Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 182348

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR., and
BRION, JJ.

CARLOS DELA CRUZ, Promulgated:

Accused-Appellant.
November 20, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the November 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 entitled People of the Philippines v. Carlos
Dela Cruz which affirmed the September 16, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 77 in San Mateo, Rizal in Criminal Case Nos. 6517 (Illegal
Possession of Firearm and Ammunition) and 6518 (Possession of Dangerous
Drug). The RTC found accused- appellant Carlos Dela Cruz guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11(2) of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165
or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-appellant were made before the
RTC. The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6517

That, on or about the 20th day of October 2002, in the Municipality of

San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then a private
citizen, without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody
and control One (1) Gauge Shotgun marked ARMSCOR with Serial No.
1108533 loaded with four (4) live ammunition, which are high powered
 firearm and ammunition respectively, without first securing the
necessary license to possess or permit to carry said firearm and
ammunition from the proper authorities.

Criminal Case No. 6518

That on or about the 20th day of October 2002, in the Municipality of San
Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his
possession, direct custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic bag weighing 49.84 grams of white crystalline substance, which
gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.[1]

Accused-appellant entered a not guilty plea and trial ensued.

The facts, according to the prosecution, showed that in the morning of October 20,
2002, an informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Marikina Police
Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias Boy Bicol was at his nipa hut
hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. A team was organized to arrest Boy Bicol. Once there,
they saw Boy Bicol by a table talking with accused-appellant. They shouted Boy
Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka. (Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you
have a warrant of arrest.) Upon hearing this, Boy Bicol engaged them in a shootout
and was fatally shot. Accused-appellant was seen holding a shotgun through a
window. He dropped his shotgun when a police officer pointed his firearm at him.
The team entered the nipa hut and apprehended accused-appellant. They saw a
plastic bag of suspected shabu, a digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia,
ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. PO1 Calanoga, Jr. put the markings
CVDC, the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag containing the seized drug.
Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested. The substance seized from the
hideout was sent to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory for
examination and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. He
was thus separately indicted for violation of RA 9165 and for illegal possession of
firearm.

According to the defense, accused-appellant was at Boy Bicols house having been
asked to do a welding job for Boy Bicols motorcycle. While accused-appellant was
there, persons who identified themselves as police officers approached the place,
prompting accused-appellant to scamper away. He lied face down when gunshots
rang. The buy-bust team then helped him get up. He saw the police officers
searching the premises and finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of a
table or drawer.[2]When he asked the reason for his apprehension, he was told that it
was because he was a companion of Boy Bicol. He denied under oath that the gun
and drugs seized were found in his possession and testified that he was only invited
by Boy Bicol to get the motorcycle from his house.[3]

The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and

ammunition but convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive
portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court based on insufficiency of evidence hereby

ACQUITS accused CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y VICTORINO in Criminal
Case No. 6517 for violation of P.D. 1866 as amended by RA 8294.

In Criminal Case No. 6518 for Possession of Dangerous Drug under

Section 11, 2nd paragraph of Republic Act 9165, the Court finds said
accused CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y VICTORINO, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to
Pay a Fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).

SO ORDERED.[4]

On December 7, 2005, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the

RTC Decision.

In his appeal to the CA, accused-appellant claimed that: (1) the version of
the prosecution should not have been given full credence; (2) the prosecution failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of possession of an illegal
drug; (3) his arrest was patently illegal; and (4) the prosecution failed to establish
the chain of custody of the illegal drug allegedly in his possession.

The CA sustained accused-appellants conviction.[5] It pointed out that

accused-appellant was positively identified by prosecution witnesses, rendering his
uncorroborated denial and allegation of frame-up weak. As to accused-appellants
alleged illegal arrest, the CA held that he is deemed to have waived his objection
when he entered his plea, applied for bail, and actively participated in the trial
without questioning such arrest.

On the supposedly broken chain of custody of the illegal drug, the appellate
court held that accused-appellants claim is unpersuasive absent any evidence
showing that the plastic sachet of shabu had been tampered or meddled with.

On December 20, 2007, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA

Decision.
 On June 25, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental
briefs if they so desired. The parties later signified their willingness to submit the
case on the basis of the records already with the Court.

Accused-appellant presents the following issues before us:

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL

CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION
II

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ARTICLE II, RA 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

III

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE
THE PATENT ILLEGALITY OF HIS ARREST

IV

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ARTICLE II, RA 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF
THE ILLEGAL DRUG ALLEGEDLY FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION

Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the offense
of possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since
both actual and constructive possessions were not proved. He asserts that
the shabu was not found in his actual possession, for which reason the prosecution
was required to establish that he had constructive possession over the shabu. He
maintains that as he had no control and dominion over the drug or over the place
where it was found, the prosecution likewise failed to prove constructive
possession.

The Courts Ruling

The appeal has merit.

The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug.[6] On the third element, we have held that the possession
must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed with the
possession or control of said articles.[7] Considering that as to this knowledge, a
persons mental state of awareness of a fact is involved, we have ruled that:

Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state
its perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is
necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on
a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or
contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding
circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the
attendant events in each particular case. [8]

The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show that: he was

inside the nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation was taking place; he was
talking to Boy Bicol inside the nipa hut; he was seen holding a shotgun; when PO1
Calanoga, Jr. pointed his firearm at accused-appellant, the latter dropped his
shotgun; and when apprehended, he was in a room which had the seized shabu,
digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines. Accused-
appellant later admitted that he knew what the content of the seized plastic bag
was.[9]

Given the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to establish

possession of the shabu, whether in its actual or constructive sense, on the part of
accused-appellant.

The two buy-bust team members corroborated each others testimonies on

how they saw Boy Bicol talking to accused-appellant by a table inside the nipa hut.
That table, they testified, was the same table where they saw the shabu once inside
the nipa hut. This fact was used by the prosecution to show that accused-appellant
exercised dominion and control over the shabu on the table. We, however, find this
too broad an application of the concept of constructive possession.

In People v. Torres,[10] we held there was constructive possession of

prohibited drugs even when the accused was not home when the prohibited drugs
were found in the masters bedroom of his house.

In People v. Tira,[11] we sustained the conviction of the accused husband and

wife for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Their residence was searched and
their bed was found to be concealing illegal drugs underneath. We held that the
wife cannot feign ignorance of the drugs existence as she had full access to the
room, including the space under the bed.
 In Abuan v. People,[12] we affirmed the finding that the accused was in
constructive possession of prohibited drugs which had been found in the drawer
located in her bedroom.

In all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive possession of

illegal drugs since they were shown to enjoy dominion and control over the
premises where these drugs were found.

