People vs. Macalaba

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 395 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 395
defendant carried on a certain business without a license (as

in the case at bar, where the accused is charged with the
selling of a regulated drug without
_______________
VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 461 * FIRST DIVISION.
People vs. Macalaba

462
*
G.R. Nos. 146284-86. January 20, 2003.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

ABDUL MACALABA y DIGAYON, appellant. 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Macalaba

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Evidence; If a
criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or authority), the fact that he has a license is a matter which is
that a negative averment is an essential element of a crime, peculiarly within his knowledge and he must establish that
the prosecution has the burden of proving the charge, unless fact or suffer conviction.
the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or
Same; Same; Searches and Seizures; Allowable
the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the
Warrantless Searches and Seizures.—And now on the second
accused, in which case the onus probandi rests upon him.—
issue. The Constitution enshrines in its Bill of Rights the
The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
negative allegation, or that a negative averment is an
papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the burden
of whatever nature and for any purpose. To give full
of proving the charge. However, this rule is not without an
protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the
exception. Thus, we have held: Where the negative of an
exclusionary principle that any evidence obtained in
issue does not permit of direct proof, or where the facts are
violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any
more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the
proceeding. It is obvious from Section 2 of the Bill of Rights
onus probandi rests upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not
that reasonable searches and seizures are not proscribed. If
incumbent upon the prosecution to adduce positive evidence
conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in
to support a negative averment the truth of which is fairly
compliance with the guidelines prescribed by the
indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue,
Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court, the search
could readily be disproved by the production of documents
and seizure is valid. The interdiction against warrantless
or other evidence within the defendant’s knowledge or
searches and seizures is not absolute. The recognized
control. For example, where a charge is made that a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b38180b91591c67003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b38180b91591c67003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/20
exceptions established by jurisprudence are (1) search of 463

moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs
search; (4) waiver or consented search; (5) stop and frisk
situation (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful
arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 463
seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest, for, People vs. Macalaba
while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected
with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize
permissible warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante tive matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of
delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrests of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former
escaped prisoners. Another exception is a search made is generally held to prevail.
pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is Same; Same; Same; Policemen; Credence shall be
authorized under Section 9 of R.A. No. 6235. given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution
Same; Same; Same; Same; “Plain View” Doctrine; witnesses especially when they are police officers who are
Requisites.—Under the “plain view” doctrine, unlawful presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right unless there be evidence to the contrary.—On the issue of
to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure credibility between ABDUL’s testimony and the declarations
and may be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of the CIDG officers, we hold for the latter. As has been
of evidence in plain view must comply with the following repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the narration of
requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion in which the police the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) they are police officers who are presumed to have performed
the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to
had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be the contrary; moreover in the absence of proof of motive to
immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified mere falsely impute such a serious crime against the accused, the
seizure of evidence without further search.” presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty,
as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of
Same; Same; Witnesses; Alibis and Denials; A mere witnesses, shall prevail over accused’s self-serving and
denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence uncorroborated claim of having been framed. ABDUL
which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than miserably failed to rebut this presumption and to prove any
the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses.
affirmative matters.—ABDUL’s sole defense of denial is
unsubstantiated. We have time and again ruled that mere APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court
denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a of San Pedro, Laguna, Br. 31.
witness. A mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving
negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
who testify on affirma- Edgardo B. Arellano for accussed-appellant.
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.: with Serial No. 909904, and one (1) magazine with five (5)
live ammunition thereof.
3
Appellant Abdul Macalaba y Digayon (hereafter CONTRARY TO LAW.”
ABDUL) was charged before the Regional Trial Court
of San Pedro, Laguna, with violations of the Criminal Case No. 1237
1
Presidential Decree No. 1866 ; Article 168 of the
2 “That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of
Revised Penal Code ; and Section 16 of Article III of
San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused did then
6425), as amended, in
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession, custody and control two (2) ONE THOUSAND
_______________
PESOS bill with Serial Numbers BG 021165 and BG
1 Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, 995998, knowing the same to be forged or otherwise falsified
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, with the manifest intention of using such falsified or forged
Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture instruments.
4
of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for Relevant Purposes.
Criminal Case No. 1238
2 Illegal Possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and
other instruments of credit. “That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of
San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
464
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused without
being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody
People vs. Macalaba and control one (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag of
methamphetamine hydrochloride “shabu” weighing 226.67
grams (3 medium sized transparent plastic bags and 1 big
Criminal Cases Nos. 1236, 1237 and 1238,
heat-sealed transparent plastic bag).
respectively. The accusatory portions of the 5
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
informations in these cases read as follows:
The three cases were consolidated and raffled to
Criminal Case No. 1236
Branch 31 of said court. Upon his arraignment,
“That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San ABDUL entered in each case a plea of not guilty.
Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused without the _______________
required permit/license from the proper authorities, did then
3 Original Record (OR), 1.
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his
4 Id., p. 2.
possession, custody and control one (1) caliber .45 pistol
5 Id., p. 3. SPO1 Pandez, with PO3 Mendez beside him, went

