SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF
THE Appellee,
-
versus - DONALDO
PADILLA y SEVILLA, Appellant. |
G.R. No. 172603 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated: August
24, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Appellant, Donaldo Padilla y
Sevilla, was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas for
violation of Section 15, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 20th
day of December, 1995, in the Municipality of Las Piñas, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with one Jose J[e]b
Hidalgo, Jr. y Garcia, whose present whereabout[s] is still unknown
and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without being
authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute 156.28 grams and 244.32 or a total
of 400.60 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride “shabu”, which is a regulated
drug, using a red Toyota Corolla car, in violation of the above-cited law.[1] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
SPO2 Mabini Rosale and Police Inspector Virgilio Pelaez is the following
version:
Acting on a tip given by an informant,
the Las Piñas police conducted two weeks before December 20, 1995 surveillance
of the residence at BF Homes, Las Piñas of Malou Padilla (Malou), appellant’s
wife, for alleged drug trafficking.
On application of the police, a
warrant for the search of Malou’s residence was issued by the RTC of Imus,
Armed with the warrant, SPO2 Mabini
Rosale and Police Inspector Virgilio Pelaez, together with six other operatives,
proceeded on
The policemen were soon informed by the Padillas’ helper
that the couple was on board the Nissan Altima.
The policemen, in coordination with
Antonio Antonio (Antonio), President of the BF Homeowners’ Association, proceeded
to search the Padilla residence in the course of which they recovered aluminum
foils and suspected shabu tubes.
While the policemen and Antonio were
still at the Padilla residence, the security guard stationed at the village
gate informed them via radio that persons on board a red
In the meantime, the policemen immediately
proceeded to, and arrived at the village gate.
When they asked the driver of the red car, Jose Hidalgo, Jr. (
After taking the photograph of appellant while he
was inside the trunk, SPO2 Rosale opened the blue plastic bag which yielded three
heat-sealed transparent packets and one self-sealing packet all containing suspected
shabu.
The policemen at once arrested appellant and brought
him to the NARCOM Headquarters in
Examination by the PNP Crime
Laboratory of the contents of the four packets found inside the blue plastic
bag revealed the following data, which were noted by Forensic Chemist Sonia
Sahagun:
SPECIMEN
SUBMITTED:
Exh “A” – One (1)
unsealed transparent plastic bag labeled “EVIDENCE BAG” containing one (1) blue
clutch bag marked as Exh “A-1” containing the following:
1.
Three (3) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic bags
marked as Exhs “A-2” through “A-4” respectively, each with white crystalline
substance and having a total weight of 156.28 grams.
2.
One (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag marked
as “Exh. “A-5” containing 244.32 grams of moist yellowish crystalline
substance.
x x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination
conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the tests for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug.[2] (Emphasis supplied)
Proffering a different version, the
defense gave the following tale:
After appellant, his brother Luis
Padilla, and
When appellant and company arrived at
the gate of the village at around
Appellant and company thus alighted from the car and
in a few minutes the policemen, together with some officers of the homeowners’
association, arrived at the gate. After appellant identified himself as Donaldo
Padilla, he asked for the search warrant but the policemen replied that it was
in the possession of their companions who remained at his residence.
Without the permission of appellant and company, the
police started searching the car but found nothing.
Afterwards, appellant, together with his companions
and the policemen, repaired to his residence. As appellant was contacting via cellular phone
his wife who was then at her sister’s house, the policemen told him that all of
them would go to where she was, which they did.
When appellant’s wife asked for the search warrant,
the policemen showed her “bulky” documents. When asked if they found anything
in their house, the policemen claimed that they found shabu paraphernalia which
they never showed, however.
The policemen then invited appellant, his wife, his
brother Luis Padilla and
After sometime, one Colonel Alcantara, who was
supposedly the commanding officer of the raiding team, informed appellant that
they found evidence against him and told him:
“Ayusin mo na lang ito. Alam ko
namang ginagawa ninyo ito.” When appellant
asked how much would be needed to settle the matter, Colonel Alcantara answered
P200,000.