In the instant case, however, there is no question that accused-appellant was

not the owner of the nipa hut that was subject of the buy-bust operation. He did not
have dominion or control over the nipa hut. Neither was accused-appellant a tenant
or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. The target of the
operation was Boy Bicol. Accused-appellant was merely a guest of Boy Bicol. But
in spite of the lack of evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal possession of
drugs, the trial court declared the following:

It cannot be denied that when the accused was talking with Boy
Bicol he knew that the shabu was on the table with other items that were
confiscated by the police operatives. The court [surmises] that the
accused and boy Bicol were members of a gang hiding in that nipa hut
where they were caught red-handed with prohibited items and dangerous
[drugs].[13]

The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecutions evidence, that
accused-appellant was part of a gang dealing in illegal activities. Apart from his
presence in Boy Bicols nipa hut, the prosecution was not able to show his
participation in any drug-dealing. He was not even in possession of drugs in his
person. He was merely found inside a room with shabu, not as the rooms owner or
occupant but as a guest. While he allegedly pointed a firearm at the buy-bust team,
the prosecution curiously failed to produce the firearm that accused-appellant
supposedly used.

The prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of the
crime absent a showing of either actual or constructive possession by the accused-
appellant.

Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy

Bicols nipa hut, his subsequent arrest was also invalid. Rule 113 of the Rules on
Criminal Procedure on warrantless arrest provides:

Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
 a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;

b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable

cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped

from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment
or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under Sec.

5(a), arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to
be valid, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.[14]

Accused-appellants act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team would

have been sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante delicto; however, the
prosecution was not able to adequately prove that accused-appellant was
committing an offense. Although accused-appellant merely denied possessing the
firearm, the prosecutions charge was weak absent the presentation of the alleged
firearm. He was eventually acquitted by the trial court because of this gaffe. His
arrest, independent of the buy-bust operation targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore
not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any offense.

In sum, we find that there is insufficient evidence to show accused-

appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Having ruled on the lack of material or
constructive possession by accused-appellant of the seized shabu and his
succeeding illegal arrest, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the other issue
raised.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated November 29,

2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant Carlos Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED of violation of Sec. 11(2) of RA 9165
in Criminal Case No. 6518 of the RTC, Branch 77 in San Mateo, Rizal.

SO ORDERED.
 THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 179941

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
- versus -
CHICO-NAZARIO,*Acting Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,**
VELASCO, JR.,
LITO MACABARE y LOPEZ, NACHURA, and
Accused-Appellant. PERALTA, JJ.

Promulgated:

August 24, 2009

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the June 26, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00661 entitled People of the Philippines v. Lito Macabare y
Lopez, which affirmed the Decision of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Manila in Criminal Case No. 01-191383 finding accused-appellant Lito
Macabare guilty of violation of Section 16 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425 or The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

The Facts

The Information filed against Macabare reads:

That on or about January 18, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use [any] regulated drug,
 did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and
under his custody and control one (1) transparent plastic bag containing FOUR
HUNDRED TEN POINT SIX (410.6) grams of white crystalline substance
known as shabu containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
without the corresponding license or prescription thereof.
Contrary to law.[1]

Upon his arraignment, Macabare gave a not guilty plea. Trial ensued and the
prosecution presented Senior Jail Officer II (SJO2) Arnel V. Sarino and Forensic
Chemist Emilia Andeo-Rosales as witnesses. The defense presented Macabare as
lone witness.

Version According to the Prosecution

Macabare, a detention prisoner charged with kidnapping, had been at the Manila
City Jail since 1995. He was assigned to Cell No. 2 which sheltered 200
inmates. The cell was further divided into 30 cubicles or kubols. Each kubol had its
own sliding door and improvised locks.[2]

On January 18, 2001, between 11 and 12 oclock in the evening, Inspector Alvin
Gavan received a confidential report that shabu had been smuggled into the Manila
City Jail and hidden in Cell No. 2. A team was thus sent to inspect all the kubols in
the said cell. All the inmates were ordered to line up outside while the inspection
was being conducted. SJO2 Sarino reached Macabares kubol. He was the lone
occupant. A Coleman cooler was found in the kubol and it had a folded towel on
top. When SJO2 Sarino spread out the towel he found a plastic bag inside which
contained a white crystalline substance. The team suspected the substance to
be shabu and then brought Macabare to the office for further investigation.[3]

City Jail Warden Macumrang Depantar sent the suspected shabu to the National
Bureau of Investigation laboratory through his authorized personnel. The seized
white crystalline substance was later confirmed to be shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride.[4]

Version of the Defense

Macabare denied ownership or knowledge of the confiscated shabu. He testified
that he was strolling outside his kubol close to midnight on January 18, 2001 when
some jail personnel came and instructed all the inmates of Cell No. 2 to get out of
bed and go outside. A short while later, SJO2 Sarino discovered a packet
of shabu near Macabares chair. Macabare was, thus, forcibly brought to the office
for investigation. He denied owning the contraband and averred that a lot of
inmates slept at his kubolat will.[5]
The Ruling of the Trial Court
On November 16, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment against Macabare. It
found that the prosecution offered sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court noted that Macabares
unconfirmed defense of alibi was weak and could not outweigh the positive
probative value of the prosecutions evidence. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered pronouncing accused LITO MACABARE y

LOPEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possession of 410.60 grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride without license or prescription therefor, and
sentencing said accused to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00
plus the costs.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.

Macabare appealed the RTC Decision to this Court. We, however, transferred his
appeal to the CA pursuant to People v. Mateo.[6]

Before the CA, Macabare argued that it was error on the trial courts part to
have found him guilty on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence.

The Ruling of the CA

On June 26, 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with a modification on
Macabares pecuniary liability. It ruled that the circumstances provided by the
prosecution satisfied the requirements found in the Rules on Evidence and proved
the elements of the offense of possession of illegal drugs. Moreover, the appellate
court agreed with the RTCs finding that credence should be given to the
straightforward and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses rather than
Macabares bare denial. It likewise observed that the police officers who testified
were not shown to have been moved by some improper motive against
Macabare. The fine imposed on Macabare was reduced considering that he was a
detention prisoner and the quantity of the shabu confiscated from him.

The CA disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, We resolve to DISMISS the

appeal and AFFIRM the Decision dated November 16, 2001 of the RTC
in Manila with the modification that the fine imposed is reduced from
P5,000.000.00 to P500,000.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.[7]

On July 18, 2007, Macabare filed a Notice of Appeal notifying the CA that he was
appealing his conviction before this Court.
On January 23, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs
if they so desired. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
manifested its willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already
submitted. Macabare, on the other hand, raised and reiterated his arguments for his
acquittal in his Supplemental Brief.[8]

The Issues

WHETHER THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED

BY THE PROSECUTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A CONVICTION,
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE DRUGS FOUND IN THE
KUBOL OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT WERE HIS;

II

WHETHER THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS PRESUMPTION OF

INNOCENCE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS BY
PUBLIC OFFICERS.

