FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
Nos.
146284-86
January 20, 2003 -versus-
ABDUL MACALABA
YDIGAYON,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:
Appellant Abdul
Macalaba y Digayon (hereafter ABDUL) was charged before the Regional
Trial
Court of San Pedro, Laguna, with violations of the Presidential Decree
No. 1866[1];
Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code[2];
and Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
(Republic
Act No. 6425), as amended, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1236, 1237 and 1238,
respectively. The accusatory portions of the informations in these
cases
read as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Criminal Case No.
1236
That on or about April
12, 1999, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused
without
the required permit/license from the proper authorities, did then and
there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody
and control one (1) caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 909904, and one
(1) magazine with five (5) live ammunition thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Criminal Case No.
1237
That on or about April
12, 1999, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused did
then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control two (2) ONE THOUSAND PESOS bill with Serial Numbers
BG 021165 and BG 995998, knowing the same to be forged or otherwise
falsified
with the manifest intention of using such falsified or forged
instruments.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Criminal Case No.
1238
That on or about April
12, 1999, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna,
Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused
without
being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
have in his possession, custody and control one (1) self-sealing
transparent
plastic bag of methamphetamine hydrochloride "shabu" weighing 226.67
grams
[3 medium sized transparent plastic bags and 1 big heat-sealed
transparent
plastic bag].
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
The three cases were
consolidated and raffled to Branch 31 of said court. Upon his
arraignment,
ABDUL entered in each case a plea of not guilty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the trial, the prosecution
presented as witnesses SPO1 Generoso Pandez, PO3 Ernani Mendez, Police
Inspector Anacleta Cultura and Police Inspector Lorna Tria. ABDUL was
the
sole witness for the defense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SPO1 Pandez, a PNP member
of the Laguna Criminal Investigation Detection Group (CIDG), testified
that on 12 April 1999, at 5:15 p.m., Major R’ Win Pagkalinawan ordered
the search of ABDUL, alias "Boy Muslim," based on a verified
information
that the latter was driving a carnapped Mitsubishi olive green car with
Plate No. UPV 511 and was a drug-pusher in San Pedro, Laguna. Two teams
were formed for the search. The first was headed by Major Pagkalinawan,
with SPO4 Aberion and five others as members; and the second was led by
Capt. Percival Rumbaoa, with SPO1 Pandez and PO3 Mendez as members.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Between 6:30 p.m. and
7:00 p.m., the two groups proceeded to Barangay Nueva, San Pedro,
Laguna,
on board a car and a van. They went to ABDUL’s apartment where he was
reportedly
selling shabu, but they learned that ABDUL had already left. While
looking
for ABDUL, they saw the suspected carnapped car somewhere at Pacita
Complex
I, San Pedro, Laguna, going towards the Poblacion. When it stopped due
to the red traffic light, the CIDG officers alighted from their
vehicles.
Capt. Rumbaoa positioned himself at the passenger side of the suspected
carnapped car, while Major Pagkalinawan stood in front of the car. SPO1
Pandez, with PO3 Mendez beside him, went straight to the driver and
knocked
at the driver’s window. ABDUL, who was driving the car, lowered the
glass
window. SPO1 Pandez introduced himself as a member of the Laguna CIDG
and
asked ABDUL to turn on the light and show them the car’s certificate of
registration.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the light was already
on, SPO1 Pandez saw a black Norinco .45 caliber gun[8]
inside an open black clutch/belt bag placed on the right side of the
driver’s
seat near the gear. He asked ABDUL for the supporting papers of the
gun,
apart from the car’s certificate of registration, but the latter failed
to show them any.[9]
When ABDUL opened the zipper of the clutch/belt bag, the CIDG officers
saw inside it four plastic sachets of what appeared to be shabu. They
likewise
found a self-sealing plastic bag which contained the following items:
two
fake P1,000 bills, a list of names of persons, a magazine and five
ammunitions
for a .45 caliber gun. They confiscated the gun, the shabu, and the
fake
P1,000 bills and thereafter brought ABDUL to the CIDG office.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PO3 Mendez substantially
corroborated the testimony of SPO1 Pandez.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The two P1,000 bills
were found to be counterfeit after an examination conducted by Police
Inspector
Anacleta Cultura,[12]
a document examiner at Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna. The white
crystalline
substance contained in the four small plastic bags was subjected to
physical
and laboratory examination conducted by Police Inspector Lorna Tria, a
Forensic Chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory, Region IV, Camp Vicente
Lim.