straight to the driver and knocked at the driver’s
465
window. ABDUL, who was driving the car, lowered
the glass window. SPO1 Pandez introduced himself as
VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 465 a member of the Laguna CIDG and asked ABDUL to
turn on the light and show them the car’s certificate of
People vs. Macalaba 7
registration.
When the light was already on,
8
SPO1 Pandez saw a
At the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses black Norinco .45 caliber gun inside an open black
SPO1 Generoso Pandez, PO3 Ernani Mendez, Police clutch/belt bag placed on the right side of the driver’s
Inspector Anacleta Cultura and Police Inspector Lorna seat near the gear. He asked ABDUL for the
Tria. ABDUL was the sole witness for the defense. supporting papers of the gun, apart from the car’s
SPO1 Pandez, a PNP member of the Laguna certificate of registration, but the latter failed to show
9
Criminal Investigation Detection Group (CIDG), them any. When ABDUL opened the zipper of the
testified that on 12 April 1999, at 5:15 p.m., Major R’ clutch/belt bag, the CIDG
Win Pagkalinawan ordered the search of ABDUL,
alias “Boy Muslim,” based on a verified information
_______________
that the latter was driving a carnapped Mitsubishi olive
green car with Plate No. UPV 511 and was a 6 TSN, 24 November 1999, pp. 4-5.
drugpusher in San Pedro, Laguna. Two teams were 7 Id., pp. 6-8.
formed for the search. The first was headed by Major 8 Id., pp. 8, 11; OR, 10.
Pagkalinawan, with SPO4 Aberion and five others as 9 Id., p. 9.
members; and the second was led by Capt. Percival
Rumbaoa, with SPO1 Pandez and PO3 Mendez as 466
6
members.
Between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the two groups 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
proceeded to Barangay Nueva, San Pedro, Laguna, on
board a car and a van. They went to ABDUL’s People vs. Macalaba
apartment where he was reportedly selling shabu, but
they learned that ABDUL had already left. While officers saw inside it four plastic sachets of what
looking for ABDUL, they saw the suspected carnapped appeared to be shabu. They likewise found a self-
car somewhere at Pacita Complex I, San Pedro, sealing plastic bag which contained the following
Laguna, going towards the Poblacion. When it stopped items: two fake P1,000 bills, a list of names of persons,
due to the red traffic light, the CIDG officers alighted a magazine and five ammunitions for a .45 caliber gun.
from their vehicles. Capt. Rumbaoa positioned himself They confiscated the gun, the shabu, and the fake
at the passenger side of the suspected carnapped car, P1,000 bills and thereafter brought ABDUL to the
10
while Major Pagkalinawan stood in front of the car. CIDG office.
PO3 Mendez substantially 11

