People vs. Abdul Macalaba.docx

People vs. Abdul Macalaba, GR 146284-86, January 20, 2003 Facts:  Appellant ABDUL was charged before the RTC San Pedro, Laguna, with violations of the Presidential Decree No. 1866 (for illegal possession of 1 caliber .45 pistol, 1 magazine and 5 ammunition); Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (for possession of fake 2 P1,000 bills) ; and Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, RA 6425 (for possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride "shabu"). 3 cases were consolidated and raffled to Branch 31 of said court. ABDUL entered in each case a plea of not guilty. 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. Prosecution’s Version

Accused’s Version

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.

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. With him was Rose, his live-in partner. 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.

While looking for ABDUL, they saw the suspected  ABDUL was about to park the car when a man knocked hard on the glass carnapped car somewhere at Pacita Complex I, San window on the driver’s side of the of  the car and pointed at the former a .45 caliber  Pedro, Laguna. When it stopped due to the red traffic pistol. Another one who was armed with an armalite rifle positioned himself  light, they went straight to the driver and knocked at the in front of the car, while the third one positioned himself near the window on driver’s window. ABDUL, who was driving the car, the passenger side and pointed a gun at his live-in partner Rose. ABDUL lowered the glass window. SPO1 Pandez introduced then lowered the car’s window. The man near him opened the door, held himself as a member of the Laguna CIDG and asked him, and told him to alight. When the man asked him whether he was "Boy  ABDUL to turn on the light and show car’s certificate of  Muslim," he answered in the negative. registration. They boarded the car, which was thereafter driven by one of them. While When the light was already on, SPO1 Pandez saw a inside the car, they saw a .45 caliber pistol at the edge of the driver’s seat. black Norinco .45 caliber gun inside an open black They asked him whether he had a license. He showed his gun license and clutch/belt bag placed on the right side of the driver’s permit to carry. After taking his gun, license, and permit to carry, they tried to seat near the gear. ABDUL failed to show supporting remove his belt bag from his waist, but he did not allow them. papers of the gun and car’s registration. Upon reaching the headquarters, he was told to surrender the belt bag to  ABDUL opened the zipper of the clutch/belt bag, the the officer who would issue a receipt for it. He did. They then got his CIDG officers saw inside it four plastic sachets of what P42,000 money and the cellular phone, together with some other pieces of  appeared to be shabu (later proved as shabu). They paper. They also took another cell phone from the car. He was never issued likewise found a self-sealing plastic bag which a receipt for these items. contained the following items: 2 fake P1,000 bills (later  found as counterfeit), a list of names of persons, a Thereafter, a man entered the office with a white plastic bag allegedly taken magazine and five ammunitions for a .45 caliber gun. from the borrowed car. ABDUL denied ownership over the plastic bag. That They confiscated the gun, the shabu, and the fake same man then told him that it contained shabu. ABDUL and Rose were P1,000 bills and thereafter brought ABDUL to the CIDG detained at the headquarters. The following day Rose was allowed to get office. out while he was transferred to San Pedro Municipal Jail. 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, 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. Issues: - WON trial court 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 prosecution did not present any certification from the concerned government agency, like the Dangerous Drugs Board, to the effect that he was not a uthorized to possess shabu; and (2) admitting the evidence presented by the prosecution although it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, asserting that he was not committing a crime when the CIS agents boarded his car, searched the same, harassed and ultimately arrested him, after merely relying on the information received from an anonymous telephone caller who said that  ABDUL was driving driving a carnapped vehicle. vehicle. Ruling: - Negative (1) 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. In the instant case, the negative averment that ABDUL had no license or authority to possess shabu has been fairly indicated by the following facts proven by the testimonies of the CIDG officers and the forensic chemist: (a) ABDUL appeared to be healthy and not indisposed as to require the use of  shabu as medicine; (b) the contents 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 but he failed to discharge such burden. (2) 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 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. 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. These sachets of  shabu were therefore in " plain  plain view " of the law enforcers since there was (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. On the credibility of prosecution witnesses, ABDUL miserably failed to rebut this presumption and to prove any ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses who are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary.

WHEREFORE, RTC’s decision is hereby affirmed in toto. toto.