In his appeal, Macabare disputes the finding that the 410.6 grams of shabu found
in Cell No. 2 belonged to him. He explains that the arrangement in each cell is
such that his cubicle or kubol had many occupants. Other inmates, especially old-
timers, slept in the kubol with him. He argues that it was possible then for the
Coleman cooler to have been placed inside his kubol by some inmates who were
frightened by the surprise inspection by the jail officers. He emphasizes that the
prosecution failed to establish that the Coleman cooler was even his. The evidence
of the prosecution, he claims, was, therefore, weak and did not overcome the
presumption of innocence he enjoys.

The OSG, on the other hand, stresses that all the circumstances shown by the
prosecution are enough to convict Macabare. In contrast, the OSG asserts,
Macabare was not able to adequately explain the presence of the shabu in
his kubol. Such failure showed that the defense was not able to overturn the
disputable presumption that things which a person possesses or over which he
exercises acts of ownership are owned by him. The OSG also contends that
Macabares defenses of frame-up and alibi are unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence.

The Courts Ruling

We affirm Macabares conviction.

 Circumstantial Evidence

To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the

circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads
one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
the others, as the guilty person. Circumstantial evidence on record will be
sufficient to convict the accused if it shows a series of circumstances duly proved
and consistent with each other. Each and every circumstance must be consistent
with the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with the accuseds innocence. [9] The
circumstances must be proved, and not themselves presumed.[10]

The appellate court, in affirming Macabares conviction, relied on the following

circumstantial evidence: First, Macabare was assigned a kubol inside Cell No. 2.
This served as his quarters. Second, he was the lone occupant assigned to
the kubol. Third, when the inspection team reached Macabares kubol inside Cell
No. 2, SJO2 Sarino spotted a Coleman cooler. He discovered a plastic pack
wrapped in a towel which was on top of the cooler. Fourth, the plastic pack
contained white crystalline granules which later tested positive for shabu. And last,
Macabare was not able to explain how the plastic pack containing the shabu ended
up in his kubol. These circumstances were duly proved at the trial and are
consistent with a finding of guilt. This set of circumstances sufficiently leads one
to conclude that Macabare indeed owned the contraband. Moreover, the
prosecution was able to show Macabares liability under the concepts of disputable
presumption of ownership and constructive possession.

The defense failed to disprove Macabares ownership of the contraband. They were
unable to rebut the finding of possession by Macabare of the shabu found in
his kubol. Such possession gave rise to a disputable presumption under Sec. 3(j),
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which states:

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if

uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
xxxx

(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him

Constructive possession can also be inferred from the circumstancial evidence

presented. The discussion found in People v. Tira[11] clearly explains the concept:
x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential
element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to
possess (animus possidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists
when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused.
On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the
 dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or
control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to
exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is
shared with another.

Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a

showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact
of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any
reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that
the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place
under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge by
the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he
exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from
the fact that the dangerous drugs is in the house or place over which the accused
has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation.

In Macabares case, the defense was not able to present evidence refuting the
showing of animus possidendi over the shabu found in his kubol. Macabares
insistence that someone else owned the shabu is unpersuasive and uncorroborated.
It is a mere denial which by itself is insufficient to overcome this presumption.
[12]
The presumption of ownership, thus, lies against Macabare. Moreover, it is
well-established that the defense of alibi or denial, in the absence of convincing
evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts for it can be easily
concocted, especially in cases involving the Dangerous Drugs Act.[13]

Presumption of Regularity

Macabare claims also that the rebuttable presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed cannot by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence that
an accused enjoys. This claim is valid to a point. Indeed, the constitutional
presumption of innocence assumes primacy over the presumption of regularity.
[14]
We cannot, however, apply this principle to the instant case. The circumstantial
evidence imputing animus posidendi to Macabare over the prohibited substance
found in his kubolcoupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions constitutes proof of guilt of Macabare beyond a reasonable
doubt. More so, the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the
police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an
improper motive[15]in falsely imputing a serious crime to Macabare.[16]
Macabare was charged with a serious offense and yet he did not bother to present
any motive for the jail officers to falsely accuse him. According to him, he has no
idea why the jail officers would be singling him out as the owner of over 400
grams of shabu.[17] He also could not explain the presence of a packet
of shabu found near his bed. He did not question the prosecutions assertion that he
was the sole inmate assigned to the kubol where the shabu was found; although he
claimed that there were also other people, more or less 20 different inmates, who
would sleep there.[18] He simply denied ownership of the shabu and the cooler and
towel found with it without adducing evidence to fortify his claim that other
inmates had access to his kubol and could have placed the stash of shabu near his
bed to avoid getting caught. Macabare, indeed, has not presented a strong defense
to the crime charged.

SJO2 Sarino, on the other hand, gave a straightforward and detailed testimony on
the discovery of the shabu in Macabares cubicle:

Prosecutor Senados
Q: Now, [after] you were constituted as the team to conduct search on cell no. 2,
do you recall if there were preparations that you made before you implement your
duty?

A: There [were], sir.

Q: What were these preparations?

A: We first prepared the sketch of the said cell and then we were [each] positioned
in [a] strategic place [for entry]. [We] also brought with us flashlight just in case
there will be unexpected brown out, sir.

Q: Now, Mr. witness, since you said you were assigned at the said strategic place,
where were you designated?

A: I was placed at the back door of cell no. 2, sir.

Q: Now, after the preparations were made, what happened?

A: We went to the said cell, sir.

Q: What happened when you entered cell no. 2?

A: Immediately, we asked the inmates therein to fall in line, sir.

Q: And after after they were made to fall in line, what happened?

A: We conducted [the inspection] [at] their respective kubol, sir.

Q: Do you recall how many cubicles you [were] able to search Mr. witness?

A: I was able to search five (5) kubols, sir.

Q: And what did you find inside these five (5) kubols that you searched?

A: In one of the [kubols] occupied by the inmate [I] was able to find shabu, sir.

Q: How would you describe the shabu that you discovered inside the kubol?

A: When I was conducting search on the kubol, incidentally, I pulled this

[Coleman], sir.

Q: Where was it placed?

A: Inside that kubol, sir.

Q: So, now, what happened after you pulled out that cooler?

A: I saw a towel inside, sir.

Q: And where was the towel placed?

A: [When] I folded this towel, this towel was folded this way placed on top of the
[Coleman] and what I did [was] to feel it, sir.

Q: Now, when you felt the towel, what happened?

A: I opened it and then I found suspected shabu, sir.

Q: And this suspected shabu, where was this placed?

A: Inside the folded towel, sir.

Q: Now, was it contained in some form of container or was it just wrapped by the
said towel?