Her findings[13]
were as follows: (a) the three small plastic sachets weighed 29.46
grams,
while the big plastic sachet weighed 197.21 grams, or a total weight of
226.67 grams; (b) representative samples taken from the specimens
thereof
were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated
drug;
and (c) the improvised tooter and the rolled aluminum foil with residue
found in the self-sealing plastic bag were also positive of the
presence
for shabu residue. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As expected, ABDUL had
a different story to tell. He testified that on 12 April 1999, between
6:50 and 7:00 p.m., he was driving a borrowed Mitsubishi Galant Car
with
Plate No. UPV 501 somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna. With him was Rose,
his
live-in partner, whom he fetched from Angeles City, Pampanga. He had
borrowed
the car from his friend Ferdinand Navares, who instructed him to return
it in front of the latter’s store at San Pedro Public Market.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ABDUL was about to park
the car when a man knocked hard on the glass window on the driver’s
side
of the car and pointed at the former a .45 caliber pistol. Another one
who was armed with an armalite rifle positioned himself in front of the
car, while the third one positioned himself near the window on the
passenger
side and pointed a gun at his live-in partner Rose. ABDUL then lowered
the car’s window. The man near him opened the door, held him, and told
him to alight. When the man asked him whether he was "Boy Muslim," he
answered
in the negative. The same man opened the back door of the car and
boarded
at the back seat. Rose remained seated at the front passenger seat.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The other men likewise
boarded the car, which was thereafter driven by one of them. While
inside
the car, they saw a .45 caliber pistol at the edge of the driver’s
seat.
They asked him whether he had a license. He showed his gun license and
permit to carry. After taking his gun, license, and permit to carry,
they
tried to remove his belt bag from his waist, but he did not allow them.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon reaching the headquarters,
ABDUL learned that these people were C.I.S. agents. There, he was told
to surrender the belt bag to the officer who would issue a receipt for
it. He did as he was told, and the money inside his belt bag was
counted
and it amounted to P42,000. They then got his money and the cellular
phone,
which was also inside the bag, together with some other pieces of
paper.
They also took another cell phone from the car. He was never issued a
receipt
for these items.[17]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, a man entered
the office with a white plastic bag allegedly taken from the borrowed
car.
ABDUL denied ownership over the plastic bag. That same man then told
him
that it contained shabu. ABDUL and Rose were detained at the
headquarters.
The next morning, Rose was allowed to get out; and in the afternoon, he
was transferred to San Pedro Municipal Jail.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the trial, the
trial court acquitted ABDUL in Criminal Cases Nos. 1236 and 1237 for
violations
of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and Article 168 of the Revised Penal
Code,
respectively, due to insufficiency of evidence. However, it convicted
him
in Criminal Case No. 1238 for violation of Section 16, Article III of
the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 [Republic Act No. 6425], as amended,[19]
and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay
a fine of P500,000, as well as the costs of the suit.cralaw:red
Dissatisfied with the
judgment, ABDUL interposed the present appeal, alleging that the trial
court erred in (1) convicting him for violation of Section 16 of
Article
III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, despite
insufficiency
of evidence; and (2) admitting the evidence presented by the
prosecution
although it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his first assigned
error, ABDUL argues that the prosecution failed to prove the material
allegations
in the information. The information charges him, among other things,
that
"without being authorized by law, (he) did then and there willfully and
feloniously have in his possession, custody and control -
methamphetamine
hydrochloride." However, the prosecution did not present any
certification
from the concerned government agency, like the Dangerous Drugs Board,
to
the effect that he was not authorized to possess shabu, which is a
regulated
drug. Thus, his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his second assigned
error, ABDUL asserts that he was not committing a crime when the CIS
agents
boarded his car, searched the same and ultimately arrested him. He was
about to park his borrowed car per instruction by the owner when he was
harassed by the operatives at gunpoint. The gun seen was properly
documented;
thus, there was no reason for the CIS agents to bring him and his
companion
to the headquarters. The shabu allegedly found in the car was brought
in
by somebody at the time he was under interrogation. It was taken in
violation
of his constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. Being a
"fruit of a poisonous tree" it should not have been admitted in
evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the members
of the CIDG merely relied on the information received from an anonymous
telephone caller who said that ABDUL was driving a carnapped vehicle.
