7/28/2019 People vs. Abdul Macalaba.docx

1/1

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 illegalpossession of 1 caliber .45 pistol, 1 magazine and 5 ammunition); Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (for possession of fake 2P1,000 bills) ; and Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, RA 6425 (for possession of methamphetaminehydrochloride "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, theprosecution presented as witnesses SPO1 Generoso Pandez, PO3 Ernani Mendez, Police Inspector Anacleta Cultura and PoliceInspector Lorna Tria. ABDUL was the sole witness for the defense.

Prosecutions Version Accuseds 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 wasdriving a carnapped Mitsubishi olive green car withPlate No. UPV 511 and was a drug-pusher.

While looking for ABDUL, they saw the suspectedcarnapped car somewhere at Pacita Complex I, SanPedro, Laguna. When it stopped due to the red trafficlight, they went straight to the driver and knocked at thedrivers window. ABDUL, who was driving the car,lowered the glass window. SPO1 Pandez introduced

himself as a member of the Laguna CIDG and askedABDUL to turn on the light and show cars certificate ofregistration.

When the light was already on, SPO1 Pandez saw ablack Norinco .45 caliber gun inside an open blackclutch/belt bag placed on the right side of the driversseat near the gear. ABDUL failed to show supportingpapers of the gun and cars registration.

ABDUL opened the zipper of the clutch/belt bag, theCIDG officers saw inside it four plastic sachets of whatappeared to be shabu (later proved as shabu). Theylikewise found a self-sealing plastic bag whichcontained the following items: 2 fake P1,000 bills (later

found as counterfeit), a list of names of persons, amagazine and five ammunitions for a .45 caliber gun.They confiscated the gun, the shabu, and the fakeP1,000 bills and thereafter brought ABDUL to the CIDGoffice.

He testified that on 12 April 1999, between 6:50 and 7:00 p.m., he wasdriving a borrowed Mitsubishi Galant Car with Plate No. UPV 501. With himwas Rose, his live-in partner. He had borrowed the car from his friendFerdinand Navares, who instructed him to return it in front of the lattersstore at San Pedro Public Market.

ABDUL was about to park the car when a man knocked hard on the glasswindow on the drivers side ofthe car and pointed at the former a .45 caliberpistol. Another one who was armed with an armalite rifle positioned himselfin front of the car, while the third one positioned himself near the window onthe passenger side and pointed a gun at his live-in partner Rose. ABDULthen 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 "BoyMuslim," he answered in the negative.

They boarded the car, which was thereafter driven by one of them. Whileinside 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 andpermit to carry. After taking his gun, license, and permit to carry, they tried toremove his belt bag from his waist, but he did not allow them.

Upon reaching the headquarters, he was told to surrender the belt bag tothe officer who would issue a receipt for it. He did. They then got hisP42,000 money and the cellular phone, together with some other pieces ofpaper. They also took another cell phone from the car. He was never issueda receipt for these items.

Thereafter, a man entered the office with a white plastic bag allegedly takenfrom the borrowed car. ABDUL denied ownership over the plastic bag. Thatsame man then told him that it contained shabu. ABDUL and Rose weredetained at the headquarters. The following day Rose was allowed to getout 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 ofthe Revised Penal Code, respectively, due to insufficiency of evidence. However, it convicted him in Criminal Case No. 1238 forviolation of Section 16, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended, and sentenced him tosuffer the penalty ofreclusion 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 theDangerous 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 andultimately 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 essentialelement of a crime, the prosecution has the burden of proving the charge. In the instant case, the negative averment that ABDUL hadno license or authority to possess shabu has been fairly indicated by the following facts proven by the testimonies of the CIDG officersand the forensic chemist: (a) ABDUL appeared to be healthy and not indisposed as to require the use of shabu as medicine; (b) thecontents of the sachets found in ABDULs open clutch bag inside the car wereprima 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 ofevidence 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 warrantrequirement. 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 ofshabu. These sachets ofshabu were therefore in "plain view" of the law enforcers since there was (a) a prior valid intrusion in which thepolice are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had theright to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified mere seizure of evidencewithout further search.

On the credibility of prosecution witnesses, ABDUL miserably failed to rebut this presumption and to prove any ulterior motive on thepart of the prosecution witnesses who are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unlessthere be evidence to the contrary.

WHEREFORE, RTCs decision is hereby affirmed in toto.