A: It is contained in a transparent plastic bag which was [sealed], sir.

Q: Now, Mr. witness, is that [cooler] that you are showing us the same cooler that
you found inside the kubol?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And is that towel that you are showing us the same towel that you found on top
of that cooler?

A: Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q: By the way, do you recall who opened that or who was the occupant of that
kubol from where you found the shabu you mentioned?

A: After we [found] this, we immediately inquired who [the] occupant of that

kubol [was] and then an inmate by the name of Lito Macabare y Lopez admitted
it, sir.

Q: Now this Lito Macabare, is he present this morning?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: If you are asked to identify him, will you be able to do so?

A: Yes, sir.

xxxx

(at this juncture, the witness stepped down from the witness stand, approached a
certain person inside the courtroom and tapped his shoulder and mentioned the
name Lito Macabare)
xxxx
Q: Now, after that Mr. witness, what did you do, if any?

A: We invited him to our office, sir.

Q: When you say your office, you are referring to the intelligence branch?

A: Yes, sir, I.I.B.

Q: Now, Mr. witness, what happened after you invited him to your office?

A: We [had] him undergo investigation, sir.

Q: How, Mr. witness?

A: We asked him if he is the owner of the shabu that was confiscated, sir.

Q: Now, how about the owner of the kubol, did you also ask him?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: What were his answers to your queries?

A: He is the one, sir.

Q: So, Mr. witness, this shabu that you said you found inside the kubol of Mr.
Macabare, [if that] is shown to you again or the plastic containing the shabu, if
that is shown to you again, can you still identify it?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What would be your basis in identifying it?

A: We placed the markings, sir.

Q: Who exactly placed the markings?

A: I myself placed the markings, sir.

Q: And what were the markings that you placed on it?

A: Letters L.M.L. [which ] stand for Lito Macabare y Lopez, sir.

Q: Mr. witness, Im showing you a [transparent] plastic containing brownish

crystalline substance, will you please examine this and tell us if that is the one that
you were mentioning[?]

A: This is the one, sir.

xxxx

Prosecutor Senados

We would like to manifest, Your Honor, that the [transparent] plastic identified by
the witness has the markings, LML, Your Honor.

Q: What else happened at the IIB office Mr. witness?

A: We forwarded that item to the NBI for laboratory examination, sir.[19]

The positive and categorical testimony of SJO2 Sarino satisfactorily proves
Macabares guilt of illegal possession of shabu. We agree with the CA when it ruled
that Macabares mere denial cannot outweigh circumstantial evidence clearly
establishing his participation in the crime charged. It is well-settled that positive
declarations of a prosecution witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused.
[20]
The evidence for the prosecution was found by both the trial and appellate
courts to be sufficient and credible while Macabares defense of denial was weak,
self-serving, speculative, and uncorroborated. An accused can only be exonerated
if the prosecution fails to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.[21] We find that the prosecution has met
this quantum of proof in the instant case.
All told, we sustain the findings of both the RTC and the CA. The trial courts
determination on the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent
findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain
facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might
affect the result of the case. We defer to its findings since, simply put, they can
easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[22]

As to the fine imposed on Macabare, the appellate court, citing People v. Lee,
[23]
reduced it from PhP 5 million to PhP 500,000 in view of the quantity of
the shabu(410.6 grams) involved. We affirm the CAs modification of the fine
imposed as it is within the range prescribed by RA 6425, as amended.[24]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.

No. 00661 finding accused-appellant Lito Macabare guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Sec. 16 of RA 6425 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

*
As per Special Order No. 678 dated August 3, 2009.
**
Additional member as per Special Order No. 679 dated August 3, 2009.
[1]
CA rollo, p, 49.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[3]
Id. at 5.
[4]
CA rollo, p. 50.
[5]
Id.
[6]
G.R. Nos. 14678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[7]
CA rollo, p. 53. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices
Bienvenido L. Reyes and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
[8]
Rollo, p. 22.
[9]
Aoas v. People, G.R. No. 155339, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 311, 318.
[10]
Id.; citing Francisco, EVIDENCE 605.
[11]
G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 151.
[12]
People v. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662, May 10, 2001, 357 SCRA 692, 706.
[13]
People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 471, 485.
[14]
People v. Timtiman, G.R. No. 101663, November 4, 1992, 215 SCRA 364, 374.
[15]
See People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 454.
[16]
See People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741, 753.
[17]
TSN, September 27, 2001, p. 10.
[18]
Id. at 9.
[19]
TSN, September 18, 2001, pp. 4-8.
[20]
People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179036, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 375, 390.
[21]
Su Zhi Shan v. People, G.R. No. 169933, March 9, 2007, 518 SCRA 48, 65.
[22]
Mateo, supra note 20, at 394.
[23]
G.R. No. 140919, March 20, 2001, 354 SCRA 745, 754-755.
[24]
Lee, id. Secs. 16 and 17 of RA 6425, as amended, pertinently provide:

Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs.The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos [PhP 500,000] 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.
Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of
the Crime.The penalties for offenses under Section 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:

xxxx

3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride. (Emphasis supplied.)

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 184599

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

- versus - CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
TEDDY BATOON y MIGUEL and PERALTA,* and
MELCHOR BATOON y MIGUEL, PEREZ, JJ.
Accused-Appellants.
Promulgated:

November 24, 2010

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the February 28, 2008 Decision[1] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 entitled People of the Philippines v.
Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon, which affirmed the August 11, 2006
Decision[2] in Criminal Case Nos. 11823-12 and 11823-13 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 13 in Laoag City. The trial court held accused-appellants
Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

The charges against accused-appellants stemmed from the following

Informations:

That, on or about July 14, 2005, at Brgy. 14, in the municipality of San
Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.12345 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu a prohibited drug
to a poseur buyer of the police authorities of INPPO PAID-SOT, Camp Juan,
Laoag city who posed as buyer in a buy-bust operation without authority to do so.

CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]

That on or about July 14, 2005, at Brgy. 14, in the municipality of San
Nicolas, province of Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his possession, control and custody three (3) heat-sealed
plastic sachets containing 0.1559 grams, 0.1168 grams and 0.1337 grams
respectively, of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a
prohibited drug without the authority or license to possess the same from the
appropriate authority.

CONTARY TO LAW.[4]

Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented in evidence the oral

testimonies of Police Officer 2 (PO2) Excel Vicente and PO1 Alizer Cabotaje of
the Philippine National Police Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations
Team (PAID-SOT) of Ilocos Norte in Camp Valentin Juan, Laoag City. The
prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on the facts of the testimony of
Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Valeriano Laya II, a forensic chemist of the same
office.

