Republic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS Manila

FIFTH DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011 Members: REYES, R. T., Chairman, TRIA TIRONA, P. J. and REYES, JR., J. C., JJ. Promulgated: DOMINGO L. GRAVADOR, Accused-Appellant. ______________ x-------------------------------------------------x

- versus -

DECISION
REYES, R. T., J.:

FRAME-UP, like alibi, is a defense that has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor as it can be easily concocted. It is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the then

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 2

Dangerous Drugs Act and even under the new Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

We consider the principle in this appeal from the decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting accusedappellant regulated Domingo drug Gravador drug of illegal possession instruments of a

and

equipment,

and

paraphernalia.

The Facts

On October 6, 2002, the 303rd Criminal and Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) based at Camp Alejo Santos, Malolos, Bulacan dispatched a team of operatives to serve a search warrant2 issued by Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court in Malolos. The warrant was directed against accused-appellant Domingo Gravador and one Maria Paz Francisco, both of Block 17, Lot 8, Gold Street, Phase I,

Penned by Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos, Bulacan, Original Records (O.R.), pp. 132-143; Rollo, pp. 47-58. 2 Exhibit E
1

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 3

Tierra de Sta. Maria Subdivision, Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The team was composed of SPO3 Antonio

Chungtuyco, SPO2 Prisco Bello, PO3 Edwin Pagsibigan, and Criminal Investigation Officer III Marlon Sanchez. After

coordinating with the barangay concerned, the team was joined by Barangay Kagawads Lauro Gabriel, Ricky de Silva and Rodelio Ylardo.

They arrived at the scene at around 6:00 a.m. The group knocked at the door but nobody opened it. Consequently, the raiding team forced open the wooden door but still failed to gain entry owing to the iron grills covering the entrance. A while later, accused-appellant Domingo Gravador appeared and opened the door for the waiting operatives.

In the course of the search of the house, the officers were able to recover a medium-sized plastic sachet containing 2.361 grams of white crystalline substance from a drawer. At the headboard of a bed was recovered six plastic sachets

containing suspected shabu residue. Likewise retrieved were

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 4

various drug paraphernalia consisting of: aluminum foils, plastic packs, disposable lighters, and an electronic weighing scale. A loaded paltik gun was also recovered. A search upon the person of Reynaldo Matias, the alleged look-out, yielded 0.059 grams of white crystalline material.

The team prepared a Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized.3 The receipt was countersigned by accused-appellant, his spouse Maria Paz Francisco and by the barangay officials, serving as witnesses. A Certification of Orderly Search4 was also prepared. The said document likewise bears the signatures of accused-appellant and Francisco.

The physical evidence were later turned over to the Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3 at Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. Tests conducted on the specimen revealed that it was positive for

methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug.5

Exhibit F Exhibit G 5 Chemistry Report No. D-0540-2002 dated October 7, 2002, Exhibit D
3 4

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 5

On October 8, 2002, accused-appellant was indicted for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The information against accused-appellant Domingo Gravador pertinently reads:

Criminal Case No. 2722-M-2002:

That on or about the 6th day of October, 2002 in the municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control dangerous drug consisting of one (1) medium size heat sealed transparent plastic pack of methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 2.361 grams. Contrary to law.5-a

Criminal Case No. 2721-M-2002:

5-a

Rollo, p. 48.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 6

That on or about the 6th day of October, 2002 in the municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control paraphernalia for dangerous drugs consisting of one (1) Tanita digital weighing scale, five (5) disposable lighters, seven (7) packs of small plastic bag (sachet), six (6) strip of aluminum foil, one (1) aluminum softdrinks cap use for burning shabu and one (1) roll aluminum foil. Contrary to law.5-b

Reynaldo P. Matias, on the other hand, was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of the said statute. The accusatory portion of the said information reads:

Criminal Case No. 2723-M-2002:

That on or about the 6th day of October, 2002 in the municipality of Sta. Maria, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his

5-b

Rollo, p. 48.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 7

possession and control dangerous drug consisting of one (1) medium size heat sealed transparent plastic pack of methylamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 2.361 grams. Contrary to law.5-c

When arraigned, both appellant Gravador and Matias entered a negative plea. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.

