PP Vs de Lima

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 206
MUNTINLUPA CITY
Official hotline (632) 8352 5048 | 0956 456 6362
Email addresses: rtc1mun206@judiciary.gov.ph | muntinlupa.rtcbranch206@gmail.com
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Criminal Case No. 17-167

For: Violation of the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5,
in relation to Section 3 (jj),
Section 26(b) and Section 28,
Republic Act No. 9165
(Illegal Drug Trading)
LEILA M. DE LIMA, FRANKLIN

JESUS B. BUCAYU, WILFREDO
G. ELLI alias
JAYBEE NIÑO MANICAD
SEBASTIAN, RONNIE PALISCO
DAYAN, JOENEL TAN
SANCHEZ, and JOSE ADRIAN
SAMSON DERA alias
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
ORDER
For resolution are the respective Motions for Reconsideration of

all the accused,1 except Wilfredo G. Elli (Col. Elli) and Jaybee Niño
Manicad Sebastian (Sebastian), Order dated June 07,
2023, denying their petition and/or application for bail.
In denying their respective etition/application for bail, the Court

in its Order dated June 07, 2023, ruled that there was an agreement to
commit illegal drug trading among all accused by using the National
Bilibid Prison (NBP) inmates to sell and trade illegal drugs. Likewise,
the Court found that there was an agreement and decision among the
1
When the Court
Bucayu, Dayan, Sanchez and Dera.
RTC Muntinlupa City, Branch 206
Criminal Case No. 17-167
Order dated 10 November 2023
Page 2 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
accused to commit illegal drug trading by receiving proceeds from

illegal drug transactions. Finally, the Court ruled that there was an
agreement among all accused to commit illegal drug trading by
raiding the Maximum Security Compound of the NBP to the exclusion
of accused Sebastian. The Court
testimonies of nine (9) prosecution witnesses namely: 1) Retired Gen.
; 2) Retired PS/Supt. Jerry Valeroso
Capones (
Court found the testimonies of these nine (9)
witnesses sufficient to establish that the evidence of guilt of all the
accused is strong and thus, they are not entitled to post bail for their
temporary liberty.
All the accused filed their respective Motion for Reconsideration.
Accused De Lima contends the Order dated June 07, 2023 should
be reconsidered on the following ground: 1) that the Court gravely
erred in using probable cause as the standard of proof in denying bail,
instead of proof that the evidence of guilt is strong; 2) that the Court
erred in finding that De Lima conspired to trade illegal drugs using
NBP inmates; 3) that the Court erred in concluding that De Lima
agreed to commit illegal drug trading by conducting OPLAN Galugad;
4) that the Court committed jurisdictional error amounting to grave
abuse of discretion in its questioned Order; and, 5) that the Court erred
in not granting bail on humanitarian grounds.
Accused Bucayu contends that the Court did not discuss the
personal participation, culpability, liability, or involvement of Bucayu
in the commission of illegal drug trading or in the alleged conspiracy,
agreement, or decision to commit the said offense. Further, Bucayu
argued that the Court totally relied on the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses and disregarded their admissions during their cross-
examinations.
Accused Sanchez argued that there is no proof that he agreed

and decided to commit illegal drug trading. According to Sanchez,
only three (3) witnesses implicated him, Colanggo, Diaz, and
Martinez. It was Colanggo payola of P3,000,000.00
and that the overture did not come from Sanchez. Sanchez further
asseverates that it was Colanggo who admitted that he was the one
who offered to sell or trade illegal drugs, and not him. Thus, Sanchez
Page 3 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
did not give any instruction to sell and trade drugs. Consequently,
there is no agreement or decision between Sanchez and other accused
to commit illegal drug trading.
Accused Dera argues that it was only Capones who testified as

to his participation in the illegal drug trading. However, the testimony
of Capones against him in uncorroborated. Capones only testified that
he was introduced by Sebastian to Dera on February 14, 2013, and that
Sebastian told him that he was the nephew of De Lima. According to
Dera, the statement of Capones is in the highest degree of hearsay and
yet the Court easily believed as gospel truth the alleged conversation
between Capones and Sebastian.
Accused Dayan, for his part, filed a Manifestation June 13, 2023,
adopting the Motion for Reconsideration filed by De Lima, Bucayu,
Sanchez and Dera.
of the herein accused

respective Motion for Reconsideration, it is but necessary to reiterate
the violation of the law for which all the accused are indicted. They are
alleged to have violated Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5, Section
3(jj) and Section 28 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Court will dichotomize the pertinent provisions of the R.A.

9165 for which all the accused were charged violating, thus:
Section 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, the

following terms shall mean:
xxxxx
(r) Illegal Trafficking. The illegal cultivation,

culture, delivery, administration, dispensation,
manufacture, sale, trading, transportation,
distribution, importation, exportation and possession
of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential chemical.
xxxxx
Page 4 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
(jj) Trading. Transactions involving the illegal

trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals using electronic
devices such as, but not limited to, text messages,
email, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, internet,
instant messengers and chat rooms or acting as a
broker in any of such transactions whether for money
or any other consideration in violation of this Act.
xxxxx
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration,

Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such
transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from

twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any controlled
precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a
broker in such transactions.
xxxxx
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt

or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts
shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for
the commission of the same as provided under this
Act:
xxxxx
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation,

delivery, distribution and transportation of any
Page 5 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and

essential chemical;
xxxxx
Section 28. Criminal Liability of Government

Officials and Employees. The maximum penalties of the
unlawful acts provided for in this Act shall be
imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual
disqualification from any public office, if those found
guilty of such unlawful acts are government officials
and employees.
It is also pertinent to cite herein the inculpatory allegation in the

Amended Information:
That within the period from March 2013 to May

2015, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Leila
M. De Lima, be in then the Secretary of the Department
of Justice, Franklin Jesus B. Bucayu, being then the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Joenel Tan
Sanchez, being then a member of the Area Security of
the Presidential Security Group detailed to De Lima,
Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee of the
Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, Wilfredo G.
E Ely , being an officer of the
Philippine National Police, Jaybee Nino Manicad
Sebastian, being an inmate of the National Bilibid
Prison and Jose Adrian Tiamson Dera a.k.a.
, conspiring and confederating
together and helping one another, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully decide and agree to commit
illegal drug trading, in the following manner: by using
the inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, to sell and trade
dangerous drugs by means of mobile phones and other
electronic devices without being authorized by law,
and receiving the proceeds thereof totalling to
approximately Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000.00);
and thereafter conducting a raid inside the maximum
security compound of the New Bilibid Prison to the
exclusion of Sebastian thereby allowing him to
centralize, control and monopolize the drug trade
inside the New Bilibid Prison.
Capsulizing the allegation in the Amended Information in

simple language, it can be deduced that all the accused are charged of
conspiring to commit and in fact committed illegal drug trading by
using the inmates of the NBP to sell and trade dangerous drugs by
Page 6 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
means of mobile phones and other electronic devices without being

authorized by law, and receiving the proceeds thereof totaling to
approximately Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000.00); and thereafter
conducting a raid inside the Maximum Security Compound of the NBP
to the exclusion of Sebastian thereby allowing him to centralize,
control and monopolize the drug trade inside the NBP.
With this inculpatory allegation, it is the burden of the

prosecution to prove, for the purpose bail application of herein
accused, that there is strong evidence of guilt that: 1) conspiracy exists
among all the accused to commit illegal drug trading and 2) that illegal
drug trading was, in fact, committed in a manner alleged in the
Amended Information.
In resolving the instant issue, the Court is mandated to calibrate

all pieces of evidence presented and offered by the prosecution, not
only those which that came out from the direct testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses but those which were unearthed during their
cross-examination and re-cross examination. The Court will also
consider the arguments of the parties in their respective pleadings in
relation to the evidence offered during the bail hearing to determine
whether indeed the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of
establishing that the evidence of guilt of all the accused is strong.
I.
As previously mentioned, considering the inculpatory allegation

in the Amended Information, the prosecution is burdened to prove
that conspiracy exists among all the accused to commit illegal drug
trading. Conspiracy, considering its attendant effect, must be proven,
and established as the crime itself. Indeed, in conspiracy, the act of one
That being, the quantum of proof necessary to establish
conspiracy is the same quantum of proof required to establish the
commission of the crime. As aptly held by the Supreme Court in
Zapanta vs. People,2 citing People vs. Bautista:3
Judge Learned Hand once called conspiracy

"the darling of the modern prosecutor's nursery."
There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree
to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy
2
G.R. Nos. 192698-99, April 22, 2015.
3
636 Phil. 535, 553-554 (2010).
Page 7 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be

proven separately from and with the same quantum of
proof as the crime itself.
In People vs. Anabe,4 the Supreme Court ruled that

a basis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty.
Considering the far-reaching consequences of a criminal conspiracy,
the same degree of proof necessary in establishing the crime is
required to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must be shown to
exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense
In pari materia, for purposes of bail hearing, the quantum of proof

which is evidence of guilt is strong is likewise required in
conspiracy. In other words, the prosecution must present proof
evident that conspiracy exists a long with the commission of the crime.
Thus, if what was only established is the commission of the crime and
conspiracy was not, then, the accused will be held liable on their
individual participation and the act of one cannot be imputed to
another. In the absence of proof of conspiracy, an accused can only be
made liable for the acts committed by him alone and such criminal
responsibility is individual and not collective.5
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.6 In this jurisdiction, conspiracy is either a crime in itself or
a mere means to commit a crime.
As a rule, conspiracy is not a crime unless the law considers it a

crime, and prescribes a penalty for it.7 The exception is exemplified in
Article 115 (conspiracy and proposal to commit treason), Article 136
(conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or
insurrection) and Article 141 (conspiracy to commit sedition) of the
Revised Penal Code. When conspiracy is a means to commit a crime,
it is indispensable that the agreement to commit the crime among all
the conspirators, or their community of criminal design must be
alleged and competently shown.
4
G.R. No. 179033, September 6, 2010.
5
People vs. Quitlong, 354 Phil. 372, 390-391 (1998).
6
Article 8, Revised Penal Code.
7
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002, 377 SCRA 538, 557.
Page 8 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
It should be stressed that the community of design to commit an

offense must be a conscious one.8 Conspiracy transcends mere
companionship, and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not
in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge of, or acquiescence in,
or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a
conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission of the
crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose.9 Hence, conspiracy must be established, not by conjecture,
but by positive and conclusive evidence.
In Bahilidad vs. People,10 the Supreme Court ruled:
It is necessary that a conspirator should have

performed some overt act as a direct or indirect
contribution to the execution of the crime committed.
The overt act may consist of active participation in the
actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist
of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being
present at the commission of the crime or by exerting
moral ascendancy over the other co-
conspirators. Hence, the mere presence of an accused
at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it,
without any active participation in the same, is not
enough for purposes of conviction.
The Court meticulously analyzed the testimony of the nine (9)

prosecution witnesses and concludes that they were not able to clearly
establish that there exists a conspiracy among them to commit illegal
drug trading.
I.a
The testimony of Valeroso will not prove conspiracy to commit

illegal drug trading among all the accused.
According to Valeroso, in January 2014, he conducted a case

build-up on the illegal activities at the Maximum Security Compound
of NBP through inmate named Arile who was a former police officer.
According to Valeroso, Arile had access to all the big brigadas at the
Maximum Security Compound. Valeroso recruited Arile as a
8
Bahilidad v. People, G.R. No. 185195, March 17, 2010, 615 SCRA 597, 606.
9
Id., at 686.
10
Bahilidad v. People, G.R. No. 185195, [March 17, 2010], 629 PHIL 567-578
Page 9 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
government asset. During his investigation, Valeroso discovered that

drug trading, illegal gambling, and prostitution were rampant inside
NBP.11
In 2014, Valeroso, together with Arile, visited the of

Chinese inmate Sam Li Chua. There, Valeroso saw huge amounts of
money scattered all over the place. When asked by Valeroso, Sam Li
Chua said that the money came from the sale of drugs both inside and
outside NBP, which Sam Li Chua estimated at more than
P65,000,000.00. Sam Li Chua further explained that the money found
its way inside NBP through protection money given to uniformed
personnel at the Maximum Security Compound for contribution to the
2016 senatorial election campaign of De Lima.12 Also, Valeroso
testified that at some time, he saw De Lima inside the NBP during the
concert of Colanggo, together with accused Dayan and Sanchez.13
The Court will not yet delve into the reliability and the
evidentiary value of the entirety of It will limit
its discussion on whether his testimonial account will prove
conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading among all the accused. The
Court will operate on the assumption that the testimonial version of
Valeroso is true.
Admitting for the sake of argument that the factual matters

which Valeroso testified are accurate, the same would nevertheless fail
to establish conspiracy. If at all, the most damning evidence on the part
of De Lima, Dayan and Sanchez was the testimony of Valeroso that
sometime, he saw accused De Lima, Dayan and Sanchez inside the
NBP during the concert of Colanggo. This, by itself, however, will not
prove conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading among all the
accused. Likewise, the averment that Valeroso and Arile saw money
estimated to be amounting to P65,000,000.00 scattered
of Sam Li Chua would again not amount to conspiracy. These factual
circumstances will not constitute direct or circumstantial evidence of a
common resolution to commit a crime. As aptly held in Salapuddin vs.
Court of Appeals:14
The rule is that conspiracy must be shown to

exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as clearly
11
TSN dated September 18, 2018, at pp. 7-10.
12
Id., at pp. 28-31.
13
Id., at pp. 25-26.
14
G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.
Page 10 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
and convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence of

direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be
deduced from the mode, method, and manner by
which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from
the acts of the accused themselves when such acts
point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interest. Hence, it is necessary that
a conspirator should have performed some overt acts
as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of
the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may
consist of active participation in the actual
commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of
moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being
present at the commission of the crime or by exerting
moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship,

it denotes an intentional participation in the
transaction with a view to the furtherance of the
common design and purpose . . . . In this case, the
presence of accused-appellant, all of them armed with
deadly weapons at the locus criminis, indubitably
shows their criminal design to kill the victims.
It must be noted that at the time Valeroso allegedly saw accused

