People v Cadidia

G.R. No. 191263| October 16, 2013| J. Perez

Facts:
Prosecution presented several witnesses to the stand to narrate that at around 6:30 in the morning
on July 31 2002, Marilyn Travyllia is performing her duties as a frisker assigned at Manila
Domestic Airport in Pasay, when she frisked the accused because there is an unusual bulge on
her buttocks. Upon inquiry, accused Cadidia contended that it was only her sanitary napkin due
to her menstrual period. However, they still insisted for Cadidia to come to the bathroom to
check said bulge. Upon checking, two packets of shabu were found.
Defense posits the contrary and contended that Travyllia and her co-employee asked if Cadidia is
a Muslim. Upon learning the same, they assumed that she might be carrying jewelries. Despite
her denial, the two friskers still brought her to the restroom to check for shabu. Upon checking,
they found out nothing. Thereafter, the two employees asked Cadidia for money as they
allegedly found shabu from her. She insisted that she is only engaged in selling compact disks in
Quiapo, Manila.
Upon arraignment, accused pleaded “not guilty”. On April 7, 2008, RTC found Cadidia guilty of
the violating Section 5 of RA. 9165. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
Thus, this petition to the Supreme Court.

Issue: W/N RTC erred in convicting the accused.

Held:
SC denied the petition. RTC and CA rulings are affirmed.
In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration
of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary. Further, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect
because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain
if they are telling the truth or not.
Upon review of the records, SC found no conflict in the narration of events of the prosecution
witnesses.
The accused also assails the application of presumption of regularity in the performance of duties
of the witnesses. She claimed that the self-serving testimonies of Trayvilla and Bagsican failed to
overcome her presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution.
SC ruled otherwise.
In People v Unisa, SC ruled 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." In this case, the prosecution witnesses were unable to
show ill-motive for the police to impute the crime against Cadidia.