To the DARAB, the fact
that EPs have been issued to respondents is proof enough that the disputed portions are planted to corn as primary crop under the tillage of respondents. The DARAB held, thus:
It must be stressed that the issuance of the EPs in the instant case creates a presumption which yields only to a clear and cogent evidence that the awardee is the qualified and lawful owner because it involves a tedious process. Moreover, the identification and classification of lands and qualification of farmer-beneficiaries are factual determination performed by government officials and personnel with expertise in the line of work they are doing. Their findings, conclusions/recommendations and final actions on the matter, after thorough investigation and evaluation, have the presumption of regularity and correctness (La Campana Food Products, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 770). As such, the burden of proving the ineligibility or disqualification of the awardee rests upon the person who avers it through clear and satisfactory proof or substantial evidence as required by law. Complainant, other than her bare allegations, failed to prove that herein respondents-appellants do not deserve the said government grant. Under the circumstances, it is just proper to assume that the issuance of questioned documents was regular and correct. Thus, this Board finds no cogent reason to cause the cancellation of the subject EPs which had long been issued in favor of respondents- appellants.
Clearly, the DARAB misappreciated the evidence adduced before the office of the RARAD and the judicial admissions made by respondents to prove certain key issues. DARAB relied upon the presumption based on what it points to as the tedious process in the issuance of the EPs. It considered as but "bare allegations" what were duly established by documentary and testimonial evidence and by respondents’ admission no less that the primary crop planted in the subject landholdings is not corn but vegetables, and that corn is only planted sporadically and only for the personal consumption of one of the respondents. To be sure, the presumption of regularity or correctness of official action cannot be used as springboard to justify the PD 27 coverage of the disputed lots because a presumption is precisely just that––a mere presumption. Once challenged by credibly convincing evidence, as here, it can no longer be treated as binding truth.
In Mercado v. Mercado and Gabriel v. Jamias, the Court has ruled that the mere issuance of an EP does not put the ownership of ARBs beyond attack and scrutiny. EPs issued to such beneficiaries may be corrected and canceled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR AO No. 02, Series of 1994, lists and defines the grounds for cancellation of registered EPs or Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA).
PD 27 pertinently provides, "This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not."
Daez v. Court of Appeals sets forth the requisite essential to place a piece of land under PD 27, thusly:
P.D. No. 27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program, covers tenanted rice or corn lands. The requisite for coverage under the OLT program are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a system of share-crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for exemption. If either of these requisite is absent, the land is not covered under OLT. x x x
It is, thus, clear that PD 27 encompasses only rice and corn land, i.e., agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy. In the instant case, since the landholdings cultivated by respondents are primarily devoted to vegetable production, it is definitely outside the coverage, and necessarily cannot properly be placed under the umbrella, of PD 27. Thus, as the RARAD found, the landholdings cultivated by respondents which are portions of the subject lot were improperly placed under PD 27 through OLT.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FERDINAND CASTRO G.R. No. 195777, June 19, 2013
J. Perez
The finding of the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting officers should prevail over the testimonies of the accused-appellant and his friend-witnesses especially so when their respective testimonies were inconsistent on material points. Even assuming that these were not substantial enough to doubt the credibility of the testimonies of the defense witnesses, we cannot simply disregard the contradicting testimonies of the accused-appellant on one hand and his witnesses on the other as to the place where the arrest was made.
FACTS:
The accused was charged under an information with violating Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 to which he pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment. The prosecution presented evidence which showed that the Drug Enforcement Unit of Pasig City Police Station received a call from an confidential informant who reported that a certain “Fredie” (herein accused) was selling illegal drugs at Kalamansi Street, Pasig City. A buy-bust operation was then conducted to apprehend appellant. The team then proceeded to the area of operation, and the poseur-buyer was later approached by the accused and was handed a sachet containing white crystalline substance which he took from his pocket. When the pre-arranged signal was performed, the other members of the team approached the area and arrested the accused. When they frisked the accused, the two piecesof transparent plastic sachets and the buy-bust money were found in his possession and were confiscated. The proper markings on the sachet were accordingly done at the area of operation, and the accused was brought to the station for further investigation.
In his defense, the accused alleged that on that night, as he was about to enter the gate of his house, four persons suddenly confrontedhim and grabbed him. When he asked why he was being arrested, he did not get a reply. Thereafter, his name, age and address were taken and he was then charged with possession and sale of illegal drugs.
The trial court convicted the accused of the both crimes as charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court, and denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the accused.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court which found him guilty of the crime of illegal sale and possession of drugs.
RULING:
The defense posits that the equipoise rule should have been applied in his favor inasmuch as the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defense are all self-serving.
We cannot agree. The equipoise rule does not apply because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are, in fact, credible based on settled legal principles and doctrines applicable to the particular factual circumstances of the case.
