SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 172603

Appellee,
Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,

- versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.

DONALDO Promulgated:
PADILLA ySEVILLA, August 24, 2007
Appellant.

x--------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Appellant, Donaldo Padilla y Sevilla, was charged before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Las Pias 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 Pias,
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 Pias police conducted two weeks
before December 20, 1995 surveillance of the residence at BF Homes, Las Pias of
Malou Padilla (Malou), appellants wife, for alleged drug trafficking.

On application of the police, a warrant for the search of Malous residence was
issued by the RTC of Imus, Cavite on December 19, 1995.

Armed with the warrant, SPO2 Mabini Rosale and Police Inspector Virgilio Pelaez,
together with six other operatives, proceeded on December 20, 1995, around 2:30
a.m., to the residence of the Padilla spouses. On reaching the residence, the police
noticed a Nissan Altima car bearing Plate No. UBD-109 speeding away.

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 Toyota car wanted to go to the Padilla residence. The guard was thus advised to
stall the car and ask those on board what their purpose was in wanting to go to the
Padilla residence.

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. (Hidalgo),
why he was going to the Padilla residence, he replied that he had an important
transaction. Soon the policemen heard sounds emanating from the trunk of the car,
prompting them to inquire from Hidalgo what they were. Without
hesitation, Hidalgo opened the trunk of the car where appellant was hiding. At that
instant, appellant readily handed over to the policemen a blue plastic bag,
saying: Ito ang hinahanap ninyo.
 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 Quezon City.

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.

xxxx

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 Hidalgo attended a party at the house
of the Padillas cousin at Matahimik St., V. Luna, Quezon City where they stayed
until 3:00 a.m. of December 20, 1995, they proceeded to BF Homes, Las Pias to
bring appellant home.

When appellant and company arrived at the gate of the village at around 4:00 a.m.,
they were stopped by the security guard because the car they were on board did not
bear the village sticker. Appellant thus showed his face to the guard and informed
him that he would just be brought home. The guard thereupon informed appellant
that there were policemen in his house who were armed with a search warrant
against his wife, and advised appellant to just wait at the gate as the policemen were
on their way.

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 sisters house, the policemen told him that all of them would go
to where she was, which they did.

When appellants 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 Hidalgo to, as they did, go to a police station in Kamuning, Quezon
City. Appellant and his wife were placed in one room at the station while Luis
Padilla and Hidalgo were placed in another.
 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 Hidalgo were thus released hours later.

Branch 255 of the Las Pias RTC convicted appellant by Decision of June 3,
[3]
2002, the dispositive portion of which reads:

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 appellants 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-appellants 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 May 31, 2005,[6] the appellate court affirmed that of the trial
court, with the modification that the death penalty imposed was reduced
to reclusion perpetua.

In sustaining the conviction of appellant, the appellate court ratiocinated:

 We cannot give credence to appellants 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 Toyota car. x x x

xxxx

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 appellants imagination. On the
other hand, appellants 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.

Appellants 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 appellants self-serving and uncorroborated
defense.

xxxx

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 homeowners 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 appellants defense. On
the other hand, the corroboration provided by appellants 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 latters
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
appellants 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 prosecutions 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 policemens 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 appellants claim that he was the only
one charged is belied by the Information which also charged Hidalgo is not exactly
accurate. For, as the earlier-quoted Information shows, appellant was the only one
charged. Hidalgo, whose whereabouts were unknown, was, in the body of the
Information, merely alleged to have conspired with appellant.

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 appellants 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 DANTE O. TINGA

Associate Justice 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 Courts
Division.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[1]
Records, p. 1.
[2]
Report dated December 22, 1995, Exhibit C; id. at 73.
[3]
Id. at 270-276.
[4]
Id. at 276.
[5]
G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 656. This case modified the pertinent provision of the Rules
of Court on direct appeals from the Regional Trial Court to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty
imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.Said cases are now brought to the Court of Appeals
for immediate review.
[6]
Court of Appeals (CA) rollo, pp. 137-153; penned by Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and concurred in by
Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Vicente Q. Roxas.
[7]
Id. at 147-151.
[8]
G.R. No. 92706, May 21, 1992, 209 SCRA 179.
[9]
Id. at 188.
[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, January 29, 1988, 157
SCRA 541, 563.
[11]
People v. Libag, G.R. No. 68997, April 27, 1990, 184 SCRA 707, 716.