Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 146284-86            January 20, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.ABDUL MACALABA y DIGAYON, appellant.

DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:

Appellant Abdul Macalaba y Digayon (hereafter ABDUL) was charged before the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, with violations of the Presidential Decree No. 18661; Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code2; and Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1236, 1237 and 1238, respectively. The accusatory portions of the informations in these cases read as follows:

Criminal Case No. 1236

That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused without the required permit/license from the proper authorities, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) caliber .45 pistol with Serial No. 909904, and one (1) magazine with five (5) live ammunition thereof.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

Criminal Case No. 1237

That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control two (2) ONE THOUSAND PESOS bill with Serial Numbers BG 021165 and BG 995998, knowing the same to be forged or otherwise falsified with the manifest intention of using such falsified or forged instruments.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

Criminal Case No. 1238

That on or about April 12, 1999, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused without

being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) self-sealing transparent plastic bag of methamphetamine hydrochloride "shabu" weighing 226.67 grams (3 medium sized transparent plastic bags and 1 big heat-sealed transparent plastic bag).

CONTRARY TO LAW.5

The three cases were consolidated and raffled to Branch 31 of said court. Upon his arraignment, ABDUL entered in each case a plea of not guilty.

At the trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses SPO1 Generoso Pandez, PO3 Ernani Mendez, Police Inspector Anacleta Cultura and Police Inspector Lorna Tria. ABDUL was the sole witness for the defense.

SPO1 Pandez, a PNP member of the Laguna Criminal Investigation Detection Group (CIDG), testified that on 12 April 1999, at 5:15 p.m., Major R’ Win Pagkalinawan ordered the search of ABDUL, alias "Boy Muslim," based on a verified information that the latter was driving a carnapped Mitsubishi olive green car with Plate No. UPV 511 and was a drug-pusher in San Pedro, Laguna. Two teams were formed for the search. The first was headed by Major Pagkalinawan, with SPO4 Aberion and five others as members; and the second was led by Capt. Percival Rumbaoa, with SPO1 Pandez and PO3 Mendez as members.6

Between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., the two groups proceeded to Barangay Nueva, San Pedro, Laguna, on board a car and a van. They went to ABDUL’s apartment where he was reportedly selling shabu, but they learned that ABDUL had already left. While looking for ABDUL, they saw the suspected carnapped car somewhere at Pacita Complex I, San Pedro, Laguna, going towards the Poblacion. When it stopped due to the red traffic light, the CIDG officers alighted from their vehicles. Capt. Rumbaoa positioned himself at the passenger side of the suspected carnapped car, while Major Pagkalinawan stood in front of the car. SPO1 Pandez, with PO3 Mendez beside him, went straight to the driver and knocked at the driver’s window. ABDUL, who was driving the car, lowered the glass window. SPO1 Pandez introduced himself as a member of the Laguna CIDG and asked ABDUL to turn on the light and show them the car’s certificate of registration.7

When the light was already on, SPO1 Pandez saw a black Norinco .45 caliber gun8 inside an open black clutch/belt bag placed on the right side of the driver’s seat near the gear. He asked ABDUL for the supporting papers of the gun, apart from the car’s certificate of registration, but the latter failed to show them any.9 When ABDUL opened the zipper of the clutch/belt bag, the CIDG officers saw inside it four plastic sachets of what appeared to be shabu. They likewise found a self-sealing plastic bag which contained the following items: two fake P1,000 bills, a list of names of persons, a magazine and five ammunitions for a .45 caliber gun. They confiscated the gun, the shabu, and the fake P1,000 bills and thereafter brought ABDUL to the CIDG office.10

PO3 Mendez substantially corroborated the testimony of SPO1 Pandez.11

The two P1,000 bills were found to be counterfeit after an examination conducted by Police Inspector Anacleta Cultura,12 a document examiner at Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba, Laguna. The white crystalline substance contained in the four small plastic bags was subjected to physical and laboratory examination conducted by Police Inspector Lorna Tria, a Forensic Chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory, Region IV, Camp Vicente Lim. Her findings13 were as follows: (a) the three small plastic sachets weighed 29.46 grams, while the big plastic sachet weighed 197.21 grams, or a total weight of 226.67 grams; (b) representative samples taken from the specimens thereof were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug; and (c) the improvised tooter and the rolled aluminum foil with residue found in the self-sealing plastic bag were also positive of the presence for shabu residue.

