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. Prosecutions 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. While looking for ABDUL, they saw the suspected carnapped car somewhere at Pacita Complex I, San Pedro, Laguna. When it stopped due to the red traffic light, they went straight to the driver and knocked at the drivers 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 cars certificate of registration. When the light was already on, SPO1 Pandez saw a black Norinco .45 caliber gun inside an open black clutch/belt bag placed on the right side of the drivers seat near the gear. ABDUL failed to show supporting papers of the gun and cars registration. ABDUL opened the zipper of the clutch/belt bag, the CIDG officers saw inside it four plastic sachets of what appeared to be shabu (later proved as shabu). They likewise found a self-sealing plastic bag which contained the following items: 2 fake P1,000 bills (later found as counterfeit), 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. Accuseds Version 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 latters store at San Pedro Public Market. ABDUL was about to park the car when a man knocked hard on the glass window on the drivers 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 cars 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. They 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 drivers 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. Upon reaching the headquarters, he was told to surrender the belt bag to the officer who would issue a receipt for it. He did. They then got his P42,000 money and the cellular phone, 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. 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 following day Rose was allowed to get 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 authorized 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 a carnapped 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 of the sachets found in ABDULs 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 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, RTCs decision is hereby affirmed in toto.