In his defense, accused-appellant denied ownership of the regulated drugs seized from his bedroom. He claimed the drugs and the paraphernalia were planted by the CIDG operatives who conducted the search. According to accused-appellant, the raiding team did not allow him or any member of his family to witness the search. They were ordered to stay in the sala. Concomitantly, accused-appellant averred that the raiding team was not accompanied by any member of the Sangguniang Barangay when the search was commenced. The three

barangay kagawads arrived only during the heat of the search.

5-c

Rollo, pp. 48-49.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 8

Appellant claimed that the CIDG has an axe to grind against him. A week before the search, he was requested by a police officer named Dondon Lopez to be an informant against his cousin Rodrigo Lorenzo, a suspected drug peddler in the locality. He, however, turned down their request.

Maria Paz Francisco corroborated in material points her husbands testimony.

RTC Disposition

On October 21, 2003, the trial Court acquitted accused Reynaldo Matias for insufficiency of evidence but convicted accused-appellant Domingo Gravador of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II, R.A. 9165. The dispositive part of the said judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considred, judgment is hereby rendered as follows: (a) In Criminal Case No. 2721-M-2002, the Court finds accused Domingo Gravador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 12, Article II of R. A. 9165. He is

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 9

hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day, and to pay a fine of P10,000.00; (b) In Criminal Case No. 2722-M-2002, the Court finds accused Domingo Gravador guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R. A. 9165, for possession of 2.361 grams of metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. He is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. (c) In Criminal Case No. 2723-M-2002, accused Reynaldo P. Matias is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

The dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia submitted as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Dangerous Drugs Board.

SO ORDERED.6

Issue

Undaunted, accused-appellant interposed the present appeal with the lone assignment that the trial Court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the crimes charged.7

6 7

Decision, p. 12; O.R., pp. 142-143; Rollo, pp. 57-58. Appellants Brief, p. 1; Rollo, p. 32.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 10

Our Ruling

The appeal is devoid of merit.

No Clear And Convincing Evidence Was Presented By Accused-Appellant To Prove That He Was Really Framed Up

Accused-appellant scores the trial Court for convicting him of the crimes charged. He insists the shabu and drug paraphernalia seized from his house were planted by the CIDG operatives in an elaborate attempt to frame him up. The police operatives were allegedly getting back at him after they failed to elicit his support to apprehend suspected drug pusher Rodrigo Lorenzo.

It is the burden of the accused-appellant to show his noncomplicity of the charge against him especially if his defense is that of frame-up or alibi since under existing jurisprudence, he

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 11

must substantiate such defense with clear and convincing evidence. We hold that no clear and convincing evidence was presented to prove that accused-appellant was really framed up. Verily, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must prevail over the accused-appellants

imputation of ill-motive and harassment on the part of the CIDG operatives who conducted the search.8

We are not unaware that in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract

information or even to harass civilian.9 However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor as it can be easily concocted. Fact is, it is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the then Dangerous Drugs Act and even under the new Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.10 We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-

8 9

People v. Sotto, 275 SCRA 191; citing People v. Ponsica, 230 SCRA 87. People v. Pagaura , 267 SCRA 17. 10 People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193; Espano v. Court of Appeals, 288 SCRA 558; People v. Alegro, 275 SCRA 216; People v. Lising, 275 SCRA 804.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 12

being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemen's alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists.11

In the case under review, the records plainly show that a 2.361-gram packet of shabu as well as various drug

paraphernalia were seized from the house of the accusedappellant. The testimony of prosecution witness SPO3 Antonio Chungtuyco is clear and straightforward:

Q.

Mr. Witness, according to you you showed the search warrant to Domingo Gravador, and according to you you have already conducted the search on the place. What was the result of the search by virtue of the implementation of the search warrant Mr. Witness? We were able to recover shabu and shabu parapherhalias and one `paltik' and bullets, sir. Mr. Witness, where are the shabu now?