De Lima, Dayan and Sanchez, they were not committing a crime of
illegal drug trading, much less when he saw millions of pesos scattered
. Emphasis should be placed on the fact
that neither of the indicted accused was present when Valeroso
allegedly saw
I.b
The testimony of Arile, examined in its entirety will not establish

conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading among all accused.
Arile testified that he was tapped by Valeroso, as government

asset.15 According to Arile, Valeroso made it clear him that he would
not receive any reward or compensation for being a government asset.
He used the pse
hide his identity and for security reasons. He then gathered
information such as the names of the drug lords, protectors, and their
cohorts, and gave them to Valeroso. According to Arile, he witnessed
the trading of shabu and gambling inside the NBP, where bets
15
TSN dated September 25, 2019, p. 15.
Page 11 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
would reach millions of pesos and cash winnings were sometimes

carelessly thrown around inside Maximum Security Compound.16
Arile testified that beginning the first week of January 2014, he

started gathering information by personally talking to inmate Steve
Mecinas, who introduced him to Ruben Acerbo, a drug Lord in Roxas
City. Arile talked to Acerbo through telephone about buying and
selling of drugs as the latter would want to flourish in his drug
activities. He then referred Acerbo to Jess Arsenal, the chief escort of
Sebastian, upon instruction of Valeroso, in order to get the various
bank accounts of Sebastian and to confirm the latter's involvement in
illegal drug activities. Arile recounted that he acted as mediator
between Acerbo, who was outside the NBP, and Arsenal, who was an
inmate in the NBP. The two (2) talked through cellular phones
regarding the number of orders of shabu and the mode of payment,
whether it would be cash or bank deposit. They also talked about the
meeting place of their respective men outside NBP. According to Arile,
he knew when the money was deposited because Acerbo would text
him about it. According to him, he was present when the two talked
through their cellphones regarding the successful transaction of
Acerbo receiving 200 grams of shabu and depositing P200,000.00.
Arile averred that he learned that inmate-drug lord Peter Co

started his drug activities in 2012, at which time De Lima was the
Secretary of Justice. Peter Co told him that Sebastian was reporting to
De Lima and was acting like a government asset. According to Arile,
Sebastian confirmed to him that he was an asset of De Lima and
Bucayu and that they were communicating through text messaging.
According to Arile, he knew that Sebastian was involved in

illegal drugs since 2011 when De Lima was the Secretary of Justice. He
claimed that Sebastian told him about his involvement in drugs.
According to Arile, Sebastian was untouchable and his drug business
flourished because of De Lima and Bucayu. Sebastian even boasted
once that because of his influence on De Lima that he could remove
other drug lords from Maximum Security Compound and that he
controlled drug trading there. According to Arile, he confirmed this on
December 15, 2014, when was conducted against
high profile inmates. He observed that only Sebastian was spared from
such Further, Arile recounted that Sebastian also
once told him that he gave money to De Lima on a regular basis
16
Id., at p. 17.
Page 12 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
through Sanchez as contribution for her senatorial bid. The money was
the proceeds of drug sales collected by Sebastian from the drug lords
inside NBP. Sebastian also told him that he gave P5,000,000.00 to De
Lima through Sanchez and P1,200,000.00 to Bucayu in November 2014.
According to Arile, he saw De Lima for several times inside the

NBP. The first time he saw her was in April 2011 when De Lima went
to together with other
government officials for a conference on the demolition of k
because of the incident involving inmate Edgar Alvarez alias
who was caught on video s shabu. Sebastian attended the
conference. According to Arile, Sebastian asked De Lima to carefully
study the demolition of the Eventually, the demolition did
not push through.
The second time that Arile saw De Lima was also in April 2011
at the Maximum Security Compound with Chief Public Attorney
Persida Acosta, together with all the commanders and assistant
commanders of the pangkat, where they discussed about the
. The third time that he saw De Lima was in February or March
2014 at Maximum Security Compound. This time he saw De Lima
together with Dayan and Sanchez. According to Arile, he saw them
proceed to Sebastian's - . The
last was in January 2015, when he saw De Lima at the Commando
where a grenade exploded.
On or about November 25, 2014, before the Oplan Galugad,

Arile and Valeroso visited inmate Sam Li Chua in his where
they saw stacks of money inside one box of Marlboro and two boxes
of Champion while some were scattered all over the place. According
to Arile, when Valeroso asked Sam Li Chua about the money, the latter
estimated the amount at about P65,000,000.00. Arile claimed that Sam
Li Chua revealed to them that those money came from the sales of
illegal drugs and part of them would be contributed s
senatorial bid in the 2016 election.
The testimony of Arile will not sufficiently establish conspiracy

among the accused to commit illegal drug trading. Prefatorily, the
Court will not and cannot accept hook line and sinker the testimony of
Arile. His credibility as well as his testimony must survive the strict
scrutiny of the Court. The usual manner of calibrating the evidential
weight of It
must be noted that Arile was convicted for murder and kidnapping, a
Page 13 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
crime involving moral turpitude. He is serving sentence for the crime

he was convicted for. Pertinently, one of the ways of impeaching an
adverse witness is conviction of a crime. Section 11, Rule 132 of the 2019
Rules of Evidence provides:
Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's

witness. - A witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he or she was called, by contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his or her general
reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad, or by
evidence that he or she has made at other times
statements inconsistent with his or her present
testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful
acts, except that it may be shown by the examination
of the witness, or record of the judgment, that he or
she has been convicted of an offense. (underscoring
supplied)
Relatedly, for the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence

that he or she has been convicted by final judgment of a crime shall be
admitted if (a) the crime was punishable by a penalty in excess of one
year; or (b) the crime involved moral turpitude, regardless of the
penalty.17
Thus, it is in congruence with logic that the Court will accept

with caution the testimony of a witness convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude. It would not have been included in the Rules as one
of the modes by which the testimony of the adverse witness may be
impeached if the Court will just accept their testimony on their face
value without subjecting them to the crucible scrutiny of the Court.
The Court may apply by analogy the manner by which buy-bust
operations in drug cases are examined. They are examined through the
lens of objective test. The Supreme Court in People vs. Posos,18
explicated on the objective test as applied in buy-bust operation:
In People v. Doria, we stressed the "objective" test

in buy-bust operations. We ruled that in such
operations, the prosecution must present a complete
picture detailing the transaction, which "must start
from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and
the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation
of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of
the sale. We emphasized that the manner by which the
17
Section 12, Rule 132, 2019 Rules of Evidence.
18
G.R. No. 226492, October 2, 2019.
Page 14 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the

drug, the payment of the 'buy-bust' money, and the
delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens
are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense."
(emphasis supplied)
In line with above parameters, the Court will evaluate the

testimony of Arile.
Arile claimed that he was tapped by Valeroso to be a government

asset to investigate the illegal drug activities inside the NBP. However,
just like Valeroso, Arile cannot present documentary proof that he
indeed was tapped as government asset. If indeed he was tapped as
such, the prosecution should have presented proof
were secured as government asset. The Court cannot just accept his
claim that he was a government asset in the absence of documentary
proof from him or any other government agency that indeed he was
tapped as such. Considering that
he was a government asset, the doubt will cascade to the supposed
result of his investigation.
mation of the existence of drug trading inside NBP is

either a product of his own conclusion or based on the say so of
Sebastian and other inmates whom he supposed as drug lords.
among the accused

to commit illegal drug trading even if the Court relies or accepts his
testimony on its face value. His claim that he saw De Lima several
times inside the NBP, together with Dayan and Sanchez on some
occasions, will not, in self, establish conspiracy. It must be emphasized
that the Arile did not see them on the occasion of trading drugs or in
the actual commission of the crime. And it would not be unusual to
see De Lima inside the NBP as she was then the Secretary of Justice
and the NBP is under the supervision of the Department. The same is
true with Dayan and Sanchez; it is not unusual to see them together
with De Lima as they were her close-in security.
The testimony of Arile that Sebastian was delivering money to

De Lima through Sanchez; that the money being delivered to De Lima
came from the proceeds of illegal drug transactions; that Sebastian had
a great influence on De Lima; that Sebastian, at will, could transfer
inmates from one compound to another; that De Lima and Bucayu are
the protectors of Sebastian; and that Sebastian illegal drug trading
Page 15 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
flourished because of the protection of De Lima and Bucayu, has no

evidentiary value for being hearsay. All this information came from
Sebastian.19
Hearsay evidence is inadmissible, the Rules says.20 Hearsay is a

statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at a
trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a non-verbal
conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion.21
While it is true that Arile can testify on the fact that Sebastian told him
of those information as the same is a product of his own perception,
but his testimony cannot be admitted to prove the truth of what
Sebastian told him. Those are hearsay evidence and therefore
inadmissible. The Supreme Court in Mallari vs. People22 emphasized on
the probative value of hearsay evidence:
Testimonial or documentary evidence is

hearsay if it is based, not on the personal knowledge of
the witness, but on the knowledge of some other
person not on the witness stand. Consequently,
hearsay evidence whether objected to or not has
no probative value unless the proponent can show that
the evidence falls within any of the exceptions to the
hearsay rule, as provided in the Rules of Court.
Aside from being hearsay, all the information coming Sebastian

regarding the complicity of all the accused should not be admitted for
being violative of res inter alios acta rule. Section 29, Rule 130 provides:
the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or
omission of another, except as hereinafter provided. The Supreme
Court in People vs. Bernardo23 explained the rationale the rule, viz:
Expounding on this rule, the Court explained

that on a principle of good faith and mutual
convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon
himself, and are evidence against him. So are his
conduct and declarations. Yet it would not only be
rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust, that a
man should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized
strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound by the
acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct be
19
TSN dated September 25, 2019, at page 28-29.
20
Section 37, Rule 130, 2019 Rules on Evidence.
21
Id.
22
G.R. No. 153911, December 10, 2004.
23
G.R. No. 242696, November 11, 2020.
Page 16 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
used as evidence against him. Thus, as a general rule,

an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the
confessant.
The testimony of Arile as to the admission of Sebastian is

admissible only to Sebastian pursuant to Section 27, Rule 130 which
provides that
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him However,
any inculpatory statement of Sebastian against all the accused, as
testified by Arile, cannot be admitted against all accused because it will
violate Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence or the res inter
alios acta rule.
Thus, for being hearsay and violative of res inter alios acta rule,
the Court cannot treat the testimony of Arile as establishing conspiracy
among the accused to commit illegal drug trading mush less strong
enough to prove the same.
I.c.
The Court will now analyze the testimony of Diaz.
Diaz claimed that he started to know Colanggo when his band

was invited to play inside NBP sometime in September 2012.24 Since
then, he and Colanggo became friends. Eventually, Diaz became the
liaison officer of Colanggo.25 As liaison officer, Diaz would facilitate
entry of visitors and performers like Mocha Girls, Sassy Girls, Jennifer
Lee of Viva Hot Babes and Siakol. According to Diaz, he was the one
who was facilitating the request of the entry of these performers.26 Diaz
recounted that he facilitated more than twenty (20) requests, which
consisted of variety of activities. For instance, the conduct of concerts
and shows every week. According to Diaz, if the request is
disapproved by the Superintendent of BuCor, he would have the
requests approved by the Department of Justice. Also, Diaz would
bring inside NBP, gadgets, appliances, beers in can, and local and
imported liquors.27 According to Diaz, the facilitation of all these
requests and entry of these items were all conducted upon the
instruction of Colanggo.28 Diaz also mentioned that he would also
24
TSN dated March 19, 2019, at page 35.
25
Id., at page 36.
26
Id.
27
Id., at page 41.
28
Id.
Page 17 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
facilitate entries of prostitutes whom

inside NBP.29
According to Diaz, he was able to facilitate the entries of visitors,

performers, prostitutes, gadgets, beers and liquors because he gave
payolas to Colonel Elli, Sanchez, Dayan, Susan Francisco
(Francisco), Lyn Sagun who was then the secretary of De Lima.30 Diaz
averred that the money he gave to these people came from Colanggo.31
With respect to Col. Elli, Diaz testified that he delivered money

to Col. Elli for five (5) times.32 The first delivery to Col. Elli was made
on November 2013 at the ADCO office of NBP which is around 7-8 feet
away from the office of Bucayu.33 The second delivery was made in
Dapo Restaurant located somewhere in Quezon City.34 The third
delivery was made in King Bee restaurant in Alabang, Muntinlupa
City.35 The fourth and fifth deliveries were made again in ADCO office
in BuCor.36 Each delivery would amount P1,200,000.00.37 All these
money came from Colanggo. According to Diaz, Colanggo told him
that the money came from Chinese drug lords.38
With respect to Sanchez, Diaz mentioned that he delivered

money to him five (5) to six (6) times. The first time was in October
2013.39 Just like all the money delivered to Col. Elli, they all came from
Colanggo.40 According to Diaz, Colanggo told him that the reason why
he was delivering money to Sanchez was to support the candidacy of
De Lima.41
Sometime in October 2013, upon the instruction of Colanggo,

Diaz made his first delivery to Sanchez in the amount of
P3,000,000.00.42 According to Diaz, he was specifically instructed by
Colanggo to deliver the money to Sanchez in the Sunken Garden inside
29
Id.
30
Id., at page 10.
31
Id., at page 34.
32
Id., at page 42.
33
Id., at pages 44-45.
34
Id., at pages 45-46
35
Id., at page 46.
36
37
Id., at page 44.
38
Id., at page 50.
39
Id.
40
Id.
41
Id.
42
Id.
Page 18 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
the NBP.43 As instructed, Diaz went to the Sunken Garden of NBP and
there he met Sanchez and Dayan. Diaz immediately gave the money
to Sanchez.44 According to Diaz, at that time, Dayan was inside the
Starex black van listening to a music, while Sanchez was outside the
van.45 Diaz recounted that Dayan called somebody on his cellphone
mode. According to Diaz, he heard a lady
Okay, bilisan nyo 46 He identified the voice as that of De Lima.47
According to Diaz, he is familiar with the voice of De Lima as he often
would hear her voice many times whenever she would speak in the
Sunken Garden or sometimes in television.48
The second delivery of money, according to Diaz, was made in

February 2014 in the Department of Justice.49 This time, Diaz went to
the parking lot reserved for Undersecretary Baraan.50 Diaz met
Sanchez there and gave the money to Sanchez. Again, Dayan was also
there inside the Starex Van when Diaz gave the money to Sanchez.51
The third, fourth, fifth, and the sixth delivery of money ensued, all in
the amount of P3,000,000.00 for within a period covering October 2013,
February, March and December 2014.52 The deliveries were all made
in the parking lot of the Department of Justice. All these deliveries
were made upon the instruction of Colanggo. According to Diaz, like
other deliveries, the money came from the Chinese drug lords and
intended to support the senatorial candidacy of De Lima.53
As previously mentioned, the sixth delivery was made in the

parking lot of the Department of Justice. Similar to other deliveries
made in the parking lot of the Department of Justice, Diaz gave the
money to Sanchez. Again, Dayan was with Sanchez waiting.
According to Diaz, Dayan called somebody through his phone which
heard from the phone of Dayan a lady said, Yes, okay 54 According to
Diaz, he recognized the voice as the voice of De Lima.55
43
44
Id., at page 53.
45
Id., at page 52.
46
Id., at page 53.
47
Id.
48
Id., at page 54.
49
Id.
50
Id., at page 55.
51
Id., at page 55-56.
52
53
Id.; and, please see, TSN dated March 20, 2019, at page 61.
54
Id., at page 61.
55
Id., at page 62.
Page 19 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
From time to time, Diaz , would give
from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00. Once, Diaz gave Sanchez P5,000.00 via

ML Kwarta Padala in Muntinlupa through Renante Arco, who
The Court will subject the testimony of Diaz to strict scrutiny.