As expected, ABDUL had a different story to tell. He testified that on 12 April 1999, between 6:50 and 7:00 p.m., he was driving a borrowed Mitsubishi Galant Car with Plate No. UPV 501 somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna. With him was Rose, his live-in partner, whom he fetched from Angeles City, Pampanga. He had borrowed the car from his friend Ferdinand Navares, who instructed him to return it in front of the latter’s store at San Pedro Public Market.14

ABDUL was about to park the car when a man knocked hard on the glass window on the driver’s side of the car and pointed at the former a .45 caliber pistol. Another one who was armed with an armalite rifle positioned himself in front of the car, while the third one positioned himself near the window on the passenger side and pointed a gun at his live-in partner Rose. ABDUL then lowered the car’s window. The man near him opened the door, held him, and told him to alight. When the man asked him whether he was "Boy Muslim," he answered in the negative. The same man opened the back door of the car and boarded at the back seat. Rose remained seated at the front passenger seat. 15

The other men likewise boarded the car, which was thereafter driven by one of them. While inside the car, they saw a .45 caliber pistol at the edge of the driver’s seat. They asked him whether he had a license. He showed his gun license and permit to carry. After taking his gun, license, and permit to carry, they tried to remove his belt bag from his waist, but he did not allow them.16

Upon reaching the headquarters, ABDUL learned that these people were C.I.S. agents. There, he was told to surrender the belt bag to the officer who would issue a receipt for it. He did as he was told, and the money inside his belt bag was counted and it amounted to P42,000. They then got his money and the cellular phone, which was also inside the bag, together with some other pieces of paper. They also took another cell phone from the car. He was never issued a receipt for these items.17

Thereafter, a man entered the office with a white plastic bag allegedly taken from the borrowed car. ABDUL denied ownership over the plastic bag. That same man then told him that it contained shabu. ABDUL and Rose were detained at the headquarters. The next morning, Rose was allowed to get out; and in the afternoon, he was transferred to San Pedro Municipal Jail.18

After the trial, the trial court acquitted ABDUL in Criminal Cases Nos. 1236 and 1237 for violations of Presidential Decree No. 1866 and Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code,

respectively, due to insufficiency of evidence. However, it convicted him in Criminal Case No. 1238 for violation of Section 16, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended,19 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000, as well as the costs of the suit.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, ABDUL interposed the present appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in (1) convicting him for violation of Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, despite insufficiency of evidence; and (2) admitting the evidence presented by the prosecution although it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.

In his first assigned error, ABDUL argues that the prosecution failed to prove the material allegations in the information. The information charges him, among other things, that "without being authorized by law, [he] did then and there willfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control … methamphetamine hydrochloride." However, the prosecution did not present any certification from the concerned government agency, like the Dangerous Drugs Board, to the effect that he was not authorized to possess shabu, which is a regulated drug. Thus, his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

In his second assigned error, ABDUL asserts that he was not committing a crime when the CIS agents boarded his car, searched the same and ultimately arrested him. He was about to park his borrowed car per instruction by the owner when he was harassed by the operatives at gunpoint. The gun seen was properly documented; thus, there was no reason for the CIS agents to bring him and his companion to the headquarters. The shabu allegedly found in the car was brought in by somebody at the time he was under interrogation. It was taken in violation of his constitutional right against illegal search and seizure. Being a "fruit of a poisonous tree" it should not have been admitted in evidence.

Moreover, the members of the CIDG merely relied on the information received from an anonymous telephone caller who said that ABDUL was driving a carnapped vehicle. They had no personal knowledge of the veracity of the information. Consequently, there was no legal basis for his warrantless arrest.

In the Appellee’s Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintains that ABDUL had the burden of proving that he was authorized to possess shabu, but he failed to discharge such burden. Therefore, it is presumed that he had no authority; consequently, he is liable for violation of Section 16, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The OSG likewise refutes ABDUL’s argument that there was a violation of his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The general rule is that if a criminal charge is predicated on a negative allegation, or that a negative averment is an essential element of a crime, the prosecution has the burden of proving the charge. However, this rule is not without an exception. Thus, we have held:

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 upon 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 selling 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.20

In the instant case, the negative averment that ABDUL had no license or authority to possess methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug, has been fairly indicated by the following facts proven by the testimonies of the CIDG officers and the forensic chemist: (a) ABDUL was driving the suspected carnapped vehicle when he was caught, and he appeared to be healthy and not indisposed as to require the use of shabu as medicine; (b) the contents of the sachets found in ABDUL’s open clutch bag inside the car were prima facie determined by the CIDG officers to be shabu; and (c) the said contents were conclusively found to be shabu by the forensic chemist. With these established facts, the burden of evidence was shifted to ABDUL. He could have easily disproved the damning circumstances by presenting a doctor’s prescription for said drug or a copy of his license or authority to possess the regulated drug. Yet, he offered nothing.