Appellant could not produce the amount, however,
drawing Colonel Alcantara to tell him to just choose who among them would be
charged. As his wife was needed by their
kids, appellant volunteered himself. His
wife Malou, Luis Padilla, and
Branch 255 of the Las Piñas RTC convicted appellant
by Decision of
WHEREFORE, judgment is
hereby rendered finding accused DONALDO PADILLA Y SEVILLA Guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of death by means
provided for by law and pay a fine of P2,000,000.00 and costs.[4]
The trial court found unbelievable appellant’s
claim that the charge against him came about because he could not raise the P200,000
demanded by Colonel Alcantara for, so the trial court held, it was not even
shown that the latter was charged for the alleged attempt to extort money from
him.
And the trial court found defense
witnesses-appellant’s brother Luis Padilla and security guard Romeo Placido (Placido)
to be biased.
On elevation of the case to this Court for automatic review, it referred the same to the Court of Appeals
pursuant to People v. Mateo.[5]
By Decision
of
In sustaining
the conviction of appellant, the appellate court ratiocinated:
We
cannot give credence to appellant’s claim that he was merely framed by the
policemen and the instant charge came simply because appellant could not raise
the P200,000.00 demanded of him by the policemen. The prosecution
witnesses in the persons of the arresting officers positively and categorically pointed to the appellant as
being in possession of 400.6 grams of shabu while hiding in the baggage
compartment of the red
x
x x x
In
the case at bench, appellant
similarly failed to present evidence to establish his claim of failed extortion.
The fact that appellant did not file any criminal or administrative charges
against the arresting officers bolsters Our conclusion that the alleged frame
up merely exists as a figment of appellant’s imagination. On the other
hand, appellant’s story that after the failed extortion attempt, Col.
Alcantara asked him to choose who would be charged and “sacrificed” by choosing
himself and thus he was the only one
charged, is belied by the Information itself which charged both him and Jose
“Jeb” Hidalgo[,] Jr. y Garcia for the crime.
Appellant’s
claim that the police merely planted the shabu (400.6 grams) deserves scant
consideration. It is incredible that the
police officers would plant such a large quantity of shabu when a few grams or
even a sachet would have sufficed to frame up appellant. Moreover, the
policemen as public officers are presumed
to have performed their official duties with regularity and in accordance with
law. In the absence of the proof of motive to falsely impute such a
serious crime against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of witness, prevails over appellant’s self-serving and
uncorroborated defense.
x
x x x
Appellant
claims that the testimony of defense witness Romeo Placido should have been
given more weight. However, as a security guard of the BF Homeowners
Association, Romeo Placido had a motive to testify in favor of appellant. His bias surfaced during the
cross-examination, thus:
“Q And
that in case of conflict between your loyalty to the residents of the
association and the call of duty to assist the law enforcement, which side
would you take?
A The homeowner’s sir.”
Bias is that which excites the disposition to
see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.
Corroborative evidence in defense of the appellant, since tainted with bias,
actually weakened the appellant’s defense. On the other hand, the corroboration
provided by appellant’s brother, Luis Domer Padilla deserves scant
consideration as it is but consistent with human nature that he protect his
brother.[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The case is now before this Court, appellant arguing that
the case for the prosecution is too “preposterous” to be worthy of credence. He points out that no person in his right mind
would actually flee his house to escape a raiding team after leaving no incriminating
evidence behind, only to return to it, after only a few hours while the team
was still conducting its search and, worse, carrying with him incriminating
evidence that the raiding team was supposedly looking for.
Appellant
goes on to contend that it is incredible for him to have gone through the
trouble of hiding at the baggage compartment of a motor vehicle, then create noises
to thus arouse the curiosity and suspicion of the police officers.
Continuing, appellant argues that it is reversible error to
invoke the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions in light of the failure of the prosecution to explain the following highly
irregular circumstances surrounding his arrest: 1) the raiding team had to serve the search
warrant at an unholy hour of 2:30 a.m., in violation of Rule 126, Section 9 of the Revised Rules
of Court, 2) the alleged search warrant was never presented in evidence,
rendering its existence doubtful or suspect, 3) the house searched was in the southernmost
portion of Metro Manila, whereas the NARCOM team that raided it was based and
actually assigned at the North Metro District Unit which did not have primary
territorial jurisdiction over the place, and 4) driver Hidalgo, who was
supposedly arrested with appellant, was never presented for inquest. These irregularities, appellant concludes,
more than sufficiently preclude the application of the legal presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty.