The Court will apply in pari materia the manner by which the testimony
of Arile was analyzed by the Court. It should be pointed out that Diaz
made several inculpatory admissions of crime in his testimony. For
which reason, the Court cannot with a blind eye and without
evidential diagnostic evaluation accept the import of Diaz testimony.
to
commit illegal drug trading. Even the commission of illegal drug
trading was not established by the testimony of Diaz. Diaz testimony
centers on the delivery of money to Sanchez for De Lima upon the
instruction of Colanggo. Assuming for the sake of argument that
indeed there were deliveries made to Sanchez, the same are not
sufficient to establish that De Lima, and the other accused conspired
to commit illegal drug trading. If at all, by themselves, these pieces of
evidence will establish a crime of bribery but not illegal drug trading.
It is true that there were statements from Diaz that Colanggo told
him that the proceeds came from Chinese drug lords and that
Colanggo was collecting money to support the senatorial candidacy of
De Lima. However, such a statement cannot be admitted to support
the conclusion that there was conspiracy among the accused.
First, that the money came from Chinese drug lords cannot be
established by the testimony of Diaz. While the Court can admit the
fact that Colanggo told him of such fact, but the testimony of Diaz
cannot prove the truth of what was told to him by Colanggo without
violating the hearsay rule. The hearsay rule is clear-cut. Hearsay, to
emphasize, is a statement other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at a trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the facts
asserted therein. A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a
non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an
assertion.56 While it is true that Diaz can testify on the fact that
Colanggo told him that the money came from Chinese drug lords as
the same is a product of his own perception, but his testimony cannot
56
Id.
Page 20 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
be admitted to prove the truth of what Colanggo told him. The same
is hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible.
That the money was intended to support the senatorial

candidacy of De Lima, as again told by Colanggo to Diaz, is
inadmissible to prove conspiracy among the accused to commit illegal
drug trading. Diaz testimony cannot prove said assertion for his
testimony on that respect is hearsay. It must be pointed out that the
57 In People
vs. Carino,58 the Supreme Court ruled:
The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not

admissible. However, the lack of objection to hearsay
testimony may result in its being admitted as evidence.
But one should not be misled into thinking that such
declarations are impressed with probative value.
Admissibility of evidence should not be equated with
weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected
to or not cannot be given credence for it has no
probative value.
Second, the prosecution failed to pinpoint from the testimony of

Diaz that the instruction to collect money from the Chinese drug lords
came from De Lima or any of the accused. Nowhere from the length
and breadth of the testimony of Diaz that he mentioned that it was De
Lima or any of the accused who orchestrated the collection of money
from the supposed Chinese drug lords.
supposed deliveries of payolas to Sanchez and Col. Elli. The
deliveries of money to Sanchez or to Col Elli, by themselves will not
prove conspiracy to commit illegal trading.
Third, the testimony of Diaz is incredible. The Court will only

focus, in relation to the pending incident, on the testimony of Diaz that
he heard on the cellphone of Dayan, the voice of De Lima.
There were two instances where Diaz heard the voice of De Lima
on the phone of Dayan. The first was when he delivered money to
Sanchez in the Sunken Garden in NBP and the second was when he
delivered the money in the parking lot in the Department Justice. It is
an accepted jurisprudential rule that evidence to be given probative
value must not only come from a credible witness but must also be
57
People v. Estibal, 748 Phil. 850, 876 (2014) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].
58
G.R. No. 232155, March 25, 2019.
Page 21 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
credible in itself.59 The testimony of a witness must pass the test of

reason and its conformity to the ordinary course of things. Its
credibility and believability must be tested by human experience,
observation, common knowledge, and accepted conduct that has
evolved through the years.60 A testimony deserves credence if it does
not run counter to human knowledge, observation and experience;
whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible and lies
outside of judicial cognizance.
It is unbelievable, as it is contrary to human experience and

ordinary expectation that Dayan would call De Lima on speakerphone
in the presence of Diaz. were
to confirm the delivery of money, why would he do it on
speakerphone? Why would he call in the presence of Diaz? The same
on that in this instance the delivery

was made in the parking lot of the Department of Justice. Why would
Dayan have to call De Lima to confirm the delivery of money? They
were already in the premises of the Department of Justice and
presumably near to De Lima. What was the call for? Indeed, along this
line of reasoning, the testimony of Diaz is too good to be true.
It is likewise incredible that Diaz could recognize the voice of De

Lima on the cellphone of Dayan. Diaz is not familiar with the voice of
De Lima on the phone. Not once had he ever spoken with De Lima on
the phone. His familiarity with the speaking voice of De Lima was
when he allegedly heard her speak in Sunken Garden in NBP on some
occasions and on television. Even assuming it to be true, Diaz
familiarity with the voice of De Lima is insufficient for him to
recognize the voice of De Lima on the phone. As previously observed,
he has not spoken with De Lima on the phone, not even once.
Moreover, Diaz only heard short syllable words from the

supposed De Lima. He heard, bilisan nyo Yes, Okay.
Considering that Diaz had not spoken with De Lima on the phone, not
even on one occasion, he would not be able to immediately identify
It is too conjectural for
the Court, under the obtaining circumstance, to believe the testimony
phone.
59
People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761, 769.
60
People vs. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012.
Page 22 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In the paper written by Christoper Sherrin, he commented that:
In assessing the reliability of earwitness

testimony, courts have frequently considered the
length of time that the witness was exposed to the
committed. The British Columbia Supreme Court in R

v Savoy, for example, held that voice identification had
not been proven partly because the witness only heard
a robbery which he, [the witness], estimates to have

had a duration of about a half- 61
Sherrin further noted that:
Empirical studies have generally affirmed that

exposure length is related to accuracy. The research
results have not been entirely consistent but on the
opportunity to
listen to a speaker, the greater the accuracy of
tipping point, before which voice identifications are

not reliable and after which they are. It depends in part
on familiarity. If someone has had significant prior
exposure to a voice (along with the identity of the
person associated with it) there is a good chance, in
ideal conditions, that s/he will be able to recognize it
after hearing only a sentence or two. If the speaker is a
stranger to the listener, one does not usually see hit
rates in post-event lineups greater than 50% until more
(sometimes much more) than a minute of exposure
during the event. False alarm rates for unfamiliar
voices in target-absent lineups do not seem to change
much as exposure increases from around 20 seconds to
eight minutes, often hovering around 50%.62
Applying the above study, the Court is of the view that

considering the short exposure of Diaz to the supposed voice of De
Lima on , Okay bilisan
nyo Yes, Okay, Diaz cannot with reliable accuracy, be able to
61
Earwitness Evidence: The Reliability of Voice Identifications, Osgoode
Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, at
page 16,
(https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&conte
xt=olsrps).
62
Id, at pages 16-17.
Page 23 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Thus, with the foregoing analysis of testimony of Diaz,

the Court is of the strong view that conspiracy to commit illegal
trading was not established.
I.d.
The Court will now subject the testimony of Durano for

evaluation.
Durano testified that he met De Lima and Dayan for the first time
sometime in June 2011. At that time, they were doing an inspection in
Building inside NBP concerning the information that the inmates
therein were using illegal drugs.63 At that time, Durano was directed
to provide security for De Lima as he was then the president of
. 64 According to Durano, during this inspection, he
happened to know Dayan.65 Since then, Durano started
communicating with Dayan through cellphone.66
Durano averred that during their cellphone conversation with

him, Dayan told him that he was very close to De Lima. Dayan also
told him that if Durano should encounter problems, he may confer
them to Dayan so that the latter may relay the same to De Lima.
According to Durano, Dayan told him that they needed funds for the
2016 election.67
Durano told Dayan that he had a friend from Cebu, Jeffrey Diaz,
who had just been released from prison and who was
into illegal drugs business.68 According to Durano, Dayan found
interest 69 According Durano,
still inside the NBP, he introduced him to Peter Co, one of the Chinese
drug lords inside NBP. Inside, transacted with
each relative to illegal drug trading. 70 , his
dealings with Peter Co continued. 71
63
TSN dated October 25, 2019, at page 12.
64
Id.
65
Id., at page 15.
66
Id., at page 16.
67
Id.
68
Id., at page 17.
69
Id., at page 18.
70
71
Id., at page 25.
Page 24 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
According to Durano, Dayan, after he became interested in

meeting .
informed Durano that he and Dayan were already communicating
with each other.72 Later, according to Durano, Dayan called him and
Bai, tulungan mo yung tao ko na mabigyan si Jaguar 73 Durano
assured Dayan there would be no problem. According to Durano, the
was smooth sailing as
he made to Dayan.74
remittances were being deposited.75
Durano recounted that he gave money in the amount of

P1,500,000.00 to De Lima sometime in November 2014. According to
Durano, Durano replied that
he only had P500,000.00. Jaguar told him to find a way to produce
P1,500,000.00.76
Martinez to borrow P1,000,000.00.77 Martinez gave Durano
P1,000,000.00. Then, Durano sent a message to Jaguar that he had
P1,500,000.00 already.78 Jaguar informed him that he would contact
Dayan. He told Durano to wrap the money discreetly. Thus, Durano
placed it inside a shoe box and wrapped it. Considering it was
December during that time, such packaging would not be noticeable.
He was instructed, thereafter, to go the Commando and give the box to
former De Lima.79 When he arrived at the place, he was asked to
confirm his identity. He replied that he was Durano. Afterwards, he
was accompanied inside the BTV3.80 Upon entering, he noticed that De
Lima was intently looking at him as if De Lima was expecting him.81
Inside, Durano noticed Sebastian and Hans Tan.82 Thereafter, he gave
the box containing the money to De Lima who, in turn, gave the same
to the person who greeted him.83 Durano was under the impression
that this money would be used for the electoral campaign of De Lima
as previously mentioned by Dayan to him. Before leaving the BTV3,
72
Id., at page 26.
73
Id., at page 28.
74
Id.
75
Id., at page 29.
76
Id., at page 33.
77
Id., at page 34.
78
Id.
79
Ibid., p. 35.
80
This is a channel created by Jaybee inside the Maximum-Security Compound and made
it as his office.
81
Ibid., p. 36.
82
Id.
83
Ibid., p. 37.
Page 25 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
he noticed De Lima striking poses like a model and asking Sebastian if

she looked okay.84
The Court will examine the testimony of Durano on the basis of

the parameters used in analyzing with the testimonies of Arile, and
Diaz.
The usual manner of calibrating the evidential weight of an

ordinary witness will not apply to Durano
noted that Durano was convicted for murder and frustrated murder,
which are crimes involving moral turpitude. He is serving sentence for
the crimes he was convicted. Pertinently, one of the ways of
impeaching a witness is conviction of a crime.85 Considering that
Durano was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, his
testimony will be subjected to strict scrutiny of the Court.
The testimony of Durano, taken on its face value, not mention its
inherent incredulity, will not establish conspiracy among the accused
to commit illegal drug trading. Nowhere from
that he ever mentioned Bucayu, Sanchez and Dera. His narration
centers on Also, the
only inculpatory testimony of Durano against De Lima is when he
personally gave money to De Lima in the amount of P1,500,000.00.
The Court, considering the obtaining circumstances, cannot just

accept as true the testimony of Durano that he personally gave money
to De Lima in the amount of P1,500,000.00. It must be emphasized the
rule that for a testimony to be believed, it must not only come from the
mouth of a credible witness but must also be credible in itself. In this
case, the testimony of Durano is tainted with incredulity not only
because Durano is not a credible witness, but also the testimony itself
is not credible.
Durano is not a credible witness. He was convicted of a crime

involving moral turpitude. As such, his testimony is impeachable
pursuant to Section 11, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. As it is, the
same should not be believed unless there are circumstances which
would make his testimony believable.
84
Ibid., p. 38.
85
Page 26 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
The Court observes that the prosecution did not present

corroborating evidence to buttress the testimony of Durano that he
personally gave the money to De Lima. It should be stressed that per
testimony of Durano, Hans Tan and other inmates close to Sebastian
were present when Durano went to Commando to deliver the money to
De Lima. They or any one of them could have been presented as a
witness to corroborate the testimony of Durano. Thus, the Court is not
inclined to believe the testimony of Durano as he is not a credible
witness for his reputation as a witness is not reliable because of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Without
corroborative evidence, the Court will not give credence to his version
of the incident.
Furthermore, testimony that he personally gave the

money to De Lima in Commando where De Lima was in her lonesome
is contrary to human experience and ordinary human expectation. De
Lima is no ordinary official of the government. She is a high-ranking
government official no less than a Secretary of the Department of
Justice. Considering her function as Secretary of the Department of
Justice, she would not go inside the Maximum Security Compound
unguarded. She would not expose herself to the danger of being in the
company of the most dangerous criminals in the country. It is quite
unusual for De Lima or even for every high-ranking official of the
government to be in the companionship of the convicted criminals
inside a prison, accepting bribe in such a brazen manner, providing
entertainment by her gestures and oblivious to exposure
and ridicule. It is unthinkable for person such as De Lima considering
her position, professional circumstances, her being a lawyer among
others, to act the way Durano portrayed her acted inside the
Commando. Indeed, the picture which Durano wanted to paint about
De Lima is contrary to logic and human experience. Without
corroboration, the Court is not inclined to believe the testimony of
Durano on that respect.
Along this line, the Supreme Court in People vs. Dedace86 ruled:
It is axiomatic that evidence to be believed must

not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness
but must also be credible in itself, such that common
experience and observation of mankind lead to the
inference of its probability under the circumstances.
86
G.R. No. 132551, March 22, 2000.
Page 27 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Testimonies that do not adhere to this standard are

necessarily accorded little weight or credence.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Durano indeed gave

money to De Lima in the amount of P1,500,000.00, the same will not
constitute proof conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading. Implied
conspiracy cannot be deduced from the supposed act of De Lima of
receiving money from Durano. Absent any concrete evidence that the
money given to De Lima came from illegal drug trading of which De
Lima is direct participant, the said act cannot be considered a direct or
indirect proof of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading.
T transacted with each other relative to

illegal drugs was not clearly established. The information that Dayan
as testified by Durano, all came from
Durano
therefore has no probative value. The most competent witnesses to
testify on is Jaguar.
However, unfortunately for the prosecution,
testify as testimony,
Further, the BDO accounts identified by Durano to have been

were not
produced as evidence by the prosecution. These accounts could have
been strong evidence of the alleged transaction between Dayan and
Durano, cannot be
imputed against all the accused. The same is not only hearsay but it
also violates res inter alios acta rule. Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules on
Evidence the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by
an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as hereinafter
The reason for the rule is that, on the principle of good faith and
mutual convenience, a man's own acts are binding upon himself, and
are evidence against him, but not as against third person. It would not
only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust that a man
should be bound by the acts of mere unauthorized strangers, and if a
party ought not to be bound by the acts of the strangers, neither ought
their acts or conduct be used as evidence against him.87 The rule is
particularly applicable where there is no evidence that the person so
87
Peralta & Peralta, Insights on Evidence, 2020, at page. 403
Page 28 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
acting, declaring or omitting has any interest in the subject matter of

the admission.88 Thus, the acts or declarations of are
admissible against himself but they cannot be used against all the
accused.
With respect to Dayan, the only inculpatory statement of Durano

against him was that Dayan told Durano that they needed funds for
the senatorial campaign of De Lima. Durano told Dayan that he had a
friend from Cebu, named
prison who and was into illegal drugs business.89 According to
90 If the Court were
to take the testimony of Durano on its face value with the assumption
that it were true, the same would not amount to establishing evidence
of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading between De Lima and
Dayan much less with the other accused whose names were not even
mentioned. First, there is no evidence that De Lima authorized Dayan
to look for funds for her senatorial campaign. The Court cannot and
will not assume that because Dayan was a close-in-security of De Lima,
he was authorized by the latter to collect money to fund her senatorial
campaign.
Second, that Dayan found interest in Jaguar when Durano told

him that he was into illegal drug business is not evidence of conspiracy
among other accused to commit illegal drug trading. This act of Dayan
as testified by Durano is not only hearsay but also inadmissible for
being violative of the res inter alias acta rule. If at all, the supposed act
of Dayan is only admissible against him. At any rate, such a statement,
or act of Dayan would not likewise amount to illegal drug trading.
I.e
The testimony of Martinez.
Martinez testified that he was first introduced to Sebastian

sometime in 2009. Since then, they became friends. In fact, Sebastian
became the godfather of his son.91
88
Id.
89
TSN dated October 25, 2019, at page 17.
90
Id., at page 18.
91
TSN dated February 2, 2019, at page 17.
Page 29 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In 2012, while holding the position of Commander of Genuine