They
had no personal knowledge of the veracity of the information.
Consequently,
there was no legal basis for his warrantless arrest. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the Appellee’s Brief,
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that ABDUL had the
burden of proving that he was authorized to possess shabu, but he
failed
to discharge such burden. Therefore, it is presumed that he had no
authority;
consequently, he is liable for violation of Section 16, Article III of
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The OSG likewise refutes
ABDUL’s
argument that there was a violation of his right against unreasonable
searches
and seizures. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The general rule is
that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or
that
a negative averment is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution
has the burden of proving the charge. However, this rule is not without
an exception. Thus, we have held: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Where the negative of
an issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are more
immediately
within the knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him.
Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce
positive
evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly
indicated
by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be
disproved
by the production of documents or other evidence within the defendant’s
knowledge or control. For example, where a charge is made that a
defendant
carried on a certain business without a license (as in the case at bar,
where the accused is charged with the selling of a regulated drug
without
authority), the fact that he has a license is a matter which is
peculiarly
within his knowledge and he must establish that fact or suffer
conviction.[20]
In the instant case,
the negative averment that ABDUL had no license or authority to possess
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug, has been
fairly
indicated by the following facts proven by the testimonies of the CIDG
officers and the forensic chemist: (a) ABDUL was driving the suspected
carnapped vehicle when he was caught, and he appeared to be healthy and
not indisposed as to require the use of shabu as medicine; (b) the
contents
of the sachets found in ABDUL’s open clutch bag inside the car were
prima
facie determined by the CIDG officers to be shabu; and (c) the said
contents
were conclusively found to be shabu by the forensic chemist. With these
established facts, the burden of evidence was shifted to ABDUL. He
could
have easily disproved the damning circumstances by presenting a
doctor’s
prescription for said drug or a copy of his license or authority to
possess
the regulated drug. Yet, he offered nothing.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
And now on the second
issue. The Constitution enshrines in its Bill of Rights the right of
the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose.[21]
To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the
exclusionary
principle that any evidence obtained in violation of said right is
inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is obvious from Section
2 of the Bill of Rights that reasonable searches and seizures are not
proscribed.
If conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance
with
the guidelines prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the
Rules
of Court, the search and seizure is valid. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The interdiction against
warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. The recognized
exceptions
established by jurisprudence are (1) search of moving vehicles; (2)
seizure
in plain view; (3) customs search; (4) waiver or consented search; (5)
stop and frisk situation (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a
lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure
pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule,
an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of
arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests,
to
wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot
pursuit,
and (3) arrests of escaped prisoners.[23]
Another exception is a search made pursuant to routine airport security
procedure, which is authorized under Section 9 of R.A. No. 6235.[24]
The warrantless arrest
of, or warrantless search and seizure conducted on, ABDUL constitute a
valid exemption from the warrant requirement. The evidence clearly
shows
that on the basis of an intelligence information that a carnapped
vehicle
was driven by ABDUL, who was also a suspect of drug pushing, the
members
of the CIDG of Laguna went around looking for the carnapped car.[25]
They spotted the suspected carnapped car, which was indeed driven by
ABDUL.