Thus, we have said, time and again, that "findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings." Also, "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect."
We find nothing in the records that would justify a deviation from the findings of the trial court and the appellate court. Supported by evidence, the arresting officers rendered a straightforward narration of the details of the operation relative to the following: (1) the receipt of an information as to the illegal drugs
activity in the area where accused-appellant was apprehended; (2) the organization of the buy-bust team; (3) the preparations made for the purpose; (4) the entrapment itself leading to the arrest of accused- appellant; (5) the marking of the seized items; and (6) the eventual delivery of the specimens to the crime laboratory.
Neither did the defense prove that there was ill-motive or bad faith on the part of the team to falsely impute upon him the commission of these grave offenses. The doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, therefore, applies. As explained in People v. Tion:
x x x Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. The records do not show any allegation of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of the police officers must be upheld.
Necessarily, the finding of the credibility of the testimonies of the arresting officers should prevail over the testimonies of the accused-appellant and his friend-witnesses especially so when their respective testimonies were inconsistent on material points. Even assuming that these were not substantial enough to doubt the credibility of the testimonies of the defense witnesses, we cannot simply disregard the contradicting testimonies of the accused-appellant on one hand and his witnesses on the other as to the place where the arrest was made.
From the context of the testimony of accused-appellant on cross-examination, he was arrested outside his house in front of his drinking buddies Millare and dela Cruz. Accused-appellant’s two (2) witnesses, on the other hand, implied clearly that the arrest was made inside the house considering that the arresting officers followed accused-appellant inside the house and there they saw, upon peeping through the window, that their friend was already handcuffed.
In People v. Concepcion, the Court had the occasion to rule on the credibility of the witnesses with two conflicting statements on the place of arrest. It held:
The testimony of defense witness Julieta dela Rosa does not convince us. As the wife of appellant Alfredo and sister-in-law of appellant Henry, we find her not to be credible. Her testimony is suspect and unsubstantiated. In her direct testimony, she said her husband, appellant Alfredo, was outside their house with his friends. However, such statement was belied by Alfredo himself who said he was inside his house when he was allegedly arrested by members of the PDEA. Such inconsistency as to where appellant Alfredo was when the alleged unlawful arrest was made, further diminishes the credibility of the defense witnesses.
Further, in Aurelio v. People, the Court discussed the weight given to the testimonies of a long- time neighbor and a sister, who rendered contradicting statements, viz:
The testimonies of the petitioner’s witnesses cannot be given more weight than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Teresita is the sister of the petitioner while Julieta has been his neighbor for the past 10 years. Thus, their testimonies are necessarily suspect, considering they are petitioner’s sibling and friend respectively. The testimonies of Julieta and Teresita even contradict each other as Teresita declared that five malefactors entered their home while Julieta stated that only two men went with petitioner inside his house. This inconsistency further diminishes the credibility of petitioner’s witnesses.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENEDICT HOMAKY LUCIO G.R. No. 191391, June 19, 2013
The question as to what part of the body of the accused did the police officers recover the money does not dissolve the elements of illegal sale and possession as minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. Minor inconsistencies in the narration of the arresting officers do not detract from their essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically believable.
FACTS:
The accused and co-accused Wilma Tomas were charged under an information with the violation of Sec. 5 and Sec. 11 of RA 9165, to which they pleaded not guilty upon their arraignment. The evidence for the prosecution showed that a buy-bust operation was conducted for the apprehension of a couple identified as Wilma and Ben, who were allegedly involved in the illegal distribution or sale of dangerous drugs, particularly marijuana in Baguio City. At the area of operation, the poseur-buyer met Ben and offered to buy marijuana to be transported back to Manila. Upon the performance of the pre-arranged signal, the rest of the buy-bust team approached the area and arrested the couple. The officers then informed them of their constitutional rights in Tagalog and Ilocano, and were then brought, along with the confiscated 36 marijuana bricks, to the policce station for proper documentation and identification. The markings required were accordingly done by one of the members of the buy-bust team and were then sent to the crime lab for examination. The 35 bricks tested positive for marijuana. The defense, on the other hand, interposed frame-up.
The RTC convicted the accused of the crimes charged but acquitted co-accused Tomas. It ruled that the elements of both illegal sale and possession of drugs were sufficiently established by the prosecution. It also recognized the credibility of the testimonies of the police officers pertaining to the buy-bust operation and the positive identification of the accused as the seller of the bricks of marijuana.
The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court in toto, holding that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drug were proven by the prosecution. It also upheld the credibility of the witnesses and placed highest respect on the findings of facts of the trial court. It likewise disregarded the absence of surveillance or test buy prior to the buy-bust operation as well as the strict compliance of the requirements to establish chain of custody under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court which gave credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution despite their inconsistencies.
RULING:
After a careful review of the evidence, we affirm the ruling of conviction of both the trial court and