And now on the second issue. The Constitution enshrines in its Bill of Rights the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose.21 To give full protection to it, the Bill of Rights also ordains the exclusionary principle that any evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.22

It is obvious from Section 2 of the Bill of Rights that reasonable searches and seizures are not proscribed. If conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance with the guidelines prescribed by the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court, the search and seizure is valid.

The interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. The recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence are (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs search; (4) waiver or consented search; (5) stop and frisk situation (Terry search); and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. The last includes a valid warrantless search and seizure pursuant to an equally valid warrantless arrest, for, while as a rule, an arrest is considered legitimate if effected with a valid warrant of arrest, the Rules of Court recognize permissible warrantless arrests, to wit: (1) arrests in flagrante delicto, (2) arrests effected in hot pursuit, and (3) arrests of escaped prisoners.23 Another exception is a search made pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is authorized under Section 9 of R.A. No. 6235.24

The warrantless arrest of, or warrantless search and seizure conducted on, ABDUL constitute a valid exemption from the warrant requirement. The evidence clearly shows that on the basis of an intelligence information that a carnapped vehicle was driven by ABDUL, who was also a suspect of drug pushing, the members of the CIDG of Laguna went around looking for the

carnapped car.25 They spotted the suspected carnapped car, which was indeed driven by ABDUL. While ABDUL was fumbling about in his clutch bag for the registration papers of the car the CIDG agents saw four transparent sachets of shabu.26 These sachets of shabu were therefore in "plain view" of the law enforcers.

Under the "plain view" doctrine, unlawful objects within the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. Nonetheless, the seizure of evidence in plain view must comply with the following requirements: (a) a prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) the plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.27

We are convinced beyond any shadow of doubt under the circumstances above discussed that all the elements of seizure in plain view exist in the case at bar. Thus, the warrantless search and seizure conducted on ABDUL, as well as his warrantless arrest, did not transgress his constitutional rights.

ABDUL’s sole defense of denial is unsubstantiated. We have time and again ruled that mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. A 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.28

On the issue of credibility between ABDUL’s testimony and the declarations of the CIDG officers, we hold for the latter. As has been repeatedly held, credence shall be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary; moreover in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over accused’s self-serving and uncorroborated claim of having been framed.29 ABDUL miserably failed to rebut this presumption and to prove any ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses.

Unauthorized possession of 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Section 16 of Article III, in relation to Section 20 of Article IV, of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Republic Act No. 6425), as amended by P.D. Nos. 44, 1675, 1683, and 1707; Batas Pambansa Blg. 179; and R.A. No. 7659 (now further amended by R.A. No. 9165). These sections provide as follows:

SEC.16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. -- The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding license or prescription, subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.

…

SEC. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. -- The penalties for offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities:

…

3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride….

There is no doubt that the charge of illegal possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. 1238 was proved beyond reasonable doubt since ABDUL knowingly carried with him at the time he was caught 226.67 grams of shabu without legal authority. There being no modifying circumstance proven, the proper penalty pursuant to Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua. The penalty imposed by the trial court, including the fine, is, therefore, in order.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, in Criminal Case No. 1238 convicting appellant ABDUL MACALABA y DIGAYON of the violation of Section 16 of Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6425), as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000 and the costs of the suit, is hereby affirmed in toto.

Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 164909             April 30, 2008

RONNIE AMBAIT y SAURA, petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, J.:

This is an appeal to reverse and set aside the Decision1 dated July 25, 2003 and the Resolution2 dated August 11, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26050. The appellate court affirmed the Decision3 dated September 5, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 41, in Criminal Case Nos. 95-17377 and 95-17378.

On September 5, 2000, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866,4 Illegal Possession of Firearms, and violation of Section 16,5 Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 1796 and Rep. Act No. 7659.7

Petitioner had been found, on October 13, 1995, to unlawfully possess one unlicensed/unauthorized Smith and Wesson revolver, caliber .38, and three rounds of live ammunition. On that same day, he was also found to have in his possession, one small sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, weighing more or less 0.10 gram without the corresponding license or prescription.

Affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals predicated its judgment on the following facts.