Ilocano Group (GIG), his group decided to construct a multi-purpose
building inside the NBP. He asked the assistance of Sebastian to have
their project approved by the Office of the Superintendent of BuCor.
Martinez contended that Sebastian wielded a strong influence inside
NBP as shown by the fact that almost all of his projects were
approved.92
According to Martinez, sometime in January 2013, Capt.

because
De Lima would be arriving. So, Martinez went to the office of
93
Sebastian. When he entered the office of Sebastian, Martinez noticed

that the other commanders were present: Sebastian, Leony Gamboa,
Mario Delos Reyes, and others whom he could no longer remember
the names.94 When all the commanders were already inside, Sebastian
told them that De Lima would be arriving and they would be
introduced to her.95 After a while, De Lima and her companions who
were more or less ten (10), arrived. Bucayu was one of the companions
of De Lima.96
According to Martinez, De Lima, Bucayu and her other

companions went inside the music lounge of Sebastian together with
the latter.97 At that time, Martinez and the other commanders were
inside the office of Sebastian.98 After ten (10) minutes, De Lima and
were
present.
When De Lima arrived, Sebastian introduced Martinez and the

other commanders to De Lima. She said to them sige, kayo pala and
mga siga rito, tulong tulungan tayo kung paano natin ipairal ang
katiwasayan at katahimikan ng Bilibid. Tulungan niyo kami ng mga nasa
BuCor at DOJ 99
After twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) minutes, De Lima and

Sebastian went to the . They stayed and talked with
each other for around five (5) to eight (8) minutes. After that, they
92
93
Id., at page 20.
94
Id., at page 22.
95
Ibid, p. 23.
96
Id., at page 24.
97
Id., at page 25.
98
Id.
99
Id., at page 27.
Page 30 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
proceeded to the music lounge where they talked to some other

officers of BuCor and in less than ten (10) minutes, they stood up and
they all left.100
According to Martinez, he saw Sanchez as one of the

companions of De Lima.101 He knew Sanchez because Mercado, an
inmate, introduced Sanchez to him as an employee and bodyguard of
De Lima. Martinez recalled that during this first meeting, he gave
Sanchez P10,000.00 and thank Sanchez for visiting them.102 According
to Martinez, he learned later on from his inmates that they are also
giving money to Sanchez.103
According to Martinez, sometime in the middle of 2013, he saw

Sanchez again in the office of Sebastian. The latter introduced him to
Sanchez, as Sebastian was unaware that Martinez was already
introduced to Sanchez.104 When Sanchez was about to leave, he noticed
that he wanted something from Sebastian. Sensing this, Martinez
informed Sebastian that he would just leave. But Sebastian told
Martinez to stay. Martinez saw Sebastian gave money to Sanchez.
Martinez did not know how much was given to Sanchez.105 After that,
sige pare
Sanchez left and Sebastian told Martinez
that Sanchez was the collector of money for De Lima.106
According to Martinez, sometime in February 2013, Sebastian

called him in his office. When he arrived in his office, Sebastian told
him that De Lima spoke with him, and he was instructed that they
needed to pool in large amount of money for De Lima as she was
intending to run as Senator in the 2016 elections.107 For which reason,
Sebastian told him that they needed to centralize the illegal drug
trading108 inside the NBP and the commander of each group should
help them. In exchange for this favor, protection and special treatment
would be afforded to them.109 Martinez informed Sebastian that he
would just refer some people to him who could sell outside
100
Id., at page 29.
101
Id., at page 30.
102
Id., at page 31.
103
Ibid. p. 31
104
Id., at 32.
105
Ibid. p. 33
106
Id., at 35.
107
Id., at page 38.
108
Id., at page 53.
109
Id. p. 38
Page 31 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
NBP.110 Sebastian agreed to his proposal on condition that if those

persons he referred failed to pay, he would be responsible.111
After that meeting, Martinez looked for people he could refer to

Sebastian. He instructed Nap Delinggo (Delinggo), one of his trusted
men, to look for people he could refer to Sebastian. When Delinggo
was able to list some persons who could be referred to Sebastian,
Martinez called Sebastian through his cellphone and informed him
that the list was ready. Martinez recalled that included in the list were
Ramil, Chat, Chit, Rex and Leo. Sebastian told him that he would just
call them to give instructions on how they would operate and who
would be their contact outside.112
According to Martinez, when he submitted the list of names to

Sebastian, he was informed by the latter that he was able to contact
them already. Sebastian told him that he started to deal with the
persons whom he submitted to Sebastian. Martinez confirmed that
Sebastian had already transactions with these persons as he was
constantly informed by Delinggo. Every transaction of these person
with Sebastian, Delinggo would report it to Martinez as Delinggo was
the one monitoring transactions of these persons with Sebastian.113 For
instance, the transaction of Sebastian with a certain Ramil amounting
to P28,000,000.00 to P30,000,000.00 which were reportedly paid to
Sebastian.114
There was one time, according to Martinez, that Sebastian called

him asking him if he could dispose the remaining 200 grams of
shabu which were his possession. In response, Martinez told
Sebastian to just spare him and his group as most of them came from
the province and they
Sebastian became cold to him.115
According to Martinez, he knew Col. Elli. One time, Col, Elli

called him to his office in NBP-Maximum Security Compound asking
him to produce the amount of P500,000.00.116 According to Martinez,
Col. Elli told him that he was instructed by Bucayu. Martinez then told
Col. Elli that he did not have that amount. Because of that, Col. Elli
110
Id. p. 53
111
Id. p. 60
112
Id. p. 62
113
Id. p. 66
114
Id.
115
Id. p. 63
116
Id., at page 68.
Page 32 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
raised his voice to him mahina ka palang Commander ng GIG. Sa

dami mo miyembrong Chinese diyan hindi ka makapagproduce ng Five
117 Martinez told Col. Elli that he
would try to talk to some Chinese inmates in his group. Out of fear,
the Chinese inmates from his group committed to contribute and were
able to pull in P300,000 which Martinez gave to Col. Elli.118
When Martinez was called again by Col. Elli, he brought with

him P300,000.00 that he was able to raise. He delivered the same to Col.
Elli. Col. Elli accepted it on the condition that they should still give
some money to him every week. Martinez just agreed to him out of
fear. Since then, Martinez was giving money to Col. Elli.119
According to Martinez, when Oplan Galugad was implemented

on December 14, 2014, he together with the other high-profile inmates
were brought from the NBP Maximum Security Compound except
Sebastian.120 He was later informed that Sebastian was the asset of De
Lima.121
The Court will analyze the testimony of Martinez.
In critically examining the testimony of Martinez, the Court will

apply in pari matria the method of analysis employed in the testimony
of Arile, Diaz, and Durano.
The usual manner of calibrating the evidential weight of an
noted that Martinez was convicted for a crime of kidnapping for

ransom, which is a crime involving moral turpitude. He is serving
sentence for the crimes he was convicted. Pertinently, one of the ways
of impeaching a witness is conviction of a crime.122 Considering that
Martinez was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, his
testimony will be subjected to strict scrutiny of the Court.
The testimony of Martinez will not prove conspiracy to commit

illegal drug trading among the accused.
117
Id., at page 69.
118
Id., at page 70.
119
Id., at page 72.
120
Id., at page 65.
121
Id.
122
Page 33 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
First, neither one of the accused instructed Martinez, expressly

or impliedly, to indulge in illegal drug trading. Martinez testified that
the first time he met Sanchez, he gave him P10,000.00. Also, he testified
that there was one time that he saw Sebastian give money to Sanchez
when he chanced upon Sanchez in the office of Sebastian. When
Sanchez bid goodbye to Sebastian, Martinez heard Sebastian told
Sanchez to extend his regards to De Lima. According to Martinez,
Sebastian told him that Sanchez was the collector of De Lima.
On its face value and with the assumption that they are true, the
said testimonial account will not establish conspiracy to commit illegal
drug trading. The giving of money by Sebastian to Sanchez and the act
of Sanchez of accepting money from Sebastian will not amount to
conspiracy among the accused. There is no prior showing that Sanchez
was instructed by De Lima to collect money and receive money from
Sebastian. That Sanchez was the close-in security of De Lima cannot be
wise the Court will
indulge in speculation and assumption.
Further, the act of Sebastian giving money to Sanchez and the act
of Sanchez receiving it, as testified to by Martinez are not admissible
against all the accused, except Sanchez and Sebastian. To reiterate, the
testimony of Martinez in this respect is a violation of the res inter alios
acta rule under Section 29, Rule 130 of the 2019 Rules of Evidence which
were already discussed somewhere above. The statement of Sebastian
that Sanchez is the collector of De Lima, as testified to by Martinez, has
no probative value for being hearsay. Such a statement would not
mean that indeed Sanchez is the collector of De Lima. While Martinez
may testify on what Sebastian told him as it is a product of his own
perception, his testimony cannot be used to prove the truth of such
statement without violating the hearsay rule.
Second, the statement of Sebastian that he was instructed by De

Lima to pull in money to fund her senatorial candidacy, as testified to
by Martinez, has no probative value for being hearsay. The testimony
of Martinez cannot be used to prove the truth of such a statement.
In his treatise on the subject, Professor Graham C. Lilly123

described what is hearsay:
The general understanding among lay persons

that hearsay evidence is characterized by a courtroom
123
Peralta & Peralta, Insights on Evidence, (2020), at page 461.
Page 34 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
witnesses testimony about what someone else said is

partially accurate. Hearsay, in fact, does not involve
serial repetition: generally speaking, one person, the
witness repeats what was previously said by another
person, whom we shall call the declarant. But not all
statements made by an out of court declarant are
hearsay. To constitute hearsay, the repeated statement
must be offered for the purpose of proving that what
the declarant said is true.124
Thus, the Court cannot accept the truth of the statement testified
to by a witness who just heard such a statement.
Third, the testimony of Martinez that he saw De Lima and

Bucayu inside the office of Sebastian and that De Lima was introduced
by Sebastian to the commanders of NBP including Martinez is not
worthy of belief for lack of corroboration. It must again be noted, that
the Court cannot accept, without critical evaluation, the testimony of
Martinez. Martinez is not a credible witness for having been convicted
of a crime involving moral turpitude. His testimony is impeachable
coming as it does from the mouth of a witness who is not credible
under the Rules.
Even on the assumption that the testimony of Martinez in this

respect is true, it is not strong enough to establish that there is
conspiracy among the accused to commit illegal drug trading. Meeting
the commanders of NBP is not a crime in itself; neither it is an
indication of the intention to commit a crime.
Fourth, the act of Sachez receiving from Martinez and Sebastian

is not concrete proof of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading
between him and Sebastian. It must be stressed that there was no
testimony that Sanchez instructed Sebastian to raise funds for the
senatorial election of De Lima. Likewise, there was testimonial account
from Martinez that he was instructed by Sanchez to use the inmates of
NBP to pull in funds for the purpose.
I.f.
The Court will now deal with the testimony of Capones.
124
Id.
Page 35 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Sometime in December 2013, Capones was summoned by

Sebastian inside at the bahay na bato. Sebastian told him that they
would need to sell drugs inside and outside of the NBP in order to
gather funds to support De Lima because she was intending to run as
a senator in the 2016 elections.125 Capones told Sebastian to just
summon him if Sebastian would proceed with his plan.126
According to Capones, during the first week of January 2014,

Sebastian called him, and he was instructed to call the other mayores of
Sigue Sigue Sputnik. When he and the thirteen (13) mayores of Sigue
Sigue Sputnik arrived at bahay na bato, Sebastian told them that the plan
to sell drugs inside and outside of the NBP which he and Capones
talked about in December 2013 would now push through.127 All of
them would volunteer to sell drugs outside the NBP. Three (3)
mayores volunteered, to wit: Reynaldo Ponga, Ferdie Morelos, and
Anton Mia.128 Sebastian asked them the contact numbers of the people
they would refer outside NBP and Sebastian told them that he would
be the one to contact them.129
According to Capones, in consideration of their agreement with

Sebastian to sell drugs, they were allowed to use air-condition unit and
motorcycles. They were permitted to have visitors without limit as to
time. They were allowed to drink liquors and use drugs in their
brigade.130
According to Capones, Sebastian together with Catapang,

him in his kubol. Sebastian brought one
(1) kilogram of shabu which he wanted to sell inside the NBP. He
likewise brought with him a weighing scale and gave the one (1) kilo
Capones. Sebastian instructed
Capones that he should sell it within two (2) weeks for the amount of
P1,400,000.00. After Sebastian left, Capones called Ferdie Morelos and
instructed him to repack the one (1) kilo of shabu in twenty (20)
pieces, each containing fifty (50) grams.131
125
TSN dated 16 February 2021, at page 23.
126
Id., at page 25.
127
Id., at page 25-26.
128
Id., at page 26.
129
Id., at page 33.
130
Id., at page 34.
131
TSN, Ibid, at p. 35
Page 36 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Morelos repacked the one (1) kilo of shabu inside the room of
Capones. After repacking, Capones called all the mayores of Sputnik
inside his room and distributed to them the repacked shabu. The
seven (7) mayores were given two (2) packs each while the six (6)
remaining mayores were given one (1) pack each. Capones told them
that each pack costs P75,000.00. In total, the twenty (20) packs of
would be sold for P1,500,000.00. According to Capones,
P1,400,000.00 would be paid to Sebastian and the excess of P100,000.00
would go to the fund of Sputnik. After Capones distributed the packs
of shabu ask payments from
them and remitted the collections to Sebastian, also on a daily basis.132
After two (2) weeks, Capones went to the bahay na bato to remit
his payment to Sebastian. Sebastian again gave Capones one (1) kilo of
. After handing to him the same, Capones asked Sebastian to
give him three (3) weeks to dispose the same and remit the payments
as there were also many s ,
Capones, Sebastian agreed. 133
Upon reaching back his kubol, Capones again called Morelos to

repack the one (1) kilo of shabu into twenty (20) packs, each containing
fifty (50) grams and instructed his escort, Randy, to call the mayores
into his room. When they arrived, the twenty (20) packs of shabu
were again distributed to them. Capones informed them that they
were allowed sell them for three (3) weeks and that he would again
collect payments from them daily.134
Sometime in February 2014, Capones went to Sebastian to remit

his payment. He saw man inside his room. According to Capones,
Sebastian introduced Dera to him. Sebastian told him that Dera is a
nephew of De Lima, and he collects money from him. Dera told
Capones that he would collect money every Wednesdays and
Saturdays. Capones agreed.135
According to Capones, there was one Wednesday when he went

to kubol of Sebastian to remit payment. Again, he saw Dera in the
room of Sebastian. Capones remitted the money to Sebastian and the
latter counted them through his counting machine. After confirming
132
133
Id., at page 39.
134
TSN, Ibid, at p. 40
135
Page 37 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
that the moneys were complete, he gave them to Dera.136 Thereafter,

Sebastian . 137
Just like before, Capones repacked them into 20 packs. He called the
majores came, one of them quipped to Capones if De Lima had

knowledge of their activities. They had inkling that the same were only
orchestrated by Sebastian.138
For which reason, Capones went to Sebastian. He asked him if

the moneys that they were remitting from illegal drugs would really
go to De Lima. Sebastain told him to keep the payments he collected
and not to remit the same on Wednesday and Saturday. He told
Capones that he would call Dera to inform him that Capones would
keep the money in the meantime until the anniversary of the
Commando on 05 March 2014 as De Lima was expected to arrive.139
In the morning of 05 March 2014, according to Capones,

