When the testimonies of witnesses in open court are conflicting in substantial

points, the calibration of the records on appeal becomes difficult. It is the word of
one party against the word of the other. The reviewing tribunal relies on the cold
and mute pages of the records, unlike the trial court which had the unique
opportunity of observing first-hand that elusive and incommunicable evidence of
the witness' deportment on the stand while testifying. The trial court's
assessments of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great weight and respect
on appeal and is binding on the Supreme Court, particularly when it has not been
adequately demonstrated that significant facts and circumstances were shown to
have been overlooked or disregarded by the court below which, if considered,
might affect the outcome hereof. The rationale for this has been adequately
explained in that, the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses
through the different indicators of truthfulness or falsehood, such as the angry
flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the
tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply; or
the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the
flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor
or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, and carriage
and mien. Equally, when a person fabricates a story, he usually adopts a simple
account because a complex one might lead to entanglement from which he may
find it hard to extricate himself. Along the same line, the experience of the courts
and the general observations of humanity teach us that the natural limitations of
our inventive faculties are such that if a witness delivers in court a false narrative
containing numerous details, he is almost certain to fall into fatal inconsistencies,
to make statements which can be readily refuted, or to expose in his demeanor
the falsity of his message. Aside from this, it is not also unusual that the witness
may have been coached before he is called to the stand to testify. Thus,
somewhere along the painstaking review of the evidence on record, one version
rings the semblance of truth, not necessarily because it is the absolute truth, but
simply because it is the best approximation of the truth based on the declarations
of witnesses as corroborated by material evidence. Perforce, the other version
must be rejected. Truth and falsehood, it has been well said, are not always
opposed to each other like black and white, but oftentimes, and by design, are
made to resemble each other so as to be hardly distinguishable. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ELADIO C. TANGAN, G.R. No. 103613,
2001 Feb 23, 1st Division)
Apparent Illegality of the Evidence

The marijuana bricks were wrapped in newsprint. There was no apparent illegality
to justify their seizure. This case is similar to People. v. Musa[39] in which we
declared inadmissible the marijuana recovered by NARCOM agents because the
said drugs were contained in a plastic bag which gave no indication of its
contents. We explained:

Moreover, when the NARCOM agents saw the plastic bag hanging in one corner
of the kitchen, they had no clue as to its contents. They had to ask the appellant
what the bag contained. When the appellant refused to respond, they opened it
and found the marijuana. Unlike Ker v. California, where the marijuana was visible
to the police officer's eyes, the NARCOM agents in this case could not have
discovered the inculpatory nature of the contents of the bag had they not forcibly
opened it. Even assuming then, that the NARCOM agents inadvertently came
across the plastic bag because it was within their "plain view," what may be said
to be the object in their "plain view" was just the plastic bag and not the
marijuana. The incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic bag was not
immediately apparent from the "plain view" of said object. It cannot be claimed
that the plastic bag clearly betrayed its contents, whether by its distinctive
configuration, is transparency, or otherwise, that its contents are obvious to an
observer. No presumption of regularity may be invoked by an officer in aid of the
process when he undertakes to justify an encroachment of rights secured by the
Constitution.[41] In this case, the marijuana allegedly found in the possession of
accused-appellant was in the form of two bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not being
in a transparent container, the contents wrapped in newsprint could not have
been readily discernible as marijuana. Nor was there mention of the time or
manner these items were discovered. Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution
to prove that the seizure of the marijuana without a warrant was conducted in
accordance with the "plain view doctrine," we hold that the marijuana is
inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant. However, the confiscation of
the drug must be upheld. (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERTO
SALANGUIT y KO, G.R. Nos. 133254-55, 2001 Apr 19, 2nd Division)

The arrest being illegal, the ensuing search as a result thereof is likewise illegal.
Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is
deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be
excluded. The subject items seized during the illegal arrest are thus inadmissible.
The drug, being the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, its inadmissibility thus precludes conviction, and calls for the
acquittal of the accused.
As has been noted previously by this Court, some lawmen, prosecutors and judges
have glossed over illegal searches and seizures in cases where law enforcers are
able to present the alleged evidence of the crime, regardless of the methods by
which they were obtained. This attitude tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed
rights in the name of law enforcement. It is ironic that such enforcement of the
law fosters the breakdown of our system of justice and the eventual denigration
of society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law
enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we
nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the
parameters set by the Constitution and the law. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
versus ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ
Y CAROLINO, and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, G.R. No. 191366, 2010 Dec 13,
2nd Division)

x x x In the final analysis, we in the administration of justice would have no right

to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full
protection of their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors and judges may still tend to
gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the
alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by which they were
obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the name of law
enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid breakdown of our system
of justice, and the eventual denigration of society. While this Court appreciates
and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the
peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with
deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law.
Truly, the end never justifies the means. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES versus
JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, G.R. No. 186529, 2010 Aug 3, 2nd Division)

MY OBITER DICTUM ON THE NAIA BULLET PLANTING:

Settled is the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid
warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures [1987 Constitution, Article III, Section
2]. It further decrees that any evidence obtained in violation of said right shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [1987 Constitution, Article III,
Section 3(2)]. Nevertheless, the constitutional proscription against warrantless
searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions, as follows:
(1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of
evidence in plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless
search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances [People v. Gonzales, 417 Phil. 342, 357 (2001).
On the other hand, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful
arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person
under the following circumstances:

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.

The manner by which OFWs were apprehended by the NAIA Police does not fall
under any of the above-enumerated categories. Perforce, their arrest is illegal.
First, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of their
arrest, the OFWs had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit
a crime. Second, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that a crime
was committed nor did they have any reasonable ground to believe that the
OFWs committed it. Third, the OFWs were not prisoners who have escaped from
a penal establishment.

Neither can it be said that the objects (bullets) were seized in plain view. First,
there was no valid intrusion. The OFWs were just illegally arrested. Second, the
evidence, i.e., the bullets were not inadvertently discovered but obviously planted
by the NAIA police/personnel. The NAIA police officers intentionally opened first
the packed bags/baggages of the OFWs before they saw the bullets and were not
in the position to ascertain the activities of OFWs inside the NAIA airport. In like
manner, the search cannot be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, a
consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot
even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for the evidence at hand is
obviously, plain and simple, planted. On the contrary, it indicates that the
apprehending officers should have consulted first the OFWs – subject to the
latter’s right to counsel of their own choice at the very moment – before their
packed bags/baggages were to be thoroughly opened and searched, assuming
that the search falls under exigent and emergency circumstances, being inside the
airport. The search should have been done in the presence of the OFWS, their
respective counsel and witnesses. Very unfortunately, however, the NAIA bullet
planting evidence, to say the least, was a flagrant violation of the OFWs
constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures in their persons
and effects. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was
likewise illegal and tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and
should be excluded. Every evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot
be used against the OFWs concerned. Thus, my advice for all OFWs who were
victims of unlawful and illegal search at the NAIA, file immediately criminal cases
against the erring NAIA officials/PNP members/personnel with the Ombudsman.

([2010V1336] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ARNOLD

MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO,
and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, Accused-Appellants, G.R. No. 191366, 2010
Dec 13, 2nd Division)

([2010V1336] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ARNOLD

MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO,
and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, Accused-Appellants, G.R. No. 191366, 2010
Dec 13, 2nd Division)

([2010V1336] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ARNOLD

MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO,
and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, Accused-Appellants, G.R. No. 191366, 2010
Dec 13, 2nd Division)

([2011V79] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus NELIDA

DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC Y JAPITANA & NORA JINGABO Y
CRUZ, Accused-Appellants., G.R. No. 177570, 2011 Jan 19, 1st Division)