The Peoples version of the incident is as follows:

 On July 14, 2005, the PAID-SOT received a report that there was rampant
selling of shabu in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. According to the
report, brothers Teddy and Melchor Batoon were two of the most notorious sellers
of illegal drugs in the area.[5]

Acting on this information, a team was formed to confirm the veracity of the
report through a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of P/Insp. Teddy
Rosqueta, Senior Police Officer 4 (SPO4) Angel Salvatierra, SPO3 Arthur Mateo,
PO3 Rousel Albano, PO2 Excel Vicente, PO2 Danny Valdez, and PO1 Alizer
Cabotaje. During the briefing for the operation, PO2 Vicente was designated as the
poseur-buyer. He was given a PhP 500 bill which he marked with the letter e.
The briefing was recorded by PO3 Albano in the police blotter.

Thereafter, PO2 Vicente and the police asset proceeded to accused-

appellants residence in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. The other
members of the team followed on board two vehicles. Upon arriving in the area,
the asset approached accused-appellant Melchor and introduced PO2 Vicente as
customer. Melchor informed PO2 Vicente that the shabu was with his brother,
accused-appellant Teddy. He then asked the money from PO2 Vicente and the latter
gave him the marked PhP 500 bill.[6] Thereafter, Melchor approached Teddy, who
was about 10 meters away from them. He handed the marked money to Teddy,
who, in turn, gave Melchor a sachet.

Melchor returned to where PO2 Vicente was and handed him the sachet.
Upon receiving the sachet, PO2 Vicente signaled to his companions by turning his
cap, to have its visor at the back of his head. The other team members rushed to
arrest Melchor and Teddy. PO2 Vicente frisked Melchor and recovered from him
one PhP 100 bill, three pieces of five-peso coins, three pieces of one-peso coin, one
jungle knife, one lighter, and one brown wallet. PO1 Cabotaje got hold of Teddy
and recovered from him the marked PhP 500 bill, six PhP 100 bills, one candy, and
one black coin purse containing three elongated sachets of shabu. Accused-
appellants were then detained in the PAID-SOT, Camp Juan.

Immediately upon reaching the camp, PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje
brought the confiscated sachets to the crime laboratory for examination. The
examination results showed that the four sachets taken from accused-appellants
contained a substance positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The
sachet subject of the buy-bust operation contained 0.1235 gram of shabu. On the
other hand, the three sachets seized from Teddy contained shabu weighing 0.1559
gram, 0.1168 gram, and 0.1337 gram, or an aggregate net weight of 0.4064 gram.
 In their defense, accused-appellants claimed denial and frame-up. Accused-
appellants alleged that in the afternoon of July 14, 2005, Melchor was seated at the
corner of Castro and McKinley Streets in Barangay 14, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte
when a car stopped in front of him. Suddenly, the male passengers of the car
alighted, approached him, and boxed him. Melchor did not know who the men
were. Neither did he know why the men boxed him. Thereafter, the men forced
Melchor to go inside the car.[7]

Meanwhile, Teddy, who had just come home from the Municipal Trial Court
of San Nicolas, was called by a neighbor and was told that his brother was being
arrested. He ran towards the place where his brother was, about 30 to 40 meters
north of their house. Upon reaching the place, he asked the men what the
commotion was about. Instead of answering him, however, the men boxed him on
the face. Thereafter, he was also boarded into the vehicle together with Melchor.
[8]
The men then took his money amounting to PhP 1,320 and his mobile phone.

Thereafter, Melchor and Teddy were detained at Camp Juan. While under
police custody, they were continuously maltreated and mauled.

Charles Tirona, Melchors son, Elizabeth Domingo, and Mary Jane Mariano
corroborated the testimonies of accused-appellants as to the facts and
circumstances surrounding accused-appellants arrest and physical abuse in the
hands of the police. On the other hand, Emerson Cabel confirmed that Teddy
attended a court hearing in the municipal hall at around 2:00 p.m. of July 14, 2005.
He also testified that he saw Teddy being boarded into a Wrangler-type jeep.[9]

On August 11, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive part of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment finding both accused

Teddy Batoon and Melchor Batoon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged
of illegal sale of shabu in criminal case NO. 11823 and are, therefore, sentenced
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and for each of them to pay the fine of
PhP 2,000,000.00. Both accused are likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt as charged of illegal possession of shabu with an aggregate weight of
0.4064 gram in Criminal Case No. 11824 and are, therefore, sentenced to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and
one (1) day as minimum to fifteen (15) years as maximum and for each of them to
pay a fine of PhP 300,000.00.

The contraband subject of theses cases are hereby confiscated, the same to
be disposed of as law prescribes, with costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.[10]
 The case was appealed to the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

Convinced of the regularity of the buy-bust operation against accused-

appellants, the CA dismissed accused-appellants claim of frame-up and upheld
their conviction. Also, it held that the prosecution was able to prove that the
substance submitted for forensic examination was the same as that seized from the
accused.

Hence, we have this appeal.

The Issues

In a Resolution dated November 19, 2008, this Court required the parties to
submit supplemental briefs if they so desired. On January 19, 2009, accused-
appellants, through counsel, signified that they were not going to file a
supplemental brief. Thus, the following issues raised in accused-appellants brief
dated March 2, 2007 are now deemed adopted in this present appeal:

I.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellants of the
crimes charged despite the prosecutions failure to establish the identity of the
prohibited drugs constituting the corpus delicti of the offenses.

II.
The trial court gravely erred in finding that there was conspiracy in the
crime of illegal possession of shabu under Criminal Case No. 11824 when the
alleged confiscated drugs were seized only from appellant Teddy Batoons
possession.

III.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused appellant Melchor
Batoon of the crime of illegal possession of shabu under Criminal Case No.
11824 despite the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.[11]

In essence, accused-appellants question the chain of custody over the alleged

confiscated prohibited drugs and Melchors conviction for illegal possession
of shabu.

The Ruling of the Court

The appeal is without merit.

 In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[12]

There is no question that the police conducted a valid buy-bust operation

against accused-appellants. The positive testimonies of the police officers show the
coordinated efforts of the PAID-SOT to entrap accused-appellants while in the act
of selling a prohibited drug. The regularity of the performance of their duty on this
matter could not be overturned absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.[13]

Accused-appellants hinge their appeal on the alleged failure of the police to

comply with the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs
as embodied in Sec. 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165.
They alleged that there was no conclusive evidence to prove that the substances
seized from accused-appellants were the same substances subjected to examination
and presented in court.

