THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
DEXTER TORRES y DELA CRUZ, appellant.

Facts:

In the early afternoon of August 13, 2001, operatives of the Second

Regional Narcotics Office led by PSI Teodolfo M. Tannagan, SPO4 Abelardo M. Lasam, SPO1
Jessie O. Liwag and PO2 Tirso T. Pascual, as members, and a back-up team from the Gonzaga
Police Station, armed with a search warrant issued by Executive Judge Jimmy Henry F. Lucson,
Jr. of the RTC of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, raided the house of Dexter Torres located at
Salvanera St., Barangay Paradise, Gonzaga, Cagayan. The team was joined by the two barangay
councilmen, Edward Sagnep and Ernesto Vivit.
Just before searching Dexter's house, SPO4 Lasam presented the search warrant and introduced
the raiding team to Henny Gatchalian, Dexter's sister, and Dexter's children. When asked where
the owners of the house were, Henny responded that her brother and his wife had just left. In
their presence and that of the two kagawads, the team searched the master's bedroom and found
the following stashed inside the second deck of a wooden cabinet: 1) a brick of dried suspected
marijuana wrapped inside newsprint; 2) two plastic sachets of suspected shabu; 3) three pieces of
aluminum foil; 4) a colored green plastic lighter; and 5) a small transparent plastic bag. The
raiders then prepared an inventory4 of the articles seized, a copy of which was handed to Henny.
After photos of the confiscated articles were taken, they were placed in a plastic bag and turned
over to SPO4 Lasam, who submitted the same to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 2, Camp
Alimanao, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for forensic examination.5
That same afternoon, Kagawads Edward and Ernesto both signed a certification6 as to the
conduct of the search, certifying, among others, that it was conducted in an orderly and peaceful
manner; no unnecessary force was employed; nobody was hurt; and nothing was taken without
proper receipt. Henny, however, refused to sign the certification.
PSI Forensic Chemist Maria Leonora C. Camarao examined the substance seized from Dexter's
house which tested positive for marijuana and shabu. On the witness stand, Maria confirmed her
Physical Science Reports.
On December 5, 2002, the prosecution formally offered its exhibits, which included the brick of
marijuana leaves and fruiting tops weighing 831.91 grams (Exhibit "A"); and the shabu which
weighed 0.26 grams (Exhibits "B" and "B-1"). Thereafter, the prosecution rested its case.8
Dexter, through counsel, objected to the offer of evidence on the ground that the same were
"confiscated not from [his] possession as he was then staying in Laoag City."9
The defense consists of the testimonies of Dexter himself, his sister Henny Gatchalian, and his
relative, Kagawad Ernesto, are predicated on denial and frame-up.

\On November 14, 2003, the RTC rendered a joint decision convicting Dexter of the offenses
charged.
The trial court rejected the defense of alibi cum frame-up of the accused and upheld in favor of
the prosecution the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.
Dexter appealed his conviction to this Court, docketed as G.R. Nos. 162542-43, praying for the
reversal of the judgment. He claimed that the search warrant had been unlawfully implemented
and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On July 28, 2005, the judgment of conviction was affirmed, but was modified as to the penalty
imposed in Criminal Case No. 08-1344
Dexter sought reconsideration, which the CA denied.19
Unfazed, Dexter, now the appellant, appealed anew to this Court, adopting by way of
manifestation the same arguments before the CA.20

ISSUE: Whether or not the items seized from his house are inadmissible as evidence,
being the fruits of an illegal search.

HELD : The appeal is not meritorious.

Contrary to appellant's claim, Henny and Barangay Kagawad Ernesto were present when the
lawmen searched his house. The illicit drugs and paraphernalia were found in the master's
bedroom stashed inside the second deck of a wooden cabinet. This is clear from the positive and
categorical testimony of PO2 Tirso Pascual, a member of the raiding team:
PO2 Pascual testimony was corroborated by SPO1 Jessie Liwag, likewise a member of the
raiding team that searched the house of the appellant.24 Besides, Henny and Kagawad Ernesto,
were not the only witnesses to the search; Kagawad Edward Sagnep was also present during the
entire search. This is evinced by the testimonies of PO2 Pascual and the certification signed by
the two Kagawads.
The RTC and the CA correctly rejected the testimonies of defense witnesses Henny and
Kagawad Ernesto for being biased and riddled with inconsistencies.
Consistent with the trial court's own findings as between the testimony of Gatchalian and the
testimonies of the police officers, this Court finds the testimonies of the police officers more
credible. Aside from the principle that testimonies of police officers deserve full faith and credit
given the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly, we note that the
prosecution witnesses gave consistent and straightforward narrations of what transpired on
August 13, 2001. The police officers have consistently testified that Gatchalian was then in the

