REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

TENTH DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, CA-G.R. CR NO. 27875 Members: - versus BARRIOS, Chairman TOLENTINO, and VELOSO, JJ. Promulgated: MA. THERESA OBEN y Flores Accused-Appellant. ______________________ ====================================================

DECISION
BARRIOS, J.:
The appellant Ma. Theresa Oben y Flores @ Theo
Oben), (or hereafter

was charged with Possession Of Dangerous Drug During A Pot

Session (or Violation of Sec. 13 in relation to Sec. 11, 2nd Par. No. 3, Art II of
RA 9165) in the Information specifying: That, on or about the 19th day of December, 2002 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aboved-named accused, in conspiracy with ROGER CRUZ AND ROMAN CRUZ, who are still

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION at-large, and each one being in the proximate company of two others, not being lawfully authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in their possession, control and custody less than five (5) grams of white crystalline substance, inclusive of two small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing 0.03 gram of such substance having a total weight of 0.06 gram, and of traces and residues of the same found in the same paraphernalia during or on the occasion of their use thereof in a pot session, which crystalline substance and traces or residues were found positive to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law. CONTRARY TO LAW. (p. 2, record)

and with Possession Of Drug Paraphernalia During A Pot Session (or

Violation of Sec. 14 in relation to Sec. 12, 1st Par., Art II of RA 9165) in the

Information specifying:
That, on or about the 19th day of December, 2002 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with ROGER CRUZ and ROMAN CRUZ, who are still at large, and each one being in the proximate company of two others, not being lawfully authorized by law to possess any drug paraphernalia, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in their possession, control and custody during a pot session, two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing traces of shabu, one (1) strip of aluminum foil, one (1) improvised water pipe and two (2) disposable lighters, which are all instruments, equipment or paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, sniffing, consuming, ingesting or introducing shabu a dangerous drug into the body, in violation of the above-cited law. CONTRARY TO LAW. (p. 12, record)

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION

The proverbial long arm of the law never caught up with the said Roger Cruz and Roman Cruz, and so it was by her lonesome self that Oben was tried jointly of these charges. The prosecution called as witnesses the arresting policemen SPO3 Rolando Geneta, PO2 Mario Madarang and PO1 Erwin Taasin of the San Juan Metro Manila police station, while the testimony of forensic chemist P/Insp. Lourdeliza Gural was dispensed with after a stipulation was entered as to the identity of the specimens and the request for and fact of their examination. Also submitted were the following Exhibits:
A B C D E F Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Madarang; Request for Laboratory Examination dated December 19 December 2002. Chemistry Report December 2002. No. D-2433-02E dated 19

Booking Sheet and Arrest Report on Ma. Theresa Oben y Flores dated December 19, 2003. Spot Report of P/ Superintendent Eduardo T. Lorenzo dated 19 December 2002 one (1) brown envelope one (1) improvised water pipe containing traces of white crystalline substance one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance

F-1 F-2 -

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION F-3 F-4 F-5 F-6 F-7 one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing traces of white crystalline substance one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing traces of white crystalline substance one (1) strip of aluminum foil containing traces of white crystalline substance two (2) disposable lighters colored yellow and green

The defense evidence consists only of the testimony of the accused Oben herself. The trial court then rendered judgment where Oben was found Guilty of both charges in the Joint Decision disposing that:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds: 1. In Criminal Case No. 11944-d, accused Ma. Theresa F. Oben @ Theo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section11, 2nd paragraph No. 3, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and hereby sentences her to an indeterminate penalty of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Sixteen (16) Years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos. 2. In Criminal Case No. 11945-D, accused Ma. Theresa F. Oben @ Theo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 12, 1st paragraph, Article II of R.A. 9165 and hereby sentences her to a indeterminate penalty of from six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to three (3) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). The specimens marked as Exhibits F-1 and F-7 involved in these cases are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION government and turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction in accordance with law. With costs against the accused. SO ORDERED. (p. 77, record)