corroborated the 11 TSN, 13 January 2000, pp. 2-12.
testimony of SPO1 Pandez. 12 Exhibit “I”, OR, p. 19.
The two P1,000 bills were found to be counterfeit 13 OR, p. 9.
after an examination conducted by Police Inspector 14 TSN, 10 May 2000, pp. 4-6.
12
Anacleta Cultura, a document examiner at Camp
467
Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna. The white crystalline
substance contained in the four small plastic bags was
subjected to physical and laboratory examination VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 467
conducted by Police Inspector Lorna Tria, a Forensic
People vs. Macalaba
Chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory,
13
Region IV,
Camp Vicente Lim. Her findings were as follows: (a)
the three small plastic sachets weighed 29.46 grams, armalite rifle positioned himself in front of the car,
while the big plastic sachet weighed 197.21 grams, or a while the third one positioned himself near the window
total weight of 226.67 grams; (b) representative on the passenger side and pointed a gun at his live-in
samples taken from the specimens thereof were partner Rose. ABDUL then lowered the car’s window.
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, The man near him opened the door, held him, and told
a regulated drug; and (c) the improvised tooter and the him to alight. When the man asked him whether he
rolled aluminum foil with residue found in the self- was “Boy Muslim,” he answered in the negative. The
sealing plastic bag were also positive of the presence same man opened the back door of the car and boarded
for shabu residue. at the back seat. Rose remained seated at the front
15
As expected, ABDUL had a different story to tell. passenger seat.
He testified that on 12 April 1999, between 6:50 and The other men likewise boarded the car, which was
7:00 p.m., he was driving a borrowed Mitsubishi thereafter driven by one of them. While inside the car,
Galant Car with Plate No. UPV 501 somewhere in San they saw a .45 caliber pistol at the edge of the driver’s
Pedro, Laguna. With him was Rose, his live-in partner, seat. They asked him whether he had a license. He
whom he fetched from Angeles City, Pampanga. He showed his gun license and permit to carry. After
had borrowed the car from his friend Ferdinand taking his gun, license, and permit to carry, they tried
Navares, who instructed him to return it in front of the to remove his belt bag from his waist, but he did not
16
14
latter’s store at San Pedro Public Market. allow them.
ABDUL was about to park the car when a man Upon reaching the headquarters, ABDUL learned
knocked hard on the glass window on the driver’s side that these people were C.I.S. agents. There, he was told
of the car and pointed at the former a .45 caliber pistol. to surrender the belt bag to the officer who would issue
Another one who was armed with an a receipt for it. He did as he was told, and the money
inside his belt bag was counted and it amounted to
P42,000. They then got his money and the cellular
_______________
phone, which was also inside the bag, together with
10 TSN, 24 November 1999, pp. 8-10. some other pieces of paper. They also took another cell
phone from17the car. He was never issued a receipt for (1) convicting him for violation of Section 16 of
these items. Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
Thereafter, a man entered the office with a white amended, despite insufficiency of evidence; and (2)
plastic bag allegedly taken from the borrowed car. admitting the evidence presented by the prosecution
ABDUL denied ownership over the plastic bag. That although it was obtained in violation of his
same man then told him that it contained shabu. constitutional rights.
ABDUL and Rose were detained at the headquarters. In his first assigned error, ABDUL argues that the
The next morning, Rose was allowed to get out; and in prosecution failed to prove the material allegations in
the afternoon, he was transferred to San Pedro the information. The information charges him, among
18
Municipal Jail. other things, that “without being authorized by law,
After the trial, the trial court acquitted ABDUL in [he] did then and there willfully and feloniously have
Criminal Cases Nos. 1236 and 1237 for violations of in his possession, custody and control . . .
Presidential Decree No. 1866 and Article 168 of the methamphetamine hydrochloride.” However, the
Revised Penal Code, respectively, due to insufficiency prosecution did not present any certification from the
of evidence. However, it convicted him in Criminal concerned government agency, like the Dangerous
Case No. 1238 for violation of Section 16, Article III Drugs Board, to the effect that he was not authorized to
of the Danger- possess shabu, which is a regulated drug. Thus, his
guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
_______________ In his second assigned error, ABDUL asserts that
he was not committing a crime when the CIS agents
15 TSN, 18 May 2000, pp. 2-4. boarded his car, searched the same and ultimately
16 Id., pp. 4-6. arrested him. He was about to park his borrowed car
17 Id., pp. 4-9. per instruction by the owner when he was harassed by
18 TSN, 18 May 2000, pp. 9-11. the operatives at gunpoint. The gun seen was properly
documented; thus, there was no reason for the CIS
468
agents to bring him and his companion to the
headquarters. The shabu allegedly found in the car was
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED brought in by somebody at the time he was under
People vs. Macalaba
interrogation. It was taken in violation of his
constitutional right against illegal search and seizure.
Being a “fruit of a poisonous tree” it should not have
ous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as been admitted in evidence.
19
amended, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of Moreover, the members of the CIDG merely relied
reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000, as on the information received from an anonymous
well as the costs of the suit. telephone caller who said that ABDUL was driving a
Dissatisfied with the judgment, ABDUL interposed carnapped vehicle. They had no personal knowledge of
the present appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in
the veracity of the information. Consequently, there disproved by the production of documents or other evidence
was no legal basis for his warrantless arrest. within the defendant’s knowledge or control. For example,
In the Appellee’s Brief, the Office of the Solicitor where a charge is made that a defendant carried on a certain
General (OSG) maintains that ABDUL had the burden business without a license (as in the case at bar, where the
of proving that he was accused is charged with the selling of a regulated drug
without authority), the fact that he has a license is a matter
_______________ which is peculiarly within his knowledge and he must
20
establish that fact or suffer conviction.
19 Rollo, pp. 60-66. Per Judge Stella Cabuco Andres.
In the instant case, the negative averment that ABDUL
469 had no license or authority to possess
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated
VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 469 drug, has been fairly indicated by the following facts
proven by the testimonies of the CIDG officers and the
People vs. Macalaba forensic chemist: (a) ABDUL was driving the
suspected carnapped vehicle when he was caught, and
authorized to possess shabu, but he failed to discharge he appeared to be healthy and not indisposed as to
such burden. Therefore, it is presumed that he had no require the use of shabu as medicine; (b) the contents
authority; consequently, he is liable for violation of of the sachets found in ABDUL’s open clutch bag
Section 16, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of inside the car were prima facie determined by the
1972, as amended. The OSG likewise refutes CIDG officers to be shabu; and (c) the said contents
ABDUL’s argument that there was a violation of his were conclusively found to be shabu by the forensic
right against unreasonable searches and seizures. chemist. With these established facts, the burden of
The general rule is that if a criminal charge is evidence was shifted to ABDUL. He could have easily
predicated on a negative allegation, or that a negative disproved the damning circumstances by presenting a
averment is an essential element of a crime, the doctor’s prescription
prosecution has the burden of proving the charge.
However, this rule is not without an exception. Thus, _______________
we have held:
20 People v. Manalo, 230 SCRA 309 [1994], cited in People v.
Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct Fernandez, G.R. Nos. 143850-53, 18 December 2001, 372 SCRA
proof, or where the facts are more immediately within the 608.
knowledge of the accused, the onus probandi rests upon him.
Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to 470
adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the
truth of which is fairly indicated by established
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be
People vs. Macalaba
The warrantless arrest of, or warrantless search and