We are not convinced. Records show that the chain of custody over the
seized substances was not broken, and that the drugs seized from appellants were
properly identified before the trial court. As correctly appreciated by the trial and
appellate courts, a legitimate buy-bust operation led to the arrest of accused-
appellants. During the police operation, PO2 Vicente received from Melchor a
sachet containing the drugs.[14] On the other hand, PO1 Cabotaje seized from Teddy
three sachets, also containing drugs.[15] PO2 Vicente and PO1 Cabotaje
marked[16] and separately prepared the certification of the seized items.
[17]
Thereafter, they personally turned over the items to the crime laboratory for
examination.[18] The police chemist, P/Insp. Laya II, tested the marked sachets,
which turned out positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[19] Finally, during
trial, the same marked sachets were identified by PO2 Vicente [20] and PO1
Cabotaje.[21]

Thus, the forgoing facts confirm that the police officers complied with the
procedure in the custody of seized prohibited drugs.

Also, Melchor cannot deny his involvement in the possession of the shabu.
For conviction of illegal possession of a prohibited drug to lie, the following
elements must be established: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an
object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being
in possession of the drug. Notably, exclusive possession of the prohibited drug is
not required. As explained in People v. Huang Zhen Hua:
 Possession under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also
constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the
immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand,
constructive possession exists when the drug is under dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place
where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused
cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the
place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.

Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a

showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact
of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any
reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that
the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place
under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge by
the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he
exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same way may be presumed
from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the
accused has control or dominion or within such premises in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation.[22]

In this case, although the three sachets containing shabu were found solely
in the possession of Teddy, it was evident that Melchor had knowledge of its
existence. Moreover, as correctly found by the CA, Melchor had easy access to
the shabu, because they conspired to engage in the illegal business of drugs. The
CA explained, thus:

As the records would show, when PO2 Vicente handed to Melchor Batoon
a marked [PhP] 500.00 bill, the latter went to his brother Teddy and gave him
money. Upon receipt of the money, Teddy Batoon handed a sachet to Melchor,
who then gave it to PO2 Vicente. When the arrest [was] affected on both of them,
the three additional sachets were found on [Teddy] by PO1 Cabotaje.

These acts of the accused indubitably demonstrate a coordinated plan on

their part to actively engage in the illegal business of drugs. From their concerted
conduct, it can easily be deduced that there was common design to deal with
illegal drugs. Needless to state, when conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act
of all conspirators.[23]

Hence, the prosecution successfully adduced proof beyond reasonable doubt

of accused-appellants Melchor and Teddy Batoons guilt of the crimes charged.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The February 28, 2008 CA

Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02472 upholding the conviction of accused-
appellants is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
 *
Additional member per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-23. Penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza and concurred in by Associate Justices
Andres B. Reyes Jr. and Ramon Bato, Jr.
[2]
CA rollo, pp. 68-91. Penned by Judge Philip G. Salvador.
[3]
Id. at 9.
[4]
Id. at 11.
[5]
Rollo, p. 4.
[6]
Id.
[7]
Id. at 6.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Id. at 7.
[10]
CA rollo, pp. 80-81.
[11]
Id. at 93.
[12]
People v. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 486, 490; citing People of the
Philippines v. Hajili and Unday, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003).
[13]
People v. Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 544, 552.
[14]
TSN, September 26, 2005, p. 13.
[15]
TSN, October 6, 2005, p. 14.
[16]
TSN, September 26, 2005, p. 22 and October 6, 2005, p. 16.
[17]
Records, pp. 39-40.
[18]
TSN, supra note 15, at 18.
[19]
CA rollo, pp. 15-16.
[20]
TSN, supra note 14, at 24.
[21]
TSN, supra note 15, at 16.
[22]
G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 350, 368; citing People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615,
May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134.
[23]
Rollo, p. 21.
 THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 179941

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:
- versus -
CHICO-NAZARIO,*Acting Chairperson,
CARPIO MORALES,**
VELASCO, JR.,
LITO MACABARE y LOPEZ, NACHURA, and
Accused-Appellant. PERALTA, JJ.

Promulgated:

August 24, 2009

x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

This is an appeal from the June 26, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00661 entitled People of the Philippines v. Lito Macabare y
Lopez, which affirmed the Decision of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Manila in Criminal Case No. 01-191383 finding accused-appellant Lito
Macabare guilty of violation of Section 16 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425 or The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

The Facts

The Information filed against Macabare reads:

That on or about January 18, 2001, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused, without being authorized by law to possess or use [any] regulated drug,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and
under his custody and control one (1) transparent plastic bag containing FOUR
HUNDRED TEN POINT SIX (410.6) grams of white crystalline substance
known as shabu containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
without the corresponding license or prescription thereof.
Contrary to law.[1]

Upon his arraignment, Macabare gave a not guilty plea. Trial ensued and the
prosecution presented Senior Jail Officer II (SJO2) Arnel V. Sarino and Forensic
Chemist Emilia Andeo-Rosales as witnesses. The defense presented Macabare as
lone witness.

Version According to the Prosecution

Macabare, a detention prisoner charged with kidnapping, had been at the Manila
City Jail since 1995. He was assigned to Cell No. 2 which sheltered 200
inmates. The cell was further divided into 30 cubicles or kubols. Each kubol had its
own sliding door and improvised locks.[2]

On January 18, 2001, between 11 and 12 oclock in the evening, Inspector Alvin
Gavan received a confidential report that shabu had been smuggled into the Manila
City Jail and hidden in Cell No. 2. A team was thus sent to inspect all the kubols in
the said cell. All the inmates were ordered to line up outside while the inspection
was being conducted. SJO2 Sarino reached Macabares kubol. He was the lone
occupant. A Coleman cooler was found in the kubol and it had a folded towel on
top. When SJO2 Sarino spread out the towel he found a plastic bag inside which
contained a white crystalline substance. The team suspected the substance to
be shabu and then brought Macabare to the office for further investigation.[3]

City Jail Warden Macumrang Depantar sent the suspected shabu to the National
Bureau of Investigation laboratory through his authorized personnel. The seized
white crystalline substance was later confirmed to be shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride.[4]

Version of the Defense

Macabare denied ownership or knowledge of the confiscated shabu. He testified
that he was strolling outside his kubol close to midnight on January 18, 2001 when
some jail personnel came and instructed all the inmates of Cell No. 2 to get out of
bed and go outside. A short while later, SJO2 Sarino discovered a packet
of shabu near Macabares chair. Macabare was, thus, forcibly brought to the office
for investigation. He denied owning the contraband and averred that a lot of
inmates slept at his kubolat will.[5]
The Ruling of the Trial Court

On November 16, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment against Macabare. It
found that the prosecution offered sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain a
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court noted that Macabares
unconfirmed defense of alibi was weak and could not outweigh the positive
probative value of the prosecutions evidence. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered pronouncing accused LITO MACABARE y

LOPEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possession of 410.60 grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride without license or prescription therefor, and
sentencing said accused to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00
plus the costs.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.

Macabare appealed the RTC Decision to this Court. We, however, transferred his
appeal to the CA pursuant to People v. Mateo.[6]

Before the CA, Macabare argued that it was error on the trial courts part to
have found him guilty on the basis of mere circumstantial evidence.