Finally, appellant argues that it was error to discredit the
testimony of Luis Padilla on the basis solely of his affinity to appellant, and
that of Placido, for the latter’s profession of loyalty to homeowners does not mean
that he was willing to perjure himself.
It is gathered that in convicting appellant, the appellate
court relied, in the main, on the weakness of the evidence for the defense, focusing
on how unavailing appellant’s claim of extortion by the police officers is in
light of a failure to show that they were charged administratively; the bias of defense witnesses Luis Padilla
and Placido; and the untruthfulness of
the claim of appellant that he was the only one charged, given that “the
Information itself . . . charged him and . . . Hidalgo . . . for the crime.”
After a considered
review of the records of the case, this Court finds the tale of the prosecution
not to be in accordance with human nature and the experience of mankind.
As correctly pointed out by appellant, it would be absurd
for him to go back to his house hours after allegedly escaping from the raiding
team, to thus risk being arrested when, chances were, the police officers would
be, as they were, still waiting for him.
Assuming
that appellant did attempt to go back to his house after fleeing and that he
was carrying 400+ grams of shabu, why would he not flee again on being informed
by the guard at the village that his house was being subjected to search and
that the searching police officers were in fact on their way to the gate?
Again ,
if indeed appellant was hiding in the trunk of the car and in possession of 400+
grams of shabu, why would he create noises that would arouse the curiosity of
the police?
The presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions cannot by itself affect the constitutional presumption of
innocence of the accused, particularly if the evidence for the prosecution is
weak. People v. Mirantes[8]
so teaches:
The oft-cited
presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by
itself affect the constitutional presumption of innocence enjoyed by an
accused, particularly when the prosecution’s evidence is weak.
The evidence of the prosecution must be strong enough to
pierce the shield of this presumptive innocence and to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. And where the evidence of the prosecution is
insufficient to overcome this presumption, necessarily, the judgment of
conviction of the court a quo must be
set aside. The onus probandi on
the prosecution is not discharged by casting doubts upon the innocence of an
accused, but by eliminating all reasonable doubts as to his guilt.[9] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Further denting the case for the prosecution is its
failure to present the search warrant, the photograph of appellant allegedly taken
while he was inside the car trunk, and the seizure receipt showing that
crystalline substance (later determined to be shabu) was indeed recovered from appellant,
as well as the policemen’s service of and implementation of the alleged search
warrant at an unholy hour, contrary to the injunction of Rule 126, Section 9 of
the Rules of Court reading:
SEC. 9. Time of
making search. - The warrant must direct that it be served
in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the
person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be
inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. (Underscoring supplied)
The
alleged search warrant and the supposed affidavit in support of the application
for its issuance were not submitted in evidence, hence, there is no way of
determining if service thereof during nighttime was allowed.
Finally, the finding of the appellate
court that appellant’s claim that he was the only one charged is belied by the
Information which also charged
At
all events, even
assuming arguendo that the defense evidence is weak, the prosecution should not
lean thereon but must stand and rely on the strength and merits of its own
evidence.[10]
The
prosecution having failed to discharge the onus of establishing prima facie appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt,[11] the
defense did not even have to present evidence, the burden of the evidence not
having shifted to it. The acquittal of
the appellant is thus in order.
WHEREFORE, the judgment
appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
For failure of the prosecution to establish the
guilt beyond reasonable doubt of appellant Donaldo Padilla y Sevilla, he is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
The
Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to cause the RELEASE of appellant from custody unless he is being lawfully held
for another lawful cause.
Let a
copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Prisons who is
likewise ordered to report to this Court of the action taken hereon within five
(5) days.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, p. 1.
[2] Report
dated
[3]
[4]
[5] G.R. Nos. 147678-87,
[6] Court of Appeals (CA) rollo, pp. 137-153; penned by Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Vicente Q. Roxas.
[7]
[8] G.R. No. 92706,
[9]
[10] People
v. Lazarte, G.R. No. 89762, August 7, 1991, 200 SCRA 361, 377; People v. Mendoza, G.R. 67858, June 19,
1989, 174 SCRA 432, 452; People v.
Escober, G.R. Nos. LA-69564 and L-69658,
[11] People
v. Libag, G.R. No. 68997,