Catapang fetched him as he was summoned by Sebastian.140 He went
to bahay na bato to remit the collection which was placed inside a paper
bag.141 Capones, together with his escorts, proceeded to the receiving
area of the bahay na bato. He handed the paper bag to Sebastian and the
latter asked him if it was complete. Capones assured Sebastian that the
money inside the paper bag in the amount of P1,400,000.0 was
complete. According to Capones, Sebastian no longer counted the
money as De Lima might be on her way there.142 Sebastian placed, the
money on the chair and went back to his seat.143 Sebastain offered
Capones a coffee.
According to Capones, when he and Sebastian were having

coffee, Catapang came in and informed them that De Lima was
coming. Sebastian rose from his seat to welcome De Lima. Later,
Sebastian came back, and De Lima was with him. Capones recalled
that De Lima went straight to the edge of the table where the money
was placed.144 Capones observed that Sebastian and De Lima were
136
Id., at pages
137
Id.
138
Id., at page 43.
139
Id., at page 44.
140
Id., at page 46.
141
Id., at page 47.
142
Id.
143
Id., at page 51.
144
Id., at page 52.
Page 38 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
talking and then he saw Sebastian got the money he delivered to

Sebastian and gave it to De Lima Mam, eto na po yung pera 145
According to Capones, he transacted with Sebastian until

October 2014.146 He stopped transaction with Sebastian when he
learned that he was included among those inmates whose release
papers were being processed.147 Because of this information, Capones
went immediately to Sebastian and informed him that he would stop
as it may affect his chances of being released.148
Sebastian agreed. However, after a few days, Capones was summoned
by Sebastian and informed him that he had to pull out the air
conditioning unit from his room as it was prohibited.149
air conditioning unit was pulled out, he noticed that the rooms of other
mayores had still air-conditioner. He asked Sebastian about it and
Eh ikaw kasi eh, ayaw mong makisama. Buti nga yan
lang ginawa ko sayo 150
When Capones returned, he immediately dismantled his

motorcycle because he knew that it would also be confiscated by
Sebastian as the latter seemed to be mad at him.151 Capones recalled
that it was Sebastian who facilitated the entry of his vehicle into
NBP.152
The Court will analyze the testimony of Capones. In critically

examining the testimony of Capones, the Court applies in pari materia
the manner of evaluating the testimonies of Arile, Diaz, Durano and
Martinez. While Capones may be allowed to testify as a witness, his
testimony must be accepted with a grain of salt. The Court cannot
receive, without critical study, the import of his testimony. It must be
stressed that Capones was convicted for a crime of murder and is
serving sentence for the crime he committed. He committed a heinous
crime, more than those involving moral turpitude. Thus, his testimony
is impeachable as he is not credible witness pursuant to Section 11,
Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence. Thus, the usual manner of
evaluating the testimony of an ordinary witness will not apply to
Capones. His testimony will be subjected to strict scrutiny. Just like
145
Id., at page 53.
146
Id.
147
Id.
148
Id., at page 54.
149
Id., at page 55.
150
Id.
151
152
Id., at page 58.
Page 39 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
manner of analyzing the buy-bust operation, which the Court will

apply in this case by analogy, the testimony of Capones will be
subjected to strict scrutiny test.
The testimony of Capones will not establish conspiracy to

commit illegal drug trading among all accused. Capones never
mentioned the name of Bucayu, Dayan, and Sanchez in the entirety his
direct testimony. He never mentioned transacting with them. He never
testified that he had dealt with or talked to them or delivered money
to them. There was a conspicuous silence on the part of Capones on
Bucayu, Dayan and Sanchez. If we are to believe the testimony of
Capones, he was the one who directly admitted engaging into illegal
drug trading along with Sebastian. However, the link of Bucayu,
Dayan and Sanchez with his illegal drug trading activities was not
established as their names were not even mentioned by Capones.
That Capones testified that Dera was collecting money from

Sebastian is not likewise proof that Dera conspired with Capones and
Sebastian. There is no prior proof that Dera was involved in the
planning, conceptualizing, strategizing, and agreeing to commit illegal
drug trading. Assuming the testimony of Capones to be true, the
import of it is only on the fact that he was collecting money from
Sebastian. There was no prior establishment that he knew that said
money came from illegal drug transactions. Of course, Capones knew
that what he was remitting to Sebastian came from illegal drug
activities and presumably Sebastian likewise knew the same, but their
knowledge cannot be imputed to Dera without prior showing that he
was involved in the planning of the commission of illegal drug trading.
enough to
establish conspiracy.
That Capones saw Sebastian giving money to De Lima during

the anniversary of Commando on 05 March 2014, cannot be accepted
hook, line, and sinker. It must be noted, as previously said, that the
Court will subject the testimony of Capones to strict scrutiny as the
Court finds him not a credible witness for having been convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude. The Court is not unaware of the rule
that positive identification of a witness prevails over denial which is
considered a negative defense. However, the same may be applied to
a witness whose reputation for truth and morality is untarnished. This
is the reason why conviction of crime is one of the manners by which
the testimony of an adverse witness may be impeached. Thus, by itself
Page 40 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
only and without corroboration, the Court is not inclined to believe

that Capones saw Sebastian gave money to De Lima.
The testimony of Capones in this respect is also not credible. For

evidence to be believe, it must not only come from the mouth of a
credible witness but must also be credible in itself. As previously
hammered, Capones is not a credible witness, but more so his
testimony. The test of testimonial credibility is its conformity to
experiential logic and common experience. What is contrary to the
ordinary course of things or human experience should not be believed.
The Supreme Court said in People vs. Calangi:153
The testimony must meet the test of credibility

which requires that it should not only come from the
mouth of a credible witness but should likewise be
credible and reasonable in itself. It must conform to
human knowledge, observation and experience, and
whatever is repugnant to these is outside of juridical
cognizance. (Emphasis supplied)
In a similar manner the Supreme Court likewise ruled in People vs.

Maraorao that:154
While a lone witness' testimony is sufficient to

convict an accused in certain instances, the testimony
must be clear, consistent, and credible qualities we
cannot ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent
that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must
both come from a credible witness and be credible in
itself tested by human experience, observation,
common knowledge and accepted conduct that has
evolved through the years. (Emphasis supplied)
The narrative that Capones portrays is contrary to common

human experience, accepted conduct, and experiential logic. De Lima
is no ordinary person, she is a lawyer, a high-ranking official, and
Secretary of the Department of Justice at that. It defies logic, therefore,
that De Lima would go a to a den of the most dangerous persons in the
country not fully guarded with the amount of security needed for the
occasion. It is likewise contrary to common experience that De Lima
would accept money inside the Maximum Security Compound in the
full view of the inmates therein. It baffles the Court as to why the
Secretary of Justice was so oblivious to the repercussions of her action
153
G.R. No. 179280, August 27, 2009.
154
G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012.
Page 41 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
of brazenly receiving money from a convicted felon and in a place

where she should not be found alone in the first place. Considering her
position in the government in which the Court can take judicial notice,
it is unthinkable why a person in her position would possibly do that.
The story is too extreme to merit belief and consideration especially so
coming as it does from a witness whose credibility is impeached.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Capones saw Sebastian

giving money to De Lima, that in itself would not constitute conspiracy
to commit illegal drug trading. There is no proper showing that De
Lima and Sebastian agreed to engage in illegal drug trading. There is
likewise no evidence that De Lima authorized, allowed, or
commanded Capones nor Sebastian to engage illegal drug trading by
using the inmates of the NBP. What is extant from the records is the
fact that Capones was called by Sebastian to tell him that they had to
sell drugs inside and outside NBP to raise funds for the senatorial
candidacy of De Lima. Assuming that the said conversation indeed
transpired, it will not prove complicity between Sebastian and De
Lima to commit illegal drug trading.
First, the assertion of Sebastian, as testified by Capones, that he

was authorized to raise funds for De Lima should not be given any
probative value for being hearsay. While Capones can testify on the
statement made by Sebastian, his testimony cannot be admitted to
prove the truth of said statement without violating the hearsay rule
under Section 37, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence.
Second, the statement of Sebastian as testified by Capones, while

admissible against the former under Section 27 of the Rules on
Evidence, is not admissible against De Lima and against all the accused
for it will violate the res inter alios acta rule. To reiterate, Section 29 of
the Rules on Evidence provides the rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another, except as
hereinafter provided.
Third, the statement will not also fall under the exception to the
res inter alios acta rule. One of the exceptions to the res inter alios acta
rule is admission by a conspirator under Section 31 of the Rules on
Evidence. In order to qualify as an exception, the following requisites
must be present: 1) that the conspiracy must be first proved by
evidence other than the admission itself; 2) that the admission relates
Page 42 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
to the common object; 3) that it has been made while the declarant was
engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.155
In this case, there is no prior showing that De Lima and Sebastian

or Capones or even Dera agreed to conspire to commit illegal drug
trading. Thus, the act of receiving money from Sebastian is not enough
proof that she conspired to commit illegal drug trading with Sebastian
or Capones or Dera, much less with the other accused.
Fourth, the act of Dera as testified by Capones would not amount

to establishing conspiracy among the accused to commit illegal drug
trading. The act of Dera, assuming it to be true, cannot be used against
the other accused without violating the res inter alios acta rule. The said
act cannot be imputed against De Lima and the other accused. It will
not also fall under the exception in Section 31 of the Rules on Evidence
as there must first be evidence aliunde of the conspiracy apart from the
act or declaration of a conspirator, which in this case is Dera, Sebastian,
or Capones.
It has been consistently ruled that conspiracy exists when two or

more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.156 To be held guilty as a co-conspirator,
the prosecution must be able to show, at the very least, with the same
degree of proof required to establish the crime proof beyond
reasonable doubt, that all participants performed specific acts with
such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or
design to commit the felony.157 The participation in the transaction
must be intentional.158 Otherwise, none of them will be liable as a co-
conspirator, and each may only be held responsible for the results of
his own action.159 The Supreme Court in Cruz vs. People160 ruled that:
The overt act or acts of the accused may consist

of active participation in the actual commission of the
crime itself, or of moral assistance to his co-
conspirators by moving them to execute or implement
the criminal plan. Thus, in a catena of cases, the Court
found mere knowledge, acquiescence, or agreement to
cooperate, mere presence at the scene of the crime at
155
People vs. Estrella, 10250-CR, March 21, 1972, cited in Sibal & Salazar, Compendium
on Evidence (2010), at page 207.
156
People v. Gimpaya, G.R. No. 227395, January 10, 2018.
157
People v. Salga, G.R. No. 233334, July 23, 2018.
158
People v. Bautista, 636 Phil. 535, 555 (2010).
159
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, 790 Phil. 367, 420 (2016).
160
G.R. Nos. 197142 & 197153, October 9, 2019
Page 43 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
the time of its commission, and mere companionship,

insufficient to constitute a conspiracy. (citation
omitted)
In other words, there must be positive and conclusive factual

evidence indicating the existence of conspiracy,161 and not simple
inferences, conjectures, and speculations162 speciously sustained
because it cannot be mere coincidence.
Thus, to conclude that there is conspiracy among the accused to

commit illegal trading by the mere fact Capones saw Sebastian giving
money to Dera or Sebastian giving to De Lima is specious and
conjectural.
I.g
The most important witness for the prosecution is Colanggco

and here is his testimony.
According to Colanggo, Bucayu, De Lima, and an unknown

individual from Malacañang ordered his transfer from the NBP to the
NBI.163
Colanggo testified that during his stint inside the NBP, he was
appointed by OIC Ragos as the Over-All Chairman of the Maximum
Security Compound. As Over-all Chairman, he was the head of more
or less Twenty-Seven Thousand (27,000) inmates.164 As such, he had
the power to transfer other inmates.165 According to him, whenever an
inmate refused to give payola, as the Overall Chairman, he could
transfer them to a kolonyal, either Zamboanga, Davao, and even
Mindoro or Iwahig, where the inmates were most afraid to be
transferred to. As Overall Chairman, it is through him that the requests
and big-time drug lords, were processed including the
entry of women into NBP.166 Colanggo added that he had the power to
smuggle golf carts, electric-powered motor vehicles, drugs, firearms,
161
People v. Argawanon, G.R. No. 106538, March 30, 1994, 231 SCRA 614, 618.
162
People v. Halili, G.R. No. 108662, June 27, 1995, 245 SCRA 340, 352.
163
TSN dated June 13, 2022, at page 52.
164
Id., at page 53.
165
Id., pp. 52-53.
166
Id., page 54.
Page 44 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
liquors, and cellphones.167 To the extent that he could perform concerts

inside NBP or facilitate entries of performers.168
According to Colanggo, he was able to smuggle contraband and

performers through the entry of trucks and closed vans. He narrated
that he would first seek permission from the Superintendent or from
Bucayu or Sanchez. If the contraband was only miniscule, the
facilitation would only be conducted with the lower rank official. If
they were huge, they would have to get permission from De Lima.169
According to Colanggo, requests to smuggle were approved

because of PR Payola 170 It was his talent manager, Diaz, who would
facilitate the entries of these contraband. Also, wherever Colanggo
would perform concerts inside the NBP or would request outside
performers to do show inside, it was Diaz who would facilitate their
entries.171
Colanggo averred that firearms, shabu , cellphones, laptops,

Wi-Fi, sex toys, and cigarettes were carried via the closed vans.172
According to him, all these were possible because of the approval of
Ragos, Bucayu, Sanchez and De Lima.173
Colanggo used to serve as the Overall Chairman of the

Maximum Security Compound until it was interrupted by a
Correction Order which divided NBP into two, between him and
Sebastian. It appeared from the Correction Order that Sebastian would
take care of the 30% of the NBP and the 70% would be assigned to
him.174 Colanggo recalled that the Carcel side which consists of the 70%
of the 27,000 inmates would be assigned to him while the Precidio side
which consists of 30% would be assigned to Sebastian.175
The Carcel Side consisted of eight (8) pangkats namely, BCJ,

Batang Mindanao, Batman, Sperma, BRM, Batang Leyte, and another
one which Colanggo could not recall. 176 As for Jaybee Sebastian, his
167
Id., at page 55.
168
Id., at page 66-67.
169
Id., at page 74.
170
Id., page 74.
171
Id., at page 76.
172
173
Id., at page 81.
174
Id., page 59.
175
Id., page 70.
176
Id., page 71.
Page 45 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
side consisted of 5 pangkats, namely JI, Commando, Bahala na, Sputnik,

and Queno.177 Colanggo lamented the division. 178
Colanggo claimed that he knew Director Bucayu since 2013.179