The Ruling of the CA

On June 26, 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with a modification on
Macabares pecuniary liability. It ruled that the circumstances provided by the
prosecution satisfied the requirements found in the Rules on Evidence and proved
the elements of the offense of possession of illegal drugs. Moreover, the appellate
court agreed with the RTCs finding that credence should be given to the
straightforward and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses rather than
Macabares bare denial. It likewise observed that the police officers who testified
were not shown to have been moved by some improper motive against
Macabare. The fine imposed on Macabare was reduced considering that he was a
detention prisoner and the quantity of the shabu confiscated from him.

The CA disposed of the case as follows:

 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, We resolve to DISMISS the
appeal and AFFIRM the Decision dated November 16, 2001 of the RTC
in Manila with the modification that the fine imposed is reduced from
P5,000.000.00 to P500,000.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.[7]

On July 18, 2007, Macabare filed a Notice of Appeal notifying the CA that he was
appealing his conviction before this Court.

On January 23, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs
if they so desired. The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
manifested its willingness to submit the case on the basis of the records already
submitted. Macabare, on the other hand, raised and reiterated his arguments for his
acquittal in his Supplemental Brief.[8]

The Issues

WHETHER THE SET OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED

BY THE PROSECUTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A CONVICTION,
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE DRUGS FOUND IN THE
KUBOL OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT WERE HIS;

II

WHETHER THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS PRESUMPTION OF

INNOCENCE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THE PRESUMPTION OF
REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS BY
PUBLIC OFFICERS.

In his appeal, Macabare disputes the finding that the 410.6 grams of shabu found
in Cell No. 2 belonged to him. He explains that the arrangement in each cell is
such that his cubicle or kubol had many occupants. Other inmates, especially old-
timers, slept in the kubol with him. He argues that it was possible then for the
Coleman cooler to have been placed inside his kubol by some inmates who were
frightened by the surprise inspection by the jail officers. He emphasizes that the
prosecution failed to establish that the Coleman cooler was even his. The evidence
of the prosecution, he claims, was, therefore, weak and did not overcome the
presumption of innocence he enjoys.

The OSG, on the other hand, stresses that all the circumstances shown by the
prosecution are enough to convict Macabare. In contrast, the OSG asserts,
Macabare was not able to adequately explain the presence of the shabu in
his kubol. Such failure showed that the defense was not able to overturn the
disputable presumption that things which a person possesses or over which he
exercises acts of ownership are owned by him. The OSG also contends that
Macabares defenses of frame-up and alibi are unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence.

The Courts Ruling

We affirm Macabares conviction.

Circumstantial Evidence

To uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the

circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads
one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
the others, as the guilty person. Circumstantial evidence on record will be
sufficient to convict the accused if it shows a series of circumstances duly proved
and consistent with each other. Each and every circumstance must be consistent
with the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with the accuseds innocence. [9] The
circumstances must be proved, and not themselves presumed.[10]

The appellate court, in affirming Macabares conviction, relied on the following

circumstantial evidence: First, Macabare was assigned a kubol inside Cell No. 2.
This served as his quarters. Second, he was the lone occupant assigned to
the kubol. Third, when the inspection team reached Macabares kubol inside Cell
No. 2, SJO2 Sarino spotted a Coleman cooler. He discovered a plastic pack
wrapped in a towel which was on top of the cooler. Fourth, the plastic pack
contained white crystalline granules which later tested positive for shabu. And last,
Macabare was not able to explain how the plastic pack containing the shabu ended
up in his kubol. These circumstances were duly proved at the trial and are
consistent with a finding of guilt. This set of circumstances sufficiently leads one
to conclude that Macabare indeed owned the contraband. Moreover, the
prosecution was able to show Macabares liability under the concepts of disputable
presumption of ownership and constructive possession.

The defense failed to disprove Macabares ownership of the contraband. They were
unable to rebut the finding of possession by Macabare of the shabu found in
his kubol. Such possession gave rise to a disputable presumption under Sec. 3(j),
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which states:

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. The following presumptions are satisfactory if

uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
xxxx

(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things
which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him
Constructive possession can also be inferred from the circumstancial evidence
presented. The discussion found in People v. Tira[11] clearly explains the concept:
x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential
element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to
possess (animus possidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not
only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists
when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused.
On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the
dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or
control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to
exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is
shared with another.

Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a

showing of non-exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact
of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any
reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that
the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place
under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since knowledge by
the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he
exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from
the fact that the dangerous drugs is in the house or place over which the accused
has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation.

In Macabares case, the defense was not able to present evidence refuting the
showing of animus possidendi over the shabu found in his kubol. Macabares
insistence that someone else owned the shabu is unpersuasive and uncorroborated.
It is a mere denial which by itself is insufficient to overcome this presumption.
[12]
The presumption of ownership, thus, lies against Macabare. Moreover, it is
well-established that the defense of alibi or denial, in the absence of convincing
evidence, is invariably viewed with disfavor by the courts for it can be easily
concocted, especially in cases involving the Dangerous Drugs Act.[13]

Presumption of Regularity

Macabare claims also that the rebuttable presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed cannot by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence that
an accused enjoys. This claim is valid to a point. Indeed, the constitutional
presumption of innocence assumes primacy over the presumption of regularity.
[14]
We cannot, however, apply this principle to the instant case. The circumstantial
evidence imputing animus posidendi to Macabare over the prohibited substance
found in his kubolcoupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions constitutes proof of guilt of Macabare beyond a reasonable
doubt. More so, the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the
police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an
improper motive[15]in falsely imputing a serious crime to Macabare.[16]
Macabare was charged with a serious offense and yet he did not bother to present
any motive for the jail officers to falsely accuse him. According to him, he has no
idea why the jail officers would be singling him out as the owner of over 400
grams of shabu.[17] He also could not explain the presence of a packet
of shabu found near his bed. He did not question the prosecutions assertion that he
was the sole inmate assigned to the kubol where the shabu was found; although he
claimed that there were also other people, more or less 20 different inmates, who
would sleep there.[18] He simply denied ownership of the shabu and the cooler and
towel found with it without adducing evidence to fortify his claim that other
inmates had access to his kubol and could have placed the stash of shabu near his
bed to avoid getting caught. Macabare, indeed, has not presented a strong defense
to the crime charged.

SJO2 Sarino, on the other hand, gave a straightforward and detailed testimony on
the discovery of the shabu in Macabares cubicle:

Prosecutor Senados
Q: Now, [after] you were constituted as the team to conduct search on cell no. 2,
do you recall if there were preparations that you made before you implement your
duty?

A: There [were], sir.

Q: What were these preparations?

