Self-serving statements cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the

declaration of a credible witness on affirmative matters. Time-tested is the rule

that between the positive assertion of prosecution witnesses and the negative
averment of an accused, the former undisputedly deserves more credence and is
entitled to greater evidentiary value. As it has been oft pronounced, both denial
and alibiare inherently weak defenses which cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimony of the prosecution witness that [Ramos] was the author of the
crime charged. (FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 200077 September 17, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ADEL RAMOS Y ABELLANA, Accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant also underscores the fact that there was no showing by the
prosecution that he had no license or authority to sell "shabu" which is a
regulated drug. Citing the case of People v. Pajenado, 20 accused-appellant
maintains that since the absence of a license or authority is an essential
ingredient of the crime, proof of such negative allegation should have been
presented by the prosecution.

The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative

allegation, or a negative averment is an essential element of a crime, the
prosecution has the burden to prove the charge. However, this rule admits of
exceptions. Where the negative of an issue does not permit of direct proof, or
where the facts are more immediately within the knowledge of the accused, the onus
probandi rests upon him. Stated otherwise, it is not incumbent on the prosecution
to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment the truth of which is
fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily
be disproved by the production of documents or other evidence within the
defendant's knowledge or control. For example, where a charge is made that a
defendant carried on a certain business without a license (as in the case at bar,
where the accused is charged with the sale 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 establish that fact or suffer conviction. 21 Even in the case of
Pajenado, this Court categorically ruled that although the prosecution has the
burden of proving a negative averment which is an essential element of a crime, the
prosecution, in view of the difficulty of proving a negative allegation, "need only
establish a prima facie case from the best evidence obtainable." 22 In fact,
Pajenado was acquitted of the charge of illegal possession of firearm for the Court
found that, in said case, the prosecution was not able to establish even a prima
facie case upon which to hold him guilty of the crime charged.

In the case at bar, the negative averment that the accused-appellant had no license
or authority to sell "shabu," a regulated drug, has been fairly indicated by the
following circumstances, deduced from and established by the testimony of the
arresting officers, viz: the accused was caught selling "shabu" not in a hospital
or pharmacy but near a hamburger store, along a bridge at barangay Caniogan, Pasig,
at an unholy hour of 10:00 o'clock in the evening. She delivered the drug to the
poseur-buyer PO2 Corpuz and accepted the buy-bust money. Proof of these
circumstances thus shifted the onus on the accused. She could have very easily
disproved these damning circumstances by mere presentation of a copy of her license
or any other document evidencing her authority to sell a regulated drug. No such
thing was done during the trial. There is nothing now to exculpate the accused from
liability.

Finally, it should be noted that, for her defense, accused-appellant relied solely
on her uncorroborated testimony. She did not present her alleged companion, Jorge
Alombro, notwithstanding the presence of the latter at the trial, nor the hamburger
attendant who she claims was initially requested by the police to frisk her. On
cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted that she did not file any criminal
charge against the police officers who allegedly manhandled her. 23 Thus, on the
face of the overwhelming evidence against the accused-appellant, we are constrained
to affirm her conviction.

G.R. No. 107623 February 23, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ANGELITA MANALO y DELA PAZ,