for said drug or a copy of his license or authority to seizure conducted on, ABDUL constitute a valid
possess the regulated drug. Yet, he offered nothing. exemption from the warrant requirement. The evidence
And now on the second issue. The Constitution clearly shows that on the basis of an intelligence
enshrines in its Bill of Rights the right of the people to information that a carnapped vehicle was driven by
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects ABDUL, who was also a suspect of drug pushing, the
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever members of
21
nature and for any purpose. To give full protection to
it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary _______________
principle that any evidence obtained in violation of
21 Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any
22 22 Section 3 (2), Article III, 1987 Constitution.
proceeding.
23 People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 444 [1999]; People v.
It is obvious from Section 2 of the Bill of Rights
Figueroa, 335 SCRA 249, 263 [2000].
that reasonable searches and seizures are not
24 People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA 526 [2000].
proscribed. If conducted by virtue of a valid search
warrant issued in compliance with the guidelines 471
prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the
Rules of Court, the search and seizure is valid.
The interdiction against warrantless searches and VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 471
seizures is not absolute. The recognized exceptions People vs. Macalaba
established by jurisprudence are (1) search of moving
vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs search;
the CIDG of Laguna went around looking for the
(4) waiver or consented search; (5) stop and frisk 25
carnapped car. They spotted the suspected carnapped
situation (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a
car, which was indeed driven by ABDUL. While
lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless
ABDUL was fumbling about in his clutch bag for the
search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid
registration papers of the car the CIDG agents saw four
warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is 26
transparent sachets of shabu. These sachets of shabu
considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant
were therefore in “plain view” of the law enforcers.
of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible
Under the “plain view” doctrine, unlawful objects
warrant-less arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante
within the plain view of an officer who has the right to
delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and (3)
23 be in the position to have that view are subject to
arrests of escaped prisoners. Another exception is a
seizure and may be presented in evidence.
search made pursuant to routine airport security
Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must
procedure,24which is authorized under Section 9 of R.A.
comply with the following requirements: (a) a prior
No. 6235.
valid intrusion in which the police are legally present
in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence
was inadvertently discovered by the police who had 472