According to Colanggo, there was one occasion where Bucayu called
him. Bucayu told Colanggo that since he became Director of the BuCor,
he encountered a lot of expenses and for which reason he sought the
assistance of Colanggo.180 Colanggo guaranteed to Bucayu that he was
willing to help would ask his fellow inmates, particularly the big drug
lords about it. Colanggo identified some of the drug-lords from whom
he would ask assistance from, namely Amin Buratong, Ben Marcelo,
Eugene Chua, Willy Yang and others.181 According Colanggo, Bucayu
told him to talk to those people and thereafter talk to Col. Elli.182
According to Colanggo, there was one occasion where Col. Elli

called him at the OIC Office.183 Colanggo was of the impression that
Col. Elli was the right-hand man of Bucayu.184 Sensing that the reason
why Col. Elli wanted to t
assistance, Colanggo told Col. Elli that he and Bucayu already talked
about it.185 Colango told Col. Elli that the big time drug lords could
give P1,200,000.00 which would be delivered every month.186 Later, as
told by him, Colanggo delivered P1,200,000.00 personally to Col.
Elli.187 However, with respect to other deliveries, according to
Colanggo, the same were delivered to Col. Elli through Diaz, his talent
manager.188 Specifically, Colanggo started giving P1,200,000.00 in
September which was given to Col. Elli. However, Colanggo recalled
that in November, he personally gave P1,200,000.00 to Col. Elli189 while
others were through Diaz.190 Since then, Colanggo, through Diaz,
delivered money to Col. Elli, sometimes in his office or sometimes it
was Col. Elli who got the money from the 191
177
Id., page 72.
178
Id., page 73.
179
Id., page 82.
180
Id., page 86.
181
Id., page 88.
182
Id.
183
Id., page 89.
184
Id., at page 91.
185
Id., at page 92.
186
187
Id., at page 93.
188
Id.
189
Id., at page 96.
190
Id., at page 93.
191
Id., at page 105.
Page 46 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
According to Colanggo, Col. Elli got the

about eight (8) to (10) times.192 Per Colanggo , all the money
that he or Diaz delivered to Col. Elli were actually for Bucayu.193 All in
all, Colanggo was able to deliver the money to Bucayu on several
occasions, the amount of P18,000,000.00.194
One time, Bucayu saw Colanggo. Bucayu called him to thank

him. It was then that Colanggo confirmed that the money they
delivered to Col. Elli had reached Bucayu.195 According to Colanggo,
the money that they delivered to Col. Elli came from the drug lords
inside the NBP.196 Colangco averred that he had given total of over
P18,000,000.00) to Bucayu.
Sometime in December 2013, he went to the office of Bucayu to

complain about the raid that was conducted on his turf wherein the
cellphones of the three (3) big-time Chinese drug lords were
confiscated. Colanggo told Bucayu that the drug lords were frustrated
about the raid and therefor
raids should not anymore be conducted. Colanggo wanted their
cellphones to be returned to these drug lords. Bucayu told Colanggo
to just talk to Col. Elli. After several days, the cellphones were
returned.197
According to Colanggo, he was giving P3,000,000.00 as payola

for De Lima for entry of the various contraband. Diaz was the one
delivering the money to Sanchez for De Lima. According to Colanggo,
he started delivering money to Sanchez in October 2013. It was Diaz
who introduced Sanchez to Colanggo.198 He recounted that he first met
Sanchez, he told him that he was willing to give De Lima P3,000,000.00
a month if she would allow the entry of the contraband inside the
BNP.199 Sanchez told Colanggo that he would try to talk to De Lima.200
After (5) five days, Sanchez went to Colanggo and informed the latter
that he already relayed the message to De Lima and Dayan.201
192
Id., at page 107.
193
Id., at page 113.
194
Id., page 30.
195
Id., at page 114.
196
Id., at page 115.
197
TSN dated September 12, 2022, at page 18-23
198
199
Id., at page 44.
200
Id., at page 45.
201
Id., at page 50.
Page 47 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
It was the understanding of Colanggo that De Lima accepted his

offer.202
According to Colanggo, he started giving Sanchez P3,000,000.00

in October 2013 until November 2014.203 There were instances that
Sanchez would personally get the money from Colanggo himself who
according to him, was eight (8) to ten (10) times.204 There were times
that it was Diaz who would deliver the money to Sanchez.205 From
October 2013 to November 2014, Colanggo had given a total of Forty-
Five Million Pesos (P45,000,000.00) to Sanchez.206 According to
Colanggo, all the money came from the drug lords.207 He recounted
once instance when he gave Sanchez P1,000,000.00.208
Sometime in January 2014, when Sanchez was getting money

from Colanggo, the latter asked Sanchez if he could talk to De Lima.
Para wala ka naming tiwala as akin. Sige dial mo 209
Sanchez gave the phone number to Colanggo. Using Sanchez phone,
Colanggo dialed the number. When he dialed the number, the word
210 Colanggo told Sanchez to first
talk to the person on the other side of the line. He gave the phone back
to Sanchez and
Herbert 211 Then Sanchez gave his phone to Colanggo and the latter
greeted, he woman on the other side of the line
Oh, Herbert Kamusta ka Ok
Colanggo told the woman, , may bagong
instruction si Joenel Ah, sige Herbert bahala na
kayo dyan 212 According to Colanggo, the instruction of Joenel that he
was referring pertained to the invitation of Sebastian to help De Lima
for her senatorial candidacy in 2016 election.213 After Colanggo was
able to talk De Lima through phone, he was able to confirm that the
P3,000,000.00 that he was giving to Sanchez was indeed for De Lima.214
202
Id.
203
Id. at page 55.
204
Id., at page 54.
205
Id., at page 55.
206
Id., page 58.
207
Id.
208
Id., at page 74.
209
Id., at page 60.
210
Id.
211
Id., at page 61.
212
Id.
213
Id.
214
Id., at page 62.
Page 48 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
In fact, Colanggo told De Lima that Sanchez got the P3,000,000.00 in

Okay, Herbert, Thank you 215
According to Colanggo, he was able to get the number of De

Lima through Diaz. When Sanchez was dictating the phone number of
De Lima, Diaz surreptitiously got it and dialed it on his cellphone and
then Diaz gave it to Colanggo.216
Colanggo sent a text message to the phone number which Diaz

gave to Colanggo. He texted the said number good morning
si Herbert po ito 217 After two (2) days, his text messaged was
answered wag kang mag text dito, wait ka sa ibang number may itetext
ako sayo 218 After one (1) or two (2) weeks, Colanggo received a text
message informing him of the phone number where he could freely
send text messages.219 After that, according to Colanggo, he used to
text the number almost every month.220
Sometime in May 2014, Colanggo received a call from a woman

whom he believed to be De Lima. He was instructed by the woman to
throw away his cellphone because Magalong would be conducting a
raid inside NBP.221
During the first week of January 2014, Colanggo was invited by

Sebastian to the latter s turf in Presidio side where Sebastian tried to
convince Colanggo for them to work together as team to dispose the
drugs of the Chinese inmates and help raise funds to help De Lima in
her senatorial candidacy.222 Colanggo agreed. According to Colanggo,
he was half-hearted as he did not trust Sebastian. Consequently, he did
revert to Sebastian.
Later, Sanchez went to and asked him why

he did not come to Sebastian anymore. The latter told Sanchez that he
did not trust Sebastian. Sanchez told Colanggo to just settle their
differences. Colanggo pointed out to Sanchez that he did not want to
be side lined by Sebastian. He just told Sanchez that he would continue
215
Id.
216
Id., at page 63-64.
217
Id., at page 68.
218
Id.
219
Id.
220
Id., at page 69.
221
Id., at page 70.
222
Id., at page 90-91.
Page 49 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
collecting the campaign funds for De Lima and he wanted Sanchez to

inform De Lima about it to maintain his good graces with her.223
Eventually, Co group was tasked to sell ten (10) kilos of

shabu every month until October 2014. For every ten (10) kilos of
shabu worth P2,000,000.00, half of the proceeds went to Colanggo
while the other half went to election funds. To raise more
funds, Colanggo facilitated the drug deals by pointing out where and
to whom the drug buyers should go. Drugs ranging from five (5) to ten
(10) kilos were smuggled and sold wholesale to the Chinese, then,
subsequently repacked into smaller quantities. As Chairman, he
personally witnesses the actual selling of drugs in the NBP particularly
at the Cartel side. His collection from illegal drug transactions
amounted to more than 100 million. Also, he had thrice collected
P500,000 from Baligad.224
In April 2014, De Lima paid Colanggo a visit in his kubol. De

Lima and Bucayu entered the studio and stayed there for more than
thirty (30) minutes. According to Colanggo, he gave De Lima a Hermes
Bag which contained $10,000.00 inside.225 Colanggo recounted,
226 nice, thank you De Lima
instructed Colanggo to look for a shopping bag and place the bag
inside and give it to Sanchez when he returned.227
According to Colangco, he was able to supply money to De Lima

until November 2014 due to his inclusion in the matrix. According to
the matrix, he was tagged as a financier 228 His last conversation with
Sanchez was during the same month. On 15 December 2015, he was
transferred to the NBI. 229 In the early morning of 15 December 2014,
the raid took place, but Magalong was not included in the raid.
There were nineteen (19) inmates who were transferred to

NBI.230
After the raid, Colanggo requested to talk to De Lima. After a
few minutes, he was called inside the conference room. De Lima told
Colanggo that his stay at the NBI would only be temporary.231
223
Id., at page 93.
224
Id., at page 95-96.
225
Id., page 102.
226
Id.
227
Id., at page 103.
228
Id., page 104.
229
Id., page 106.
230
Id., page 107.
231
Id., page 110.
Page 50 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
The Court will not examine the testimony of Colanggo.
In examining the testimony of Colanggo, the Court will apply

the manner of evaluation employed to the testimonies of Arile, Diaz,
Durano, Martinez and Capones. It must be pointed out that Colanggo
was convicted and is serving sentence for a crime of robbery with
homicide, a heinous crime and a crime involving moral turpitude. As
such, he is not a reliable witness. Again, one of the ways of impeaching
the testimony of an adverse witness is conviction of an offense.232 The
reason for the rule is that those convicted of an offense is likely or at
least more likely than one who has not to give false testimony.233 In
People vs. Nanas,234 the Supreme Court ruled:
It is true that under the Rules of Court, a witness

may be impeached by evidence that his general
reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity is bad.
However, a witness cannot be impeached by evidence
of particular wrongful acts unless there is a showing of
previous conviction by final judgment such that not
even the existence of a pending information may be
shown to impeach him. In the present case, there was
no testimony that the reputation of Beatisola for truth,
honesty or integrity is bad. The defense merely
presented evidence of the witness's alleged previous
wrongful acts by the introduction into evidence of
criminal complaints filed by police officers and
offended parties against the witness before the
municipal trial court. There is no showing that these
cases were eventually tried and that Beatisola was
convicted thereof. Thus, they only establish that
criminal complaints were filed against the witness and
as such, the fact thus established will not detract from
Beatisola's competence as a witness.235
Conversely, if the defense in People vs. Nanas was able to show proof
that the witness for the prosecution was convicted of an offense, then
his reputation for truth, honesty or integrity would be affected.
Moreover, just like in a buy-bust operation, the testimony of Colanggo
will be subjected to strict scrutiny. Thus, the Court will be more
discerning in evaluating the testimony of a convicted felon, as in this
case.
232
Section 11, Rules 132, 2019 Rule on Evidence.
233
Peralta & Peralta, Insights on Evidence, supra., at page 814.
234
G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001.
235
Id.
Page 51 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
The testimony of Colanggo is not sufficient to establish

conspiracy among the accused. Specifically, no where in the testimony
of Colanggo did he ever mention Dera. Neither did his testimony
mention that he personally met Dayan. The personas in his testimony
were only De Lima, Bucayu, Sanchez, and Col. Elli. However, critically
scrutinizing his testimony, although he mentioned them, and relayed
their supposed participation, it will not amount to establishing
conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading.
Nowhere from his testimony that he mentioned that he was

instructed by De Lima to sell illegal drug to support her candidacy.
in the amount of P3,000,000.00 a month. Neither did he inform De

Lima that the P3,000,000.00 he was giving came from the sale of illegal
drugs. The proposal to trade illegal drugs ,
did not come from De Lima but Sebastian. The latter suggested to
Colanggo to consolidate their operation to raise funds for the
senatorial candidacy of De Lima. This statement of Sebastian, as
testified by Colanggo, cannot be used against De Lima because it is
be used to prove the truth of
Sebastian statement. While it may be admitted proving the fact that
it was uttered or stated by Sebastian, the admission will only be limited
to the fact that it was stated or spoken, but not to prove the truth of the
matter asserted by the statement. This is the concept of hearsay under
Section 37, Rule 130 of Rules on Evidence which provides:
Hearsay is a statement other than one made by

the declarant while testifying at a trial or hearing,
offered to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein.
A statement is (1) an oral or written assertion or (2) a
non-verbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him
or her as an assertion. Hearsay evidence is
inadmissible except as otherwise provided in these
Rules. (underscoring supplied)
The reason for the rebuff of hearsay evidence lies in its essence.
It serves as a medium of proof of the fact asserted without the benefit
of the tests employed to ascertain the truth thereof. Certainly, the
author of the original statement does not undergo the ritual of an oath
and is therefore not vulnerable to the penal sanction of an oath.236 The
statement of Sebastian cannot prove the complicity of all the accused,
except of course to the exception of Sebastian, in the commission of
236
Peralta & Peralta, supra, at page 470.
Page 52 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
illegal drug trading. Even more, Sebastian did not mention to

Colanggo that he was instructed by De Lima to raise funds for her.
The adverted act of Sebastian, as testified by Colanggo, cannot

be used as evidence against De Lima and the other accused without
violating the res inter alios acta rule in Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules
on Evidence. While the act of Sebastian, as testified by Colanggo may
be admitted as evidence against him pursuant to Section 27, Rule 130
of the Rules,237 it may not be admitted against De Lima and the other
accused.
Also, nowhere from the testimony of Colanggo that Sanchez

instructed him to engage in illegal drug trading.
According to Colanggo, when he first met Sanchez, he told him

that he was willing to give De Lima P3,000,000.00 a month if she would
allow the entry of the contraband inside the NBP.238 Sanchez told
Colanggo that he would try to talk to De Lima.239 After (5) five days,
Sanchez went to Colanggo and informed the latter that he already
relayed the message to De Lima and Dayan.240
But what are the contrabands that Colanggo would like to have
entry into NBP? According to Colanggo:
Q: So, ano ngayon ang naging sagot ni Joenel

yang mga
bagay nay an?
A: an oba yung
sinasabi mo ipapasok ng mga tao?
Q:
A:
dito tulad ng mga tiles, kung magpagawa sila
kubol, mga jacuzzi sauna bath ba
ang tawag doon sauna, at saka yung mga motor
de kuryente nila, kasi nd motor de kuryente
noon panahon na iyon, 241
237
Section 27. Admission of a party. The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him or her.
238
TSN dated September 12, 2022, at page 44.
239
Id., at page 45.
240
Id., at page 50.
241
Id., at page 45.
Page 53 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
If indeed the conversation between Sanchez and Colanggo

happened, that would still not amount to conspiracy to commit illegal
drug trading between Colanggo and Sanchez, much less to the other
accused in this case. The supposed proposal of Colanggo to Sanchez
was for the entry of the contraband he mentioned above. It does not
pertain to illegal drug trading.
That Colanggo admitted that the total amount of P45,000,000242

that were delivered to Sanchez, either personally or through Diaz,
came from drug lords,243 the said statement will not amount to
conspiracy and its probative value is less for lack of corroboration.
assertation that he was able to talk to De Lima

through the phone of Sanchez cannot be fully relied upon. The Court
will accept the import of
grain of salt coming as it does from the mouth of a witness who is not
credible. edible in itself.
Evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible witness
must be credible in itself. On both aspects, the testimony of Colanggo
will fail to pass.
How Colanggo was able to talk to De Lima is doubtful. Colanggo

testified that sometime in January 2014, when Sanchez was getting
money from him, he asked Sanchez if he could talk to De Lima.
Para wala ka naming tiwala as akin. Sige dial mo 244
Colanggo dialed the number. When he dialed the number the word
245
This contrary to common experience, if Colanggo

phone, why would Sanchez have to dictate the phone number of De
Lima. Sanchez could have dialed the number and gave the phone to
Colanggo. Or, he could have instructed Colanggo to look for the name
phone number to Colanggo
while using the phone of Sanchez is contrary to expected behavior.
Assuming that it did happen, it is still incredible for Colanggo to

recognize the voice of De Lima on the cellphone of Sanchez. Colanggo
is not familiar with the voice of De Lima on the phone. He has never
242
Id., page 58.
243
Id.
244
Id., at page 60.
245
Id.
Page 54 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
spoken with De Lima on the phone. His familiarity with the voice of
De Lima was nil, more so through the phone.
Moreover, Colanggo only heard short syllable words from the

supposed De Lima. He heard, Oh, Herbert, Kamusta ka and Ah, sige
Herbert bahala na kayo dyan Considering that Colanggo has not ever
spoken with De Lima on the phone, not even on one occasion, he
would not be able to identify with accuracy that the voice on
circumstances, to believe the testimony of Colanggo that he could

identify the voice of De Lima on Sanchez
The Court will apply the study of Christoper Sherrin which has
been quoted previously. Applying the said study, the Court is of the
view that considering the short exposure of Colanggo to the supposed
voice of De Lima on Sanchez
Oh, Herbert Kamusta ka and Ah, sige Herbert bahala na kayo dyan
Colanggo cannot, with reliable accuracy, be able to identify that the
voice w
That Colanggo was able to get the phone number of De Lima and
exchanged text messages with her using that phone number is not
concrete proof that on the other side of the line was De Lima. How
could the Court know with accuracy that the one texting Colanggo was
De Lima? Anybody can text through using the said number. To
conclude that it was De Lima whom Colanggo was texting with, based
on the testimony of Colanggo, is specious and conjectural. Thus, those
pieces of testimonial evidence are not strong proof of conspiracy
between De Lima and Colanggo to engage in illegal drug trading.
Colanggo testified that and there