A.

Q.

11

People vs. Agapito, 154 SCRA 695.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 13

A. Q.

We submitted it to the PNP crime lab for chemical analysis, sir. Mr. Witness, I have here plastic sachets of shabu, will you please go over the same and tell before this Honorable Court what relation if any that plastic sachets? This was recovered inside the aparador, sir. (Witness referred to a medium size plastic sachet already marked as Exhibit `B-1'). This was recovered on the headboard of their bed. Witness referred to a several plastic sachets of shabu collective marked as Exhibit `C'). By the way, Mr. Witness, according to you you recovered drug paraphernalias. Where are the drug paraphernalias? We also sent it to the PNP crime lab.12

A.

Q.

A.

The Court below found the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible and those of the defense witnesses unworthy of belief. As the trial Court aptly observed:

SPO3 Chungtuyco and PO3 Pagsibigan testified on the foregoing circumstances concerning the implementation of Search Warrant No. 18-M-2002 (Exh. `E') that led to
12

TSN, SPO3 Antonio Chungtuyco, January 20, 2003, pp. 7-8

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 14

the recovery of dangerous drugs (Exh. `B-1') and drug-paraphernalia (Exh. `H') from accused Gravador. Their testimonies are essentially clear, credible and convincing. Their declarations dovetail and corroborate one another on material points, and are generally consistent with the statements contained in the `Joint Affidavit' (Exh. `J') which they executed jointly with SP02 Bello and Crim. Inv. Officer II Sanchez. More significantly, there is no showing whatsoever that they were actuated by any ill or improper motive and intention when they effected the arrest of accused Gravador and testified against him in court. The testimonies of these police officers are therefore entitled to great weight and credit. The Court is not persuaded by the defense of denial interposed by accused Gravador which was sought to be corroborated by his live-in partner Francisco. They actually claim that the charges are false and that the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia submitted as evidence in court were not actually recovered during the implementation of the search warrant. Their assertion is selfserving and cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the police officers who were not shown to have any ill-motive or intention to frame-up the accused and falsely testify against him in court.13

Settled is the rule that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a
13

O.R., pp. 141-142; Rollo, pp. 56-57.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 15

better position to decide the question having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless the trial court has plainly overlooked certain facts or circumstances of substance and value, which if considered might affect the result of the case.14

After a painstaking review of the records and the evidence adduced, we are convinced that the factual findings of the trial court are firmly supported by the evidence and that no cogent reason exists for disturbing such findings.

On The Penalty

For his possession of 2.361 grams of shabu, the Court a quo imposed upon accused-appellant the straight sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day and a fine of P300,000.00. He was likewise imposed the penalty of imprisonment of six (6)

14

People vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393; People vs. Garcia, 209 SCRA 164; People vs. Florida, 214 SCRA 227.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 16

months and one (1) day and a fine of P10,000.00 for possessing drug equipment, instruments and paraphernalia.

Both

penalties

need

correction.

The

Indeterminate

Sentence Law applies to crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, as well as to those covered by special laws. Accused-appellant was indicted for violation of Section 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, a special law. Clearly, an indeterminate sentence is called for.

Possession

of

less

than

five

(5)

grams

of

methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu is punishable by imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).15 Upon the other hand, imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty

15

Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 17

thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus or other paraphernalia for dangerous drug.16

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by said law.

WHEREFORE, AFFIRMED with

the

appealed

judgment

is

hereby

MODIFICATION.

Accused-appellant

Domingo Gravador is found guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 and is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00). He is likewise found guilty of violation of Section 12, Article II, R.A. 9165 and is sentenced to the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day as

16

Section 12, Article II, R.A. 9165.

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 18

minimum to two (2) years and four (4) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PERLITA J. TRIA TIRONA

Associate Justice

JOSE C. REYES, JR.

Associate Justice

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

RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice Chairman, Fifth Division *RTR/bvdr

DECISION CA-G.R. CR NO. 28011

PAGE 19