A: We first prepared the sketch of the said cell and then we were [each] positioned
in [a] strategic place [for entry]. [We] also brought with us flashlight just in case
there will be unexpected brown out, sir.

Q: Now, Mr. witness, since you said you were assigned at the said strategic place,
where were you designated?

A: I was placed at the back door of cell no. 2, sir.

Q: Now, after the preparations were made, what happened?

A: We went to the said cell, sir.

Q: What happened when you entered cell no. 2?

A: Immediately, we asked the inmates therein to fall in line, sir.

Q: And after after they were made to fall in line, what happened?

A: We conducted [the inspection] [at] their respective kubol, sir.

Q: Do you recall how many cubicles you [were] able to search Mr. witness?

A: I was able to search five (5) kubols, sir.

Q: And what did you find inside these five (5) kubols that you searched?
A: In one of the [kubols] occupied by the inmate [I] was able to find shabu, sir.

Q: How would you describe the shabu that you discovered inside the kubol?

A: When I was conducting search on the kubol, incidentally, I pulled this

[Coleman], sir.

Q: Where was it placed?

A: Inside that kubol, sir.

Q: So, now, what happened after you pulled out that cooler?

A: I saw a towel inside, sir.

Q: And where was the towel placed?

A: [When] I folded this towel, this towel was folded this way placed on top of the
[Coleman] and what I did [was] to feel it, sir.

Q: Now, when you felt the towel, what happened?

A: I opened it and then I found suspected shabu, sir.

Q: And this suspected shabu, where was this placed?

A: Inside the folded towel, sir.

Q: Now, was it contained in some form of container or was it just wrapped by the
said towel?

A: It is contained in a transparent plastic bag which was [sealed], sir.

Q: Now, Mr. witness, is that [cooler] that you are showing us the same cooler that
you found inside the kubol?

A: Yes sir.

Q: And is that towel that you are showing us the same towel that you found on top
of that cooler?

A: Yes, sir.

xxxx

Q: By the way, do you recall who opened that or who was the occupant of that
kubol from where you found the shabu you mentioned?

A: After we [found] this, we immediately inquired who [the] occupant of that

kubol [was] and then an inmate by the name of Lito Macabare y Lopez admitted
it, sir.

Q: Now this Lito Macabare, is he present this morning?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: If you are asked to identify him, will you be able to do so?

A: Yes, sir.

xxxx

(at this juncture, the witness stepped down from the witness stand, approached a
certain person inside the courtroom and tapped his shoulder and mentioned the
name Lito Macabare)
xxxx

Q: Now, after that Mr. witness, what did you do, if any?

A: We invited him to our office, sir.

Q: When you say your office, you are referring to the intelligence branch?

A: Yes, sir, I.I.B.

Q: Now, Mr. witness, what happened after you invited him to your office?

A: We [had] him undergo investigation, sir.

Q: How, Mr. witness?

A: We asked him if he is the owner of the shabu that was confiscated, sir.

Q: Now, how about the owner of the kubol, did you also ask him?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: What were his answers to your queries?

A: He is the one, sir.

Q: So, Mr. witness, this shabu that you said you found inside the kubol of Mr.
Macabare, [if that] is shown to you again or the plastic containing the shabu, if
that is shown to you again, can you still identify it?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What would be your basis in identifying it?

A: We placed the markings, sir.

Q: Who exactly placed the markings?

A: I myself placed the markings, sir.

Q: And what were the markings that you placed on it?

A: Letters L.M.L. [which ] stand for Lito Macabare y Lopez, sir.

Q: Mr. witness, Im showing you a [transparent] plastic containing brownish

crystalline substance, will you please examine this and tell us if that is the one that
you were mentioning[?]

A: This is the one, sir.

 xxxx

Prosecutor Senados

We would like to manifest, Your Honor, that the [transparent] plastic identified by
the witness has the markings, LML, Your Honor.

Q: What else happened at the IIB office Mr. witness?

A: We forwarded that item to the NBI for laboratory examination, sir.[19]

The positive and categorical testimony of SJO2 Sarino satisfactorily proves

Macabares guilt of illegal possession of shabu. We agree with the CA when it ruled
that Macabares mere denial cannot outweigh circumstantial evidence clearly
establishing his participation in the crime charged. It is well-settled that positive
declarations of a prosecution witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused.
[20]
The evidence for the prosecution was found by both the trial and appellate
courts to be sufficient and credible while Macabares defense of denial was weak,
self-serving, speculative, and uncorroborated. An accused can only be exonerated
if the prosecution fails to meet the quantum of proof required to overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence.[21] We find that the prosecution has met
this quantum of proof in the instant case.
All told, we sustain the findings of both the RTC and the CA. The trial courts
determination on the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent
findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain
facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might
affect the result of the case. We defer to its findings since, simply put, they can
easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not.[22]

As to the fine imposed on Macabare, the appellate court, citing People v. Lee,
[23]
reduced it from PhP 5 million to PhP 500,000 in view of the quantity of
the shabu(410.6 grams) involved. We affirm the CAs modification of the fine
imposed as it is within the range prescribed by RA 6425, as amended.[24]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.

No. 00661 finding accused-appellant Lito Macabare guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Sec. 16 of RA 6425 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
*
As per Special Order No. 678 dated August 3, 2009.
**
Additional member as per Special Order No. 679 dated August 3, 2009.
[1]
CA rollo, p, 49.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[3]
Id. at 5.
[4]
CA rollo, p. 50.
[5]
Id.
[6]
G.R. Nos. 14678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[7]
CA rollo, p. 53. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices
Bienvenido L. Reyes and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
[8]
Rollo, p. 22.
[9]
Aoas v. People, G.R. No. 155339, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 311, 318.
[10]
Id.; citing Francisco, EVIDENCE 605.
[11]
G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134, 151.
[12]
People v. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662, May 10, 2001, 357 SCRA 692, 706.
[13]
People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 471, 485.
[14]
People v. Timtiman, G.R. No. 101663, November 4, 1992, 215 SCRA 364, 374.
[15]
See People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 454.
[16]
See People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 179150, June 17, 2008, 554 SCRA 741, 753.
[17]
TSN, September 27, 2001, p. 10.
[18]
Id. at 9.
[19]
TSN, September 18, 2001, pp. 4-8.
[20]
People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179036, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 375, 390.
[21]
Su Zhi Shan v. People, G.R. No. 169933, March 9, 2007, 518 SCRA 48, 65.
[22]
Mateo, supra note 20, at 394.
[23]
G.R. No. 140919, March 20, 2001, 354 SCRA 745, 754-755.
[24]
Lee, id. Secs. 16 and 17 of RA 6425, as amended, pertinently provide:

Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs.The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos [PhP 500,000] 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.
Sec. 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of
the Crime.The penalties for offenses under Section 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:

xxxx

3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride. (Emphasis supplied.)