Appealing this, Oben assigns that the trial court committed the following reversible errors:
I THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRD IN NOT FINDING THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. II THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. (Appellants Brief, p. 23, rollo)

The prosecution presented evidence that at about 1:00 in the afternoon of December 19, 2002, PO2 Madarang took a telephone call from an informant that a pot session was in progress at 213 Tuberias St., Brgy. Batis, San Juan, Metro Manila. PO2 Madarang relayed this to P/Insp Ricardo Marzo who then formed a team and dispatched SPO3 Geneta, PO2 Madarang and PO1 Taasin to look into this. Arriving at the place, they found the door ajar and through it PO2 Madarang saw three (3) persons around a small table having a

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION

pot session. When he entered the two (2) males, later identified as Roger Cruz and Roman Cruz, jumped out the window while the third did not make a move. This was Oben. Roger Cruz and Roman Cruz scampered away and were not caught by the pursuing SPO3 Geneta and PO1 Taasin. PO2 Madarang arrested Oben and listed and gathered the suspected drugs and related paraphernalia found on the table where the three were gathered. These policemen brought the said items and Oben to the precinct where she was booked and detained, and later subjected to the process of an inquest. The suspected materials were forwarded to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office with a Request For Laboratory Examination. These were subjected to forensic examinations and were found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. The defense set up was denial, and with a claim of extortion on the side. Oben claimed that on the said date, time and place she was doing some gardening and bathing her child when two (2) men barged into her rented room. These were PO2 Madarang and PO1 Taasin. Surprised and miffed, she confronted them and was told they were looking for a Beth Rodriguez and asked if she was this person. She told them that she has not met Beth Rodriguez but heard that she was the previous occupant of her place. But soon the two were already insisting that she was Beth Rodriguez, and as their exchange turned nasty their other companion called Cristobal popped up.

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION

Together the three overcame her struggles and forcibly took her away in a car. On the way PO2 Madarang suggestively asked if she could come up with P20,000.00, but she could not and he was miffed. When they reached the precinct she was booked, investigated, inquested and detained. Sifting through the contradicting evidence, the trial court determined that:
The Court, after a careful assessment of the evidence adduced by the parties, believes that the evidence presented by the People sufficiently shows beyond moral certainly that accused Ma. Theresa F. Oben @ Theo committed the charges filed against her. (p. 75, record)

As a rule, its findings of fact are given great weight and respect by appellate courts
(People vs. Estoya, G. R. No. 153538, May 19, 2004).

Unless it is

shown that the trial court has overlooked or misapprehended some facts or circumstances of weight and influence, its findings will not be disturbed or overturned. In the present case, the said finding of the trial court is based on the credible testimonies of three (3) police officers who arrested this accused in flagrante. The presence and participation of PO2 Madarang and PO1 Taasin in her arrest was even admitted by Oben, and it has not been shown that they had any reason to prevaricate and falsely charge this accused. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION

for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting illmotive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties (People vs Dulay, G. R. No. 150624, Feb. 24, 2004). The defense of Oben is denial. This has been invariably

characterized as an inherently weak defense that crumbles in the light of positive declarations of truthful witnesses who testified on affirmative matters against the accused. This certainly cannot overcome the clear and positive evidence of the prosecution that proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crimes charged and the guilt of Oben. Such prosecution testimonies prevail over a denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence is negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law
(People vs Cario, G. R. No. 131117, June 15, 2004).

Frame-up, a usual defense of those accused in drug-related cases, is viewed by the Court with disfavor since it is an allegation that can be made with ease. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper manner (Teodosio vs Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 124346, June 8,
2004).

The slight mention by Oben that there was a suggested fix or

frame-up from PO1 Madarang, does not satisfy the requirements for this defense to succeed.

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION

Finding no reversible error WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the appealed Decision is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. BARRIOS
Associate Justice WE CONCUR:

AMELITA G. TOLENTINO
Associate Justice

VICENTE S. E. VELOSO
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ROBERTO A. BARRIOS
Associate Justice Chairman, Tenth Division

CA-G.R. CR No. 27875 DECISION

10