$10,000.00. The story which
Colanggo portrays is contrary to common human experience, accepted
conduct, and experiential logic. De Lima is no ordinary person, she is
a lawyer, a high-ranking official, and a Secretary of the Department of
Justice at that. It defies logic, therefore, that De Lima would go to a den
of the most dangerous persons in the country not fully guarded with
the amount of security needed for the occasion. It is likewise contrary
to common experience that De Lima would accept money inside the
Maximum Security Compound in the full view of the inmates therein.
It baffles the Court as to why the Secretary of Justice was so oblivious
of the repercussions of her action of brazenly receiving money from a
convicted felon and in a place where she should not be found alone in
Page 55 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
the first place. Considering her position in the government which the
Court can take judicial notice, it is unthinkable why a person in her
position would possibly do that. The story is too extreme to merit belief
and consideration, especially when it comes from a witness whose
credibility is impeached.
In his testimony, Colanggo implicated Bucayu in the drug trade.

According to Colanggo, there was one occasion when Bucayu called
him. Bucayu told Colanggo that since he became Director of BuCor, he
encountered a lot of expenses, for which reason he sought the
assistance of Colanggo.246 Colanggo guaranteed to Bucayu that he was
willing to help and would ask his fellow inmates, particularly the big
drug lords about it. Colanggo identified some of the drug lords from
whom he would ask assistance, namely Amin Buratong, Ben Marcelo,
Eugene Chua, Willy Yang and others.247 According to Colanggo,
Bucayu told him to talk to those people whom he mentioned and
thereafter talk to Col. Elli.248
Again, the Court cannot accept hook, line and sinker the
testimony of Colanggo on this respect. Colanggo is not a credible
witness. He is a convicted felon for the crime of robbery with homicide.
Unless corroborated, his testimony will be accepted with a grain of
salt. Unfortunately, the testimony of Colanggo that he was summoned
by Bucayu was not corroborated. None of the associates of Colanggo
ever confirmed such meeting. While the Court is not unaware of the
rule that the testimony of one witness is sufficient to sustain a
conviction if such testimony positively establishes the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt,249 however, such rule is
inapplicable in this case considering the credibility of Colanggo. As
previously said, he is a convicted felon, thus, his credibility as witness
is greatly affected. Consequently, it not unreasonable for the Court to
demand corroboration to his testimony before the Court can accord
credence to it.
Besides, the Court observes that Colanggo has the penchant of

changing his testimony. During his testimony in the House of
Representatives (House) or in his Salaysay submitted to the House, he
never mentioned Bucayu. It was only now when he testified in this
246
TSN dated June 13, 2022, at page 86.
247
Id., page 88.
248
Id.
249
People vs. Tomaqui, G.R. No. 133188, July 23, 2004.
Page 56 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
case that he implicated Bucayu. For which reason, the Court is not
inclined to believe his testimony.
In its totality, the testimony of Colanggo will not establish

conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading, whether expressly or
impliedly, among all the accused, except Sebastian. The testimony
coming as it does from convicted felon, is not reliable. It is inconsistent
on material points. It is contrary to human experience and expected
behavior.
testimony.
I.h
Now, the testimony of Baligad.
Baligad started serving his sentence in 2008 at the NBP for

murder and drugs. He stayed at the Building for 4-B pangkat ng Batang
City Jail (BCJ).250 During his membership in the BCJ, he has served as
the Vice-Mayor, Mayor, and adviser. His basic duties and
responsibilities involved running a brigada, which meant that they
fixed every problem that the inmates encountered. He professed that
he was considered the leader of BCJ. 251
According to Baligad, he started trading illegal drugs inside the

NBP during the last week of December 2012. Their scheme was to buy
from other inmates who do wholesale of drugs and then sell them in
retail or tingi-tingi.252 Baligad identified Eric Mendoza as his supplier
of shabu. Eric Mendoza was a former BCJ member. Baligad started
buying from Mendoza 100 grams of shabu and then would resell them
in retail to their co-members in BCJ.253 He averred that the BCJ were
close to 4,000 in number. Baligad maintained that he started to buy and
sell shabu to cover the expenses of their Anniversary on February 14,
2012. In 2012, the Director of the NBP then was OIC Ragos.254
Baligad explained that their illicit activities were surreptitiously

made as the transactions only happened in their brigada. They were not
250
TSN dated March 20, 2023, page 12.
251
Id., page 13.
252
Id., page 15.
253
Id., page 16.
254
Id., page 18.
Page 57 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
seen by the other inmates and guards.255 Baligad professed that his
transactions with Mendoza were done on a weekly basis.256
The proceeds of the sale in December 2012 were initially used in

their fundraising however, the proceeds from the first week of January
were used to pay the former Commander of the BCJ, Froilan Trestiza.
Trestiza informed them that OIC Ragos was asking One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) weekly to allow the pangkat to continue
their illicit activities.257
Baligad complied with OIC

on two occasions258 in January 2013. Baligad claimed that he also gave
money to Herbert Colanggo, a former BCJ member, in the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) during the last week of
January 2013. Baligad explained that he paid Colanggo as the latter
was the one who coordinated with OIC Ragos.
According to Baligad, he also gave money to Col. Elli, who went

to BuCor at the same time as Bucayu. Baligad clarified that in 2013,
Bucayu assumed the position of OIC Ragos when the latter was
removed. He claimed that he first met Col. Elli around May or June of
2013.259
Baligad recounted that Col. Elli called him and his co-inmates
who were also involved in drug trading to the office of the OIC of
Maximum Prison. At the time, the OIC was Magtalas. They talked
about the past given to OIC Ragos.260 The inmates who were
O, Jojo kilala ka namin. Alam naming yung ginagawa mo dito. Kung

gusto mong magpatuloy yung ginagawa Ninyo. Kailangan makisama kayo sa
amin. Kalian magbigay ka rin for the boys.
Baligad gave Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00).261 Col. Elli placed the
money in his pocket.
After that meeting, Baligad claimed that he gave money to Col.

Elli on several more occasions. Col. Elli frequently called him and
asked for money. All in all, Baligad gave a total of P3,000,000.00 to
255
Id., page 21.
256
Id., page 23.
257
Id., page 26.
258
Id., page 28.
259
Id., page 30.
260
Id., page 31.
261
Id., page 32.
Page 58 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
P5,000,000.00.
Willfredo.262
263
The testimony of Baligad will not establish conspiracy to commit

illegal drug trading. First, in the entirety of his direct testimony, never
did he mention the names of De Lima, Dayan, Sanchez, and Dera.
Neither did he narrate the participation of the said accused in illegal
drug trading. Likewise, he never mentioned that the said accused
received money from him, whether directly or indirectly. While
Baligad mentioned the name of Bucayu, he mentioned it in the context
of Col. Elli being the subordinate of Bucayu. Nowhere from his
testimony that he mentioned that he gave money to Bucayu or that the
latter knew about his illegal drug activities.
Second, his testimony that he was summoned by Col. Elli to ask

he gave money to Col. Elli will not
establish complicity among accused De Lima, Bucayu, Dayan,
Sanchez, and Dera. Aside from the fact that the prosecution was not
able to establish that the said accused directed Col. Elli to collect
money from Baligad, the act of Col. Elli as testified by Baligad cannot
be used against the said accused without violating the res inter alios acta
rule under Section 29, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. While it may
be admitted against Col. Elli pursuant to Section 27, Rule 130 of the
Rules on Evidence, the same cannot be admitted against said accused.
It will not likewise fall under the exception to res inter alios acta under
Section 31, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. For exception to apply,
the conspiracy must be established by evidence other than the act or
declaration of co-conspirator.
I.i.
Magalong testified that as Chief of the Criminal and

Investigation Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National
Police (PNP), he participated in an investigation or case building up of
cases involving dangerous drugs especially the illegal drug trading
occurring inside NBP. Initially, they conducted investigating PNP
personnel involved in the so called Agaw Bato scheme.264 Agaw-
262
Id., page 33.
263
Id., page 36.
264
TSN dated September 11, 2018, page 8.
Page 59 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Bato -drug operatives wherein

after a particular operation, resulting in a positive seizure of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, they would declare a nominal
amount, and then the rest of the seized items were being shared among
them and sold back to the market.265
Magalong claimed that most of the personnel involved were

members of the PNP, and some were members of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Thus, Magalong and his group hatched
COPLAN CRONUS.
was a case build-up operation
with the end goal of identifying all people or personalities actually
involved in the drug trading in the NBP and, at the same time,
identifying all law enforcement personnel in cahoots with these high-
profile drug personalities inside the NBP.266
As a result of COPLAN CRONUS, they were able to identify

several personalities, mostly Chinese individuals inside the NBP. They
were able to identify police personnel, as well as other law
enforcement anti-drug operatives who were also involved in the illicit
trade of drugs.267 The NBP personnel who were complicit in providing
support to these high-profile Chinese personalities inside the NBP
were identified. Also identified were those drug personalities and local
personalities who were involved in drugs and were living luxuriously
inside the NBP. Additionally, evidence gathered would show that
firearms, drugs, and drug trade were prevalent inside the NBP. This
so-called COPLAN CRONUS was reduced to writing. 268
According to Magalong, he realized that CIDG alone could not

act on this operation, and so they decided to confer with De Lima who
was then the Secretary of Justice. 269
Magalong recalled that he asked one of his officers, the Former

Head of CIDG-NCR, General Robert Fajardo, who has worked with
De Lima, to contact her and set up a meeting.270 They were able to
secure a meeting with De Lima. In that meeting, they narrated to her
only their initial findings gathered from the ongoing implementation
265
Id., page 9.
266
Id.
267
Id.
268
Id., page 10.
269
Id.
270
Id.
Page 60 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
or execution of COPLAN CRONUS. They informed her that they had

all these pieces of evidence that would indicate that the NBP personnel
were in cahoots with these Chinese personalities as well as the local
drug dealers. According to Magalong, De Lima appeared to be
interested and was very enthusiastic. She was cooperative, and
immediately scheduled another high-level meeting.271
It took almost a month to schedule another meeting which finally

took place on June 2014 at the conference room of the Department of
Justice.272 Those in attendance were Director-General Cacdac, General
Año, who was the Secretary of Interior and Local Government at that
time, Director Mendez of the National Bureau of Investigation,
General Fajardo who was then a Police Superintendent, PSupt. Danny
Masirin, and Col. Marcelino of the Philippine Marines detailed to
PDEA then.273 It was an organizational meeting and there were
exchanges of information. Magalong claimed that he recommended
General Cacdac, then the Director General of PDEA, to serve as the
head of the task force. 274
After the meeting, De Lima ordered to start the operational

planning. Magalong recalled that they had four (4) meetings held on
July 7, July 9, July 11, and July 15 all in 2014. On the 07 July 2014
meeting, the present were Supt. Roberto Fajardo, Supt. Danny Masirin,
Agent Randy Pedroso of the Intelligence of the PDEA, Lt. Col.
Marcelino, a few agents from the NBI, and some support personnel
from the PDEA.275
At the 07 July 2014 meeting, the initial agenda was to brief the
attendees on the Case Operation Plan: Cronus, including some of their
initial findings. They decided to hold another meeting to discuss the
actual operation planning. The next meeting was held on 09 July 2014
at the same venue and with almost the same attendees. 276
On 11 July 2014, Magalong recounted that they continued their

operational plan, but they realized that without the cooperation of
Bucayu, who was then the Director of BuCor, they would encounter
some restraints and difficulties.277
271
Id.
272
Id., page 11.
273
Id., at page 12.
274
Id.
275
Id., page 13.
276
Id.
277
Id., at page 14.
Page 61 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Consequently, Magalong called De Lima and asked permission

if he could invite Bucayu to the meeting.278 Magalong contacted
Bucayu and invited him to the planning session held on 15 July 2014.279
During the 15 July 2014 meeting, Bucayu was asked to explain

the dynamics inside the NBP.280 Bucayu said that it would be very
difficult to implement the plan and conduct a raid in NBP considering
that the inmates might turn violent, and that the operation might be
compromised as there was money going around inside NBP. He
suggested to just apply for a search warrant instead.281 Also, aside from
these reasons, Bucayu admitted that he also feared for his life.282
According to Magalong, based on what he heard from Bucayu, he had
the impression that he was discouraging them from proceeding with
the plan.283
After a series of meetings, Magalong told De Lima that General

Cacdac was adamant leading the operation. Also, he told De Lima that
he had some issues with Bucayu being involved in that operation.
According to Magalong, De Lima acknowledged the issues he put
forth and volunteered to lead the operation.284
De Lima and Magalong agreed that there would be a Joint Letter

of Instruction to be signed by her and Mar Roxas, the former Secretary
of Interior and Local Government. The Joint Letter of Instruction was
intended as the legal cover to implement the plan. However, the Joint
Letter of Instruction was never signed by the two (2) secretaries.285
When the Joint Letter of Instruction was not signed, Magalong

waited for the advice of De Lima. According to Magalong, they waited
until December 2014.286
According to Magalong, he was called for a meeting with

General Marcelo Garbo (Gen. Garbo), the then Deputy Chief for
Operation of PNP. The meeting had nothing to do with the planned
278
Id.
279
Id.
280
Id.
281
Id., page 15.
282
Id.
283
Id.
284
Id., at page 16.
285
Id.
286
Id., at page 7.
Page 62 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
operation in the NBP as it concerned the on going operations of the

CIDG. Magalong noticed that somebody called Gen. Garbo through
cellphone, and he heard that they were talking about the upcoming
operation in NBP.287 After Gen. Garbo put down the phone, he asked
him if the operation was all about the NBP and Gen. Garbo answered
in affirmative.288 Gen. Garbo told Magalong that the PDEA, the
National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO), and the NBI were part
of the operation. But Gen. Garbo did not mention the CIDG. 289
Immediately, Magalong called up Randy Pedroso, the head of

the Intelligence Service of the PDEA, to inquire. Pedroso informed
Magalong that his knowledge about the operation was vague and that
his only knowledge was the Department of Justice was asking for the
deployment of the K-9. Consequently, Magalong convened his staff
and asked them if they received any information or order that the
CIDG would be involved in the operation in NBP, to which they
answered in the negative.290 But, Magalong kept silent on the operation
to prevent it from being burnt.
The raid in NPB was implemented on December 14, 2014.