the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be
immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified
27 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
mere seizure of evidence without further search.”
We are convinced beyond any shadow of doubt People vs. Macalaba
under the circumstances above discussed that all the
elements of seizure in plain view exist in the case at a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the
bar. Thus, the warrantless search and seizure conducted contrary; moreover in the absence of proof of motive
on ABDUL, as well as his warrantless arrest, did not to falsely impute such a serious crime against the
transgress his constitutional rights. accused, the presumption of regularity in the
ABDUL’s sole defense of denial is unsubstantiated. performance of official duty, as well as the findings of
We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall
prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A prevail over accused’s self-serving and uncorroborated
29
mere denial, just like alibi, is a self-serving negative claim of having been framed. ABDUL miserably
evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary failed to rebut this presumption and to prove any
weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution
testify on affirmative matters. As between a categorical witnesses.
testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare Unauthorized possession of 200 grams or more of
denial on the other, the former is generally held to shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride is
28
prevail. punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under
On the issue of credibility between ABDUL’s Section 16 of Article III, in relation to Section 20 of
testimony and the declarations of the CIDG officers, Article IV, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
we hold for the latter. As has been repeatedly held, (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended by P.D. Nos. 44,
credence shall be given to the narration of the incident 1675, 1683, and 1707; Batas Pambansa Blg. 179; and
by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are R.A. No. 7659 (now further amended by R.A. No.
police officers who are presumed to have performed 9165). These sections provide as follows:
their duties in
SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs.—The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from
_______________
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
25 TSN, 13 January 2000, pp. 3-4. imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any
26 TSN 24 November 1999, p. 9; TSN, 13 January 2000, p. 9. regulated drug without the corresponding license or
27 People v. Aspiras, G.R. Nos. 138382-84, 12 February 2002, prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
376 SCRA 546. ...
28 People v. Ugang, G.R. No. 144036, 7 May 2002, 381 SCRA SEC. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
775. Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime.—
The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of
Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of SO ORDERED.

this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in
any of the following quantities: Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna,
... JJ., concur.
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine
hydrochloride . . . . Judgment affirmed in toto.
There is no doubt that the charge of illegal possession Notes.—Where a search is first undertaken, and an
of shabu in Criminal Case No. 1238 was proved arrest effected based on evidence produced by the
beyond reasonable doubt since ABDUL knowingly search, both such search and arrest would be unlawful,
carried with him at the time he was caught 226.67 for being contrary to law. (People vs. Aruta, 288
grams of shabu without legal authority. There being no SCRA 626 [1998])
modifying circumstance proven, the proper penalty Where the object seized was inside a closed
pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code is package, the object itself is not plain view and
reclusion perpetua. The penalty imposed by the trial therefore cannot be seized without a warrant; Cable
court, including the fine, is, therefore, in order. wires placed in sacks and covered with leaves are in
plain view. (Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, 373 SCRA
221 [2002])
_______________
——o0o——
29 People v. Uy, 327 SCRA 335, 349-350 [2000].
473
VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 473

People vs. Llanto
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional
Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, in Criminal Case
No. 1238 convicting appellant ABDUL MACALABA
y DIGAYON of the violation of Section 16 of Article
III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No.
6425), as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
P500,000 and the costs of the suit, is hereby affirmed
in toto.
Costs de oficio.

People vs. Macalaba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Macalaba

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Macalaba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 395 2/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 395

defendant carried on a certain business without a license (as

VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 461 * FIRST DIVISION.

People vs. Macalaba

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

People vs. Macalaba

exceptions established by jurisprudence are (1) search of 463

5 Id., p. 3. SPO1 Pandez, with PO3 Mendez beside him, went

PO3 Mendez substantially 11

The warrantless arrest of, or warrantless search and

was inadvertently discovered by the police who had 472

Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of SO ORDERED.

VOL. 395, JANUARY 20, 2003 473

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b38180b91591c67003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/20 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001777b38180b91591c67003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/20

You might also like