On October 13, 1995 just before midnight, Bacolod City PNP Chief Inspector Pedro Merced, SPO2 Freddie Natividad and SPO1 Arthur Yusay were on routine police patrol when an informant codenamed "Savio" tipped them that a certain Teddy Sta. Rita8 of San Patricio, Banago District, Bacolod City was committing certain illegal activities within his residence. The patrol proceeded to the place reported by the informant. It was learned that the dwelling place was owned by one Nelia9 Sta. Rita.10

Having been informed that petitioner Ronnie Ambait maintained an illegal gambling operation in the said house, the policemen conducted a surveillance and stake-out operation. Using an entrapment procedure, the group was expecting the informant to turn-over some jai-alai paraphernalia and bet collections to petitioner; thereupon they would swoop down on the latter. As the policemen watched the informant hand over the tally sheet and bet collections to a certain Barry, the latter handed the paraphernalia to petitioner who was sitting behind a table with an open compartment.11 The policemen thereafter entered the house and found three persons namely, petitioner, Teddy Sta. Rita and a Eufran Serfino. Noticing a bulge in petitioner’s pocket, SPO2 Natividad asked him to stand up and empty his pocket. Petitioner let out a brown coin purse containing a small sachet. SPO1 Yusay then frisked petitioner and found a .38 caliber revolver and three live ammunitions. Gambling paraphernalia and bets amounting to P1,799 were found on the table.12

Thereafter, Informations against petitioner were filed as follows:

In Criminal Case No. 95-17377:

x x x x

That on or about the 13th day of October, 1995, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously keep, possess, hold and carry in his possession one (1) Revolver Caliber .38 Smith and Wesson (homemade) without Serial Number with three (3) rounds of live ammunitions without license and/or authority duly and legally issued and obtained for that purpose, in violation of the aforementioned law.

Act contrary to law.13

In Criminal Case No. 95-17378:

x x x x

That on or about the 13th day of October, 1995, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused not being lawfully authorized to possess, prepare, administer or otherwise use any regulated drug, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody one (1) small sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, weighing more or less 0.10 gram without the corresponding license or prescription therefor.

Act contrary to law.14

During trial, SPO4 Vicente Jalocon of the Firearms and Explosive Unit of the Bacolod City PNP testified that petitioner was not a registered firearm holder and had no license to possess any firearm.15 Forensic chemist Rhea Villavicencio of the Bacolod City PNP, another prosecution witness, testified that on October 14, 1995, the Chief of the Vice & Narcotic Division requested for laboratory examination of the following specimen in connection with the case namely: an improvised tooter and an aluminum foil containing 1.5 grams suspected to be "shabu" in a coin purse. In her report, she found that the specimen, particularly the one placed in the coin purse weighing 1.5 grams, was positive for shabu.16

On September 5, 2000, the trial court rendered its decision convicting the petitioner of the offenses charged. The dispositive portion of the decision states:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: (a) finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of P.D. 186[6], and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years and a fine of P15,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 17377; and (b) finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 16, Art. III of RA 6425, as amended by B.P. Blg. 179 and RA 7659, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of prision correc[c]ional, ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and four (4) months, as minimum to four (4) months and [one] (1) day to six (6) years, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.17

On appeal, the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated July 25, 2003 affirmed the decision of the trial court.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision, the same is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.18

A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was also denied. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner cites the following grounds for the allowance of the petition:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES DESPITE THE GLARING INCONSISTENCIES AND IMPROBABILITIES THEREIN.

II.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.

III.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE GUN, LIVE AMMUNITIONS AND SHABU THAT WERE CONFISCATED FROM PETITIONER ARE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

IV.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF THE GUN, AMMUNITIONS AND SHABU FROM PETITIONER WAS INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST AND THE SEIZURE WAS MADE IN PLAIN VIEW.

V.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ADOPTING THE THEORY THAT PETITIONER WAS CAUGHT IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO OF THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL GAMBLING.

VI.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT EXONERATING PETITIONER OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCED BY R.A. [NO.] 8294.

VII.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.19

Simply put, the issues for disposition are: (1) Did the Court of Appeals err in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses? and (2) Was the evidence seized admissible in evidence?

On the first issue, petitioner avers that the court a quo erred in giving full faith and credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which are replete with inconsistencies and discrepancies. Respondents counter that the inconsistencies were minor details which do not impair the credibility of the witnesses.

We reiterate the doctrine that the trial court’s assessment of a witness’ credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge.20 As a rule, the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to the highest respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any clear showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some weighty and substantial facts or circumstances that would have affected the result of the case. Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court is deemed to have been in a better position to weigh the evidence.21 Well-settled is the rule that findings of trial courts which are factual in nature and which revolve on matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.22 Moreover, having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the trial court’s findings carry even more weight. In the appeal before us, we find no reason to deviate from the rule.

Moreover, the inconsistencies mentioned by the petitioner can be characterized as minor. Petitioner points to alleged inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimonies of SPO2 Natividad and SPO1 Yusay who, on the one