According to Magalong, he and his team monitored the raid through
the media and through their own informants inside the NBP.
According to Magalong, the operation was successful, considering that
huge number of contrabands, drugs, firearms, and money were
discovered and recovered. The raiding was also able to identify and
isolate all those high-profile personalities.291
According to Magalong, based on their intelligence report, the

drug personalities included in their data gathering were identified
during the raid. Magalong named some of them: Peter Co, Ben
Marcelo, Vicente Sy, Jaybee Sebastian, Colangco, and Amin Boratong,
Willy Ong, and William Ang. Most of them were isolated in detained
in the NBI.292
testimony in relation to the indictment against all the accused.
287
Id., at page 18.
288
Id., page 18.
289
Id., page 19.
290
Id.
291
Id., pages 20-21.
292
Id., page 21.
Page 63 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Obviously, the testimony of Magalong will not establish

conspiracy among the accused to commit illegal drug trading. His
testimony centers on the initial investigation that CIDG conducted
concerning the illegal drug trading inside NBP. In the initial
investigation that CIDG conducted, the names of De Lima, Bucayu,
Dayan, Sanchez, Dera and Col. Elli were not mentioned. Among the
accused, it was only Sebastian who was included in the list of drug
personalities operating inside the NBP as gathered by the investigation
of CIDG.
timony is to establish that

Bucayu was involved in drug trading inside NBP because of his
hesitancy to proceed with the planned operation, the prosecution is
failing. The hesitancy of Bucayu will not amount to involvement or
participation in illegal drug trading.
As to De Lima, the testimony of Magalong is even confirmatory

of her lack of involvement in illegal drug trading inside NBP.
According to Magalong, when they informed De Lima about the result
of their initial investigation regarding illegal drug trading activities
inside the NBP involving Chinese and local drug personalities, she
became interested. In fact, De Lima initiated the meetings to plan the
operation. And the raid was conducted on December 14, 2014, which
If De Lima were involved in illegal drug trading inside NBP and

profiting from it, why did she pursue and implement the raid on
December 14, 2014? If De Lima were already receiving money either
from Sebastian or Colanggo or from Capones even before December
14, 2014,
there is no rhyme or reason for her to give a green light to the
raid conducted on December 14, 2014, which according to Magalong
was successful Presumably, the prosecution is putting forth the
theory that the reason for the raid was for Sebastian to centralize the
illegal drug trading inside NBP. Indeed, it is one of the inculpatory
allegations in the Information:
by using the inmates of the National Bilibid

Prison, to sell and trade dangerous drugs by means of
mobile phones and electronic devices, without being
authorized by law, and receiving the proceeds thereof
totalling to approximately Seventy Million
(70,000,000.00) Pesos; and thereafter conducting a raid
inside the Maximum Security Compound of the New
Page 64 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Bilibid Prison to the exclusion of Sebastian thereby

allowing him to centralize, control and monopolize the
drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison.
It is observed, however, that the prosecution was not able to

establish that Sebastian was able to centralize the operation after
December 14, 2014. The evidence is likewise dearth that Sebastian
continued delivering money to De Lima, personally or through
intermediaries, after December 14, 2014. All the alleged deliveries were
made before the raid. If these were so, why would De Lima order the
raid, if, in the first place, she was part of the drug trading and
benefiting from it? These are some loose ends which the prosecution
failed to connect.
II.
The Court will digress on the allegation in the Information. The

Information alleges:
, be in then the Secretary of the

Department of Justice, Franklin Jesus B. Bucayu, being
then the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Joenel
Tan Sanchez, being then a member of the Area Security
of the Presidential Security Group detailed to De Lima,
Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee of the
Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, Wilfredo G.
Philippine National Police, Jaybee Nino Manicad

Sebastian, being an inmate of the National Bilibid
Prison and
together and helping one another, did then and there

willfully and unlawfully decide and agree to commit
illegal drug trading, in the following manner: by using
the inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, to sell and trade
dangerous drugs by means of mobile phones and other
electronic devices without being authorized by law,
and receiving the proceeds thereof totalling to
approximately Seventy Million Pesos (P70,000,000.00);
and thereafter conducting a raid inside the maximum
security compound of the New Bilibid Prison to the
exclusion of Sebastian thereby allowing him to
centralize, control and monopolize the drug trade
inside the New Bilibid Prison.
Page 65 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
From the allegation in the Information, it can be deciphered that

De Lima, Bucayu, Col. Elli, Dayan, Sanchez, Dera and Sebastian
conspired to commit illegal drug trading. The allegation of conspiracy
pertains to all of them; each of them is alleged to take part in the
agreement. Thus, it is logical to expect that each of them would
perform acts which if weaved together, would constitute an agreement
to commit illegal drug trading. Therefore, the respective acts of each
accused must indicate unity of criminal design.
Moreover, an intelligent reading of the information will give a

reasonable impression that conspiracy is not only between De Lima
and Sebastian; or, Bucayu and Sebastian; or Dayan and Sebastian; or,
Sanchez and Sebastian and so on. The conspiracy is alleged to have
been participated in by all the accused; each performing acts geared
towards the accomplishing a common criminal design. This must be
so, to apply the principle that the act of one is the act of all.
The evidence so far presented by the prosecution failed to prove

the individual act of the accused which when combined, will prove
complicity. For instance, what overt act may be imputed to De Lima to
conclude that she agreed to engage in illegal drug trading inside the
NBP. His supposed conversation with Colanggo, not to mention its
lack of credence will not prove that he instructed Colanggo to trade
drugs inside the NBP. His supposed act of receiving Hermes bag
containing $10,000.00 is not a clear indicative that she authorized
Colanggo and any other inmates to trade drug inside NBP.
Likewise, Diaz testimony having heard De Lima saying on the

Okay, so bilisan nyo; or Capones testimony seeing Sebastian
giving money to De Lima, even if the Court assumes them to be true,
is not sufficient proof of overt acts leading to conspiracy. There was no
evidence that De Lima authorized, commanded or requested Sebastian
or Capones to raise funds for her senatorial candidacy by using
inmates in selling illegal drugs. These supposed acts of De Lima cannot
be imputed against other accused.
The act of Dayan, Sanchez and Dera of receiving money from the
or Sebastian or Colanggo is not enough proof of an overt act
constituting conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading among all of
them. Nowhere in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses was it
mentioned that Dayan, Sanchez and Dera instructed or commanded or
requested Sebastian, Colanggo, Capones or Martinez to use the
inmates of the NBP in trading illegal drugs. The same can be said to
Page 66 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
the supposed delivery of money to Col. Elli. In other words, each act
imputed to the individual accused is so distinct from each other; they
are fragmented; they are not aligned; and they will not establish unity
of criminal design. To impute the acts of individual accused as
constituting commonality of criminal objective among them will be
specious and conjectural. As apt ruled by the Supreme Court in
Salapudin vs. Court of Appeals:293
It must be shown that the person concerned has

performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of
the complicity. In fact, mere knowledge, acquiescence
or approval of the act, without the cooperation or
approval to cooperate, is not sufficient to prove
conspiracy. There must be positive and conclusive
factual evidence indicating the existence of
conspiracy, and not simple inferences, conjectures
and speculations speciously sustained because "[i]t
cannot be mere coincidence. (underscoring supplied)
Lastly, among all the accused, it was only Sebastian who was
proven to have committed illegal drug trading. Based on the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, there are direct pieces
evidence that he engaged in illegal drug trading inside the NBP.
Sebastian, based on the testimony of Colanggo, approached him to join
forces or helped each other in selling drugs to help De Lima raise fund
for her senatorial campaign. According to Capones , it was
Sebastian who was giving him
According to the testimony of Martinez, it was Sebastian who
proposed to help him in centralizing the illegal drug operation inside
NBP to help De Lima in her senatorial bid.
However, the evidential link between Sebastian and De Lima as

well as the other accused was not satisfactorily established. As
discussed above, almost all the information that would provide the
link between Sebastian and the other accused came from Sebastian.
Unfortunately for the prosecution, Sebastian cannot anymore confirm
the assertion of its witnesses.
The resolution of the Court on the respective Motion for

Reconsideration of the accused was based on its assessment of
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, it may be argued that
the judge who heard the case during trial is in the best position to
determine the credibility of the witnesses as he or she has the
293
G.R. No. 184681, February 25, 2013.
Page 67 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial.

However, that a judge did not hear a case does not necessarily render
him less competent in assessing the credibility of witnesses. He can
rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes of their testimony and
calibrate them in accordance with their conformity to common
experience, knowledge and observation of ordinary men. As held in
People vs. Dolendo,294 citing Sandoval Shipyards, Inc., vs. PMMA:295
x x x x we have held in several cases that the fact

that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one
who rendered the judgment; and that for the same
reason, the latter did not have the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial
but merely relied on the records of the case does not
render the judgment erroneous. Even though the judge
who penned the decision was not the judge who heard
the testimonies of the witnesses, such is not enough
reason to overturn the findings of fact of the trial court
on the credibility of witnesses. It may be true that the
trial judge who conducted the hearing would be in a
better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the
testimonies of the witnesses, but it does not necessarily
follow that a judge who was not present during the
trial cannot render a valid and just decision. The
efficacy of a decision is not necessarily impaired by the
fact that its writer only took over from a colleague who
had earlier presided at the trial. That a judge did not
hear a case does not necessarily render him less
competent in assessing the credibility of witnesses.
He can rely on the transcripts of stenographic notes
of their testimony and calibrate them in accordance
with their conformity to common experience,
knowledge and observation of ordinary men. Such
reliance does not violate substantive and procedural
due process of law. (underscoring supplied)
Thus, assessing the totality of the evidence presented by the

prosecution, the Court is of the firm view and so holds that accused De
Lima, Bucayu, Dayan, Sanchez and Dera should be allowed to post bail
as the prosecution was not able to discharge its burden of establishing
that the guilt of the said accused is strong. Thus, the Order of the Court
dated June 07, 2023, is reconsidered.
294
People vs. Dolendo, G.R. No. 2233098, June 3, 2019.
295
708 Phil. 535, 545-546 (2013).
Page 68 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the respective Motions for

Reconsideration of the concerned accused are GRANTED. Thus, the
Order of the Court dated June 07, 2023, is RECONSIDERED.
Consequently, accused De Lima, Bucayu, Dayan, Sanchez and Dera
are ALLOWED to post bail in the amount of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00) each.
SO ORDERED.
Given this 10th day of November 2023 in Muntinlupa City.
GENER M. GITO
Presiding Judge
COPY FURNISHED
DOJ PANEL OF PROSECUTORS

Department of Justice
Padre Faura Street, Manila
Email Addresses: dojpanel@gmail.com
npsdocket@doj.gov.ph
ATTY. TEDDY ESTEBAN RIGOROSO

ATTY. FILIBON FABELA TACARDON
ATTY. RAYMOND BAGUILAT
ATTY. ROLLY FRANCISCO PEORO
ATTY. DINO S. DE LEON
Counsels for Accused De Lima
901 Fil Garcia Tower
140 Kalayaan Avenue
Diliman 1101, Quezon City
Email address: ter.rgrlmlaw@gmail.com
ATTY. JEHN LOUIE W. VELANDREZ

Counsel for Accused Tan Sanchez
Legaspi Building, Block 1, Lot 3 and 5
Villa Valentina Subdivision, Barangay Parian
Calamba City, Laguna
Email address: jehnlouie_velendrez@yahoo.com
THE FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES AND ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Accused Bucayu
22nd Floor Suite 2205 Philippine Stock Exchange Centre
Tektite East Tower, Exchange Road
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Email address: jehnlouievelenderez@yahoo.com
ATTY. RAYMUND P. PALAD

Counsel for Accused Dera
Unit 1003, The One Executive Office
5 West Avenue, Quezon City
Page 69 of 69
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SORIANO-PACHECO LAW OFFICE

Counsel for Dayan
Burgos Street, Poblacion
Mangatarem, Pangasinan 2413
Email address: atty.haidzpacheco@yahoo.com

PP Vs de Lima

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP Vs de Lima

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 17-167

LEILA M. DE LIMA, FRANKLIN

For resolution are the respective Motions for Reconsideration of

In denying their respective etition/application for bail, the Court

accused to commit illegal drug trading by receiving proceeds from

All the accused filed their respective Motion for Reconsideration.

Accused Sanchez argued that there is no proof that he agreed

Accused Dera argues that it was only Capones who testified as

of the herein accused

The Court will dichotomize the pertinent provisions of the R.A.

Section 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, the

(r) Illegal Trafficking. The illegal cultivation,

(jj) Trading. Transactions involving the illegal

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration,

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from

Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt

(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation,

dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and

Section 28. Criminal Liability of Government

It is also pertinent to cite herein the inculpatory allegation in the

That within the period from March 2013 to May

Capsulizing the allegation in the Amended Information in

means of mobile phones and other electronic devices without being

With this inculpatory allegation, it is the burden of the

In resolving the instant issue, the Court is mandated to calibrate

As previously mentioned, considering the inculpatory allegation

Judge Learned Hand once called conspiracy

as a mode of incurring criminal liability must be

In People vs. Anabe,4 the Supreme Court ruled that

In pari materia, for purposes of bail hearing, the quantum of proof

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

As a rule, conspiracy is not a crime unless the law considers it a

It should be stressed that the community of design to commit an

In Bahilidad vs. People,10 the Supreme Court ruled:

It is necessary that a conspirator should have

The Court meticulously analyzed the testimony of the nine (9)

The testimony of Valeroso will not prove conspiracy to commit

According to Valeroso, in January 2014, he conducted a case

government asset. During his investigation, Valeroso discovered that

In 2014, Valeroso, together with Arile, visited the of

Admitting for the sake of argument that the factual matters

The rule is that conspiracy must be shown to

and convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence of

Conspiracy transcends mere companionship,

It must be noted that at the time Valeroso allegedly saw accused

The testimony of Arile, examined in its entirety will not establish

Arile testified that he was tapped by Valeroso, as government

would reach millions of pesos and cash winnings were sometimes

Arile testified that beginning the first week of January 2014, he

Arile averred that he learned that inmate-drug lord Peter Co

According to Arile, he knew that Sebastian was involved in

According to Arile, he saw De Lima for several times inside the

On or about November 25, 2014, before the Oplan Galugad,

The testimony of Arile will not sufficiently establish conspiracy

crime involving moral turpitude. He is serving sentence for the crime

Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's

Relatedly, for the purpose of impeaching a witness, evidence

Thus, it is in congruence with logic that the Court will accept

In People v. Doria, we stressed the "objective" test

initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the