While ABDUL was fumbling about in his clutch bag for the registration
papers
of the car the CIDG agents saw four transparent sachets of shabu.[26]
These sachets of shabu were therefore in "plain view" of the law
enforcers.cralaw:red
Under the "plain view"
doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has
the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure
and may be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence
in plain view must comply with the following requirements: (a) a prior
valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit
of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered
by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence
must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified mere
seizure
of evidence without further search.[27]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We are convinced beyond
any shadow of doubt under the circumstances above discussed that all
the
elements of seizure in plain view exist in the case at bar. Thus, the
warrantless
search and seizure conducted on ABDUL, as well as his warrantless
arrest,
did not transgress his constitutional rights. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
ABDUL’s sole defense
of denial is unsubstantiated. We have time and again ruled that mere
denial
cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A mere denial,
just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be
accorded
greater evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses
who
testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that
rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former
is generally held to prevail.[28]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the issue of credibility
between ABDUL’s testimony and the declarations of the CIDG officers, we
hold for the latter. As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be
given
to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses
especially
when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary;
moreover
in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious
crime
against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of
official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the
credibility
of witnesses, shall prevail over accused’s self-serving and
uncorroborated
claim of having been framed.[29]
ABDUL miserably failed to rebut this presumption and to prove any
ulterior
motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Unauthorized possession
of 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride is
punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death under Section 16 of Article III, in
relation
to Section 20 of Article IV, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
(Republic
Act No. 6425), as amended by P.D. Nos. 44, 1675, 1683, and 1707; Batas
Pambansa Blg. 179; and R.A. No. 7659 (now further amended by R.A. No.
9165).
These sections provide as follows: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SEC.16. Possession or
Use of Regulated Drugs. --- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated
drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the
provisions of Section 20 hereof.cralaw:red
SEC. 20. Application
of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or
Instruments
of the Crime. -- The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8
and
9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this
Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the
following
quantities: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. 200 grams or more
of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no doubt that
the charge of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 1238 was
proved beyond reasonable doubt since ABDUL knowingly carried with him
at
the time he was caught 226.67 grams of shabu without legal authority.
There
being no modifying circumstance proven, the proper penalty pursuant to
Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua. The
penalty
imposed by the trial court, including the fine, is, therefore, in
order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appealed
decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, in Criminal
Case No. 1238 convicting appellant ABDUL MACALABA y DIGAYON of the
violation
of Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A.
No.
6425), as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000 and the costs of the suit, is
hereby
affirmed in toto. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Costs de oficio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing
in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or
Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives,
and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for
Relevant
Purposes.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Illegal Possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other
instruments
of credit.
[3]
Original Record (OR), 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., 2.
[5]
Id., 3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, 24 November 1999, 4-5.
[7]
Id., 6-8.
[8]
Id., 8, 11; OR, 10.
[9]
Id., 9.
[10]
TSN, 24 November 1999, 8-10.
[11]
13 January 2000, 2-12.
[12]
Exhibit 'I,' OR, 19.
[13]
OR, 9.
[14]
TSN, 10 May 2000, 4-6.
[15]
TSN, 18 May 2000, 2-4.
[16]
Id., 4-6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Id, 4-9.
[18]
TSN, 18 May 2000, 9-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Rollo, 60-66. Per Judge Stella Cabuco Andres.
[20]
People v. Manalo, 230 SCRA 309 [1994], cited in People v. Fernandez,
G.R.
Nos. 143850-53, 18 December 2001.
[21]
Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
[22]
Section 3 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution.
[23]
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 444 [1999]; People v. Figueroa,
335
SCRA 249, 263 [2000].
[24]
People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA 526 (2000).
[25]
TSN, 13 January 2000, 3-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
TSN 24 November 1999, 9; TSN, 13 January 2000, 9.
[27]
People v. Aspiras, G.R. Nos. 138382-84, 12 February 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People v. Ugang, G.R. No. 144036, 7 May 2002.
[29]
People v. Uy, 327 SCRA 335, 349-350 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |