9/5/2015

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

G.R.No.174369

1/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

FIRSTDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

G.R.No.174369

Present:

LEONARDODECASTRO,J.,
ActingChairperson,
DELCASTILLO,
VILLARAMA,JR.,
PEREZ,and

PERLASBERNABE,JJ.

ZAFRAMARAORAOy
Promulgated:
MACABALANG,

AccusedAppellant.
June20,2012
xx

DECISION

VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
[1]
BeforeusisanappealfromtheMarch1,2006Decision oftheCourtofAppeals
[2]
(CA), which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
Branch35,convictingappellantZafraMaraoraoyMacabalangofviolationofSection16,
ArticleIIIofRepublicAct(R.A.)No.6425,otherwiseknownasThe Dangerous Drugs
Actof1972,asamended.
[3]
datedJanuary4,2001filedbefore

AppellantwaschargedunderanInformation
theRTCofManilaasfollows:

ThatonoraboutNovember30,2000,intheCityofManila,Philippines,thesaidaccused,
without being authorized by law to possess or use regulated drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and
control one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing ONE THOUSAND TWO
HUNDREDEIGHTYPOINTZEROEIGHTONE(1,280.081)gramsofwhitecrystalline
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

2/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

substance known as shabu containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated

drug,withoutthecorrespondinglicenseorprescriptionthereof.

Contrarytolaw.

OnMarch19,2001,appellant,assistedbycounsel,pleadednotguiltytotheoffense
[4]
chargedagainsthim. Trialonthemeritsensued.
Fortheprosecution,PO3ManuelVigillatestifiedthatonNovember29,2000,they
receivedreliableinformationatPoliceStationNo.8oftheWesternPoliceDistrict(WPD)
that an undetermined amount of shabu will be delivered inside the Islamic Center in
Quiapointheearlymorningofthefollowingday.OnNovember30,2000,ataround7:00
a.m., he and PO2 Mamelito Abella, PO1 Joseph dela Cruz, and SPO1 Norman Gamit
wenttotheIslamicCenter.WhilewalkingalongRawatunStreetinQuiapo,theysawtwo
mentalkingtoeachother.Uponnoticingthem,oneranaway.PO2AbellaandPO1Dela
[5]
Cruzchasedthemanbutfailedtoapprehendhim.
Meanwhile,themanwhowasleftbehinddroppedamaroonbagonthepavement.
He was about to run when PO3 Vigilla held him, while SPO1 Gamit picked up the
maroonbag.ThemanwaslateridentifiedasappellantZafraMaraoraoyMacabalang.The
policeexaminedthecontentsofthebagandsawatransparentplasticbagcontainingwhite
crystalline substance, which they suspected to be shabu. At the police station, the
[6]
investigatormarkedtheplasticsachetZM1inthepresenceofthepoliceofficers.
The specimen was then forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory
chemicalanalysis.WhenexaminedbyForensicChemistP/Insp.MiladeniaO.Tapan,the
1,280.081 grams of white crystalline substance gave a positive result to the test for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug. Her findings are contained in
[7]
ChemistryReportNo.D112100.
Inhisdefense,appellanttestifiedthatonNovember30,2000,ataround7:00a.m.,hewas
goingtotheplaceofhisuncle,AbdulGani,attheIslamicCentertogetaletterfromhis
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

3/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

mother.HewentthereearlybecausehehadtoreportforworkatthePortAreainManila
at 8:00 a.m. On his way, an unidentified man carrying a bag asked him about a house
numberwhichhedidnotknow.He stopped walking to talk to the man, who placed his
bagdownandaskedhimagain.Whentheyturnedaround,theysawfourmenincivilian
attirewalkingbriskly.Heonlyfoundoutthattheywerepoliceofficerswhentheychased
the man he was talking to. As the man ran away, the man dropped his bag. Appellant
[8]
averredthathedidnotrunbecausehewasnotawareofwhatwasinsidethebag.
Appellantfurthernarratedthatthepolicearrestedhimandaskedwhotheownerofthebag
was.He replied that it did not belong to him but to the man who ran away. They made
himboardabustypevehicleandbroughthimtothepolicestationinSta.Mesa,Manila
wherehewasreferredtoadesksergeant.Thedesksergeantaskedhimwhetherthebag
wasrecoveredfromhim,andherepliedthathehadnoknowledgeaboutthatbag.Hewas
notassistedbycounselduringtheinvestigation.Hewasalsoincarceratedinasmallcell
for about ten days before he was brought to Manila City Jail. At the Office of the City
[9]
Prosecutor,hemethislawyerforthefirsttime.
OnSeptember25,2001,thetrialcourtrenderedadecision,thefalloofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered pronouncing accused ZAFRA MARAORAO y
MACABALANG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possession of 1,280.081 grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride without license or prescription, penalized under
Section 16 in relation to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, and
sentencingsaidaccusedtoreclusionperpetuaandtopayafineofP5,000,000.00,plusthe
costs.
In the service of his sentence, the full time during which the accused has been under
preventive imprisonment should be credited in his favor provided that he had agreed
voluntarily in writing to abide with the same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted
prisoner.Otherwise,heshouldbecreditedwithfourfifths(4/5)onlyofthetimehehad
beenunderpreventiveimprisonment.
Exhibit B, which consists of 1,280.081 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, is
confiscatedandforfeitedinfavoroftheGovernment.Withinten(10)daysfollowingthe
promulgation of this judgment, the Branch Clerk of this Court, is ordered to turn over,
under proper receipt, the regulated drug involved in this case to the Dangerous Drugs
Custodian,NationalBureauofInvestigation,asappointedbytheDangerousDrugsBoard,
forappropriatedisposition.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

4/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

[10]
SOORDERED.

[11]
Aggrieved, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
The entire records of the case were
[12]
elevatedtothisCourt.PursuanttoourDecisioninPeoplev.Mateo,
however,thecase
wastransferredtotheCAforappropriateactionanddisposition.
AttheCA,appellantraisedthefollowingassignmentoferrors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE
FABRICATED AND COACHED TESTIMONY OF THE STAR PROSECUTION
WITNESS.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED'S
[13]
DEFENSEOFDENIAL.

OnMarch1,2006,theCArenderedtheassailedDecision,towit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The
Decisiondated25September2001oftheRegionalTrialCourtofManila,Branch35in
Crim.CaseNo.01188945isherebyAFFIRMED.Costsagainstappellant.

[14]
SOORDERED.

InaffirmingtheRTCDecision,theCAheldthattherewasnoshowingthatthetrial
court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied a fact or circumstance of weight and
substancewhichwouldhaveaffectedthecase.ItgavecredencetothetestimonyofPO3
Vigillaandfoundappellant'sdefenseofdenialinherentlyweak.Furthermore,theCAheld
thatappellantwaslawfullysearchedasaconsequenceofhisvalidwarrantlessarrest.
Hence,thispresentrecourse.
[15]
In his Supplemental Brief,
appellant stresses that PO3 Vigilla testified that
when they first saw appellant, he was talking with a certain person. It was appellants
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

5/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

companionwhoscamperedawayuponseeingthepolice.PO3Vigillafurthertestifiedthat
appellanttriedtofleebuttheywereabletoarresthimbeforehecoulddoso.Appellant
argues that his alleged attempt to flee does not constitute a crime that should have
prompted the police to arrest him. Since his arrest was illegal, he contends that the
subsequent search made by the police was likewise illegal, and the shabu supposedly
recoveredfromhimisinadmissibleinevidence.
Theappealismeritorious.
Wehaverepeatedlyheldthatthetrialcourtsevaluationofthecredibilityofwitnessesand
theirtestimoniesisentitledtogreatrespectandwillnotbedisturbedonappeal.However,
thisisnotahardandfastrule.Wehavereviewedsuchfactualfindingswhenthereisa
showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or
[16]
circumstanceofweightandsubstancethatwouldhaveaffectedthecase.
Itiswellsettledthatanappealinacriminalcaseopensthewholecaseforreview.This
Courtisclothedwithampleauthoritytoreviewmatters,eventhosenotraisedonappeal,
ifwefindthemnecessaryinarrivingatajustdispositionofthecase.Everycircumstance
in favor of the accused shall be considered. This is in keeping with the constitutional
mandatethateveryaccusedshallbepresumedinnocentunlesshisguiltisprovenbeyond
[17]
reasonabledoubt.
Now,inordertoconvictappellantforillegalpossessionofadangerousdrug,ortheshabu
inthiscase,theprosecutionevidencemustprovebeyondreasonabledoubtthefollowing
elements:(1)theappellantwasinpossessionofanitemorobjectthatisidentifiedtobea
prohibitedordangerousdrug(2)suchpossessionwasnotauthorizedbylawand(3)the
[18]
appellant freely and consciously possessed the drug.
In this case, the fact of
possession by appellant of the bag containing the shabu was not established in the first
place.
A careful perusal of the testimony of PO3 Vigilla reveals a glaring discrepancy which
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

6/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

[19]
both the trial and the appellate courts overlooked. In their Joint Affidavit,
arresting
officersPO3Vigilla,PO2Abella,PO1delaCruzandSPO1Gamitstatedthattheyspotted
twounidentifiedpersonsstandingandseeminglyconversingafewmetersaheadofthem.
However,whenoneofthemnoticedourpresence,hehastilyr[a]nawayheadingtowards
theMuslimCenterleavingbehindtheotherpersonandamarooncoloredbagwithAdidas
markinginthepavement.Inotherwords,themaroonbagwasleftbehindbythemanwho
ranaway.Butatthetrial,PO3Vigillatestifiedduringdirectexaminationthattheyspotted
twopersonstalkingtoeachother,anduponnoticingthem,oneofthemscamperedaway
[20]
and was chased by my companions while the other one dropped a bag, sir.
Presumably,underhistestimony,thebagwasnowheldbytheonewhodidnotrunaway.
Later,inanotherpartofhistestimony,heagainchangedthismaterialfact.When he was
askedbyProsecutorSenadosastowhobetweenthetwopersonstheysawtalkingtoeach
[21]
otherranaway,PO3Vigillacategoricallyanswered,[t]heonewhoisholdingabag,sir.
Such material inconsistency leaves much to be desired about the credibility of the
prosecutions principal witness and casts reasonable doubt as to appellants guilt for it
renders questionable whether he in fact held the bag with intention to possess it and its
contents.
In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the
[22]
elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.
Whilealonewitnesstestimonyissufficienttoconvictanaccusedincertaininstances,the
testimonymustbeclear,consistent,andcrediblequalitieswecannotascribetothiscase.
Jurisprudenceisconsistentthatfortestimonialevidencetobebelieved,itmustbothcome
fromacrediblewitnessandbecredibleinitselftestedbyhumanexperience,observation,
[23]
commonknowledgeandacceptedconductthathasevolvedthroughtheyears.
Clearly
fromtheforegoing,theprosecutionfailedtoestablishbyproofbeyondreasonabledoubt
that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously
possessedthesame.
The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

7/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution
the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the
[24]
prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.
In this case, the
prosecutions evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and thus,
appellantisentitledtoanacquittal.
Indeed,suspicionnomatterhowstrongmustneverswayjudgment.Wherethereis
reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not
havebeenestablished.TheConstitutionpresumesapersoninnocentuntilprovenguiltyby
proofbeyondreasonabledoubt.Whenguiltisnotprovenwithmoralcertainty,ithasbeen
our policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and
[25]
exonerationgrantedasamatterofright.
WHEREFORE,theDecisiondatedMarch1,2006oftheCourtofAppealsin CAG.R.
CRH.C. No. 01600 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and appellant Zafra Maraorao y
MacabalangisherebyACQUITTEDoftheoffensecharged.
TheDirectoroftheBureauofCorrectionsisdirectedtocausetheimmediaterelease
of appellant, unless the latter is being lawfully held for other cause/s and to inform the
Courtofthedateofhisrelease,orthereasonsforhisconfinement,withinfive(5)days
fromnotice.
Withcostsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

8/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

CERTIFICATION
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

9/11

9/5/2015

G.R.No.174369

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice
(PerSection12,R.A.296,
TheJudiciaryActof1948,asamended)

DesignatedActingChairpersonoftheFirstDivisionperSpecialOrderNo.1226datedMay30,2012.
DesignatedAdditionalMemberoftheFirstDivisionperRaffledatedJune11,2012.
DesignatedActingMemberoftheFirstDivisionperSpecialOrderNo.1227datedMay30,2012.
[1]
Rollo,pp.330.PennedbyAssociateJusticeCeliaC.LibreaLeagogowithAssociateJusticesRenatoC.Dacudaoand
LucasP.Bersamin(nowamemberofthisCourt)concurring.TheassaileddecisionwasrenderedinCAG.R.CRH.C.
No.01600.
[2]
CArollo,pp.1015.PennedbyJudgeRamonP.Makasiar.
[3]
Records,pp.12.
[4]
Id.at29.
[5]
TSN,April26,2001,pp.59.
[6]
Id.at918.
[7]
Records,p.11.
[8]
TSN,July25,2001,pp.38.
[9]
Id.at920.
[10]
CArollo,pp.1415.
[11]
Id.at16.
[12]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.
[13]
CArollo,p.45.
[14]
Rollo,p.28.
[15]
Id.at4549.
[16]
See Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 621622 People v. Chua, G.R. Nos.
13606667,February4,2003,396SCRA657,664.
[17]
Peoplev.Chua,id.
[18]
Peoplev.Naquita,G.R.No.180511,July28,2008,560SCRA430,451.
[19]
Records,p.9.
[20]
TSN,April26,2001,p.8.Emphasissupplied.
[21]
Id.at9.
[22]
Peoplev.Limpangog,444Phil.691,693(2003).
[23]
Peoplev.Mirandilla,Jr.,G.R.No.186417,July27,2011,654SCRA761,769.
[24]
Peoplev.Lorenzo,G.R.No.184760,April23,2010,619SCRA389,399.
[25]
Fernandezv.People,G.R.No.138503,September28,2000,341SCRA277,299.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

10/11

9/5/2015

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/174369.htm

G.R.No.174369

11/11