house of the accused-appellant when they arrived thereat, and that she was with them when they
conducted the search inside the house.
The presence of barangay council members Edward Sagnep and Ernesto Vivit during the search
was also sufficiently established. These barangay officials even affixed their signatures on the
confiscation receipt issued by PO3 Jessie Liwag that contains a statement that the seized
properties were found in the presence of Brgy. Kag. Edward R. Sagnep and Brgy. Kag. Ernesto
Q. Vivit.
Barangay kagawad Ernesto Vivit's retraction and assertion that he was not really present when
the policemen searched the house of the accused-appellant fail to persuade. During crossexamination, Vivit, a relative of the accused-appellant, even testified in court:
As correctly pointed out by the trial court:
The afore statements of this defense witness clearly established the fact that, there was
nothing irregular in the execution of the search warrant. It also establishes the material
fact that, what was claimed to have been recovered, seized and confiscated from the
cabinet located in one of the rooms of Dexter's house, to wit: dried marijuana, two (2)
plastic sachets of shabu, lighter, match box, and aluminum foils are true. True, because
Ernesto Vivit, a witness to the search and a barangay councilman signed the confiscation
receipt voluntarily because he knew for a fact that said items were actually recovered
from the house of the accused."
Even defense witness Henny Gatchalian mentioned in her testimony that Ernesto Vivit
was with the policemen when they conducted the search.25
More importantly, it is now too late in the day for appellant to object to the admissibility of the
evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. Though he seasonably objected after the
prosecution formally offered its evidence, his objection was not based on constitutional grounds,
but rather on the ground that he was not in actual possession of the premises at the time the
search was conducted.26
Indeed, the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, like any other right, can
be waived and the waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly.28
Hard to believe is appellant's insinuation that the evidence for the prosecution were planted. His
very conduct following his arrest would belie this allegation:
First. He failed to complain about this matter when he was apprehended nor bestirred himself to
bring it up during his preliminary investigation. He could not even identify the person, the
policeman or policemen who allegedly planted the evidence. In fact, it was only during this
appeal that appellant accentuated this alleged frame-up.
Second. The appellant failed to inform his counsel of the alleged planting of evidence by the
policemen; if he had done so, for sure, the said counsel would have prepared his affidavit and

filed the appropriate motion in court for the suppression of the things/articles seized by the
policemen.
Third. We find it incredible that the policemen planted said evidence in full view of Kagawad
Edward, whose presence during the search was undisputed. This is so because the policemen
could be prosecuted for planting evidence and, if convicted, sentenced to death under Section 19
of R.A. No. 7659:
SECTION 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Officials and Employees and Officers and Members of
Police Agencies and the Armed Forces, 'Planting' of Evidence. The maximum penalties
provided for [in] Sections 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections
14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those found guilty of any of
the said offenses are government officials, employees or officers, including members of
police agencies and the armed forces.
Any such above government official, employee or officer who is found guilty of
"planting" any dangerous drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and
Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the immediate
vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same penalty as
therein provided.
The incantation of frame-up is nothing new. It is a common and standard line of defense in most
prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. While such defense cannot and should
not always be considered as contrived, nonetheless, it is generally rejected for it can easily be
concocted but is difficult to prove. Police officers are, after all, presumed to have acted regularly
in the performance of their official functions, in the absence of clear and convincing proof to the
contrary, or that they are motivated by ill-will.29
Appellant next submits that his absence during the search coupled with the fact that he was not
caught in possession of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia are circumstances sufficient enough to
exonerate him.30
We are not persuaded.
The essential elements of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs are the following: (a)
the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or
by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a
regulated drug.31
The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely or consciously possessed the prohibited drug.32

The fact that appellant was not in his residence when it was searched nor caught in flagrante
delicto possessing the illicit drugs and paraphernalia does not dent the case of the prosecution. As
a matter of law, when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a house or other building
belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in
possession of such drugs in violation of law, and the fact of finding the same is sufficient to
convict. Otherwise stated, the finding of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia in the house owned
by the appellant raised the presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to
convict.33
In the instant case, appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut the existence of animus
possidendi over the illicit drugs and paraphernalia found in his residence. His claim that he was
not aware that such illegal items were in his house is insufficient. We have time and again ruled
that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. Mere denial, just like
alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight
than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. As between a
categorical testimony that rings of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is
generally held to prevail.35 Moreover, his defense of frame-up, as we said, is a common and
standard line of defense which is invariably viewed with disfavor, it being capable of easy
concoction and difficult to prove.36 Considering that no clear and convincing evidence was
presented to prove such allegation, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty,37 as well as the principle that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses,
especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great respect and are accorded the highest
consideration,38 must prevail over the appellant's imputation of ill-motive on the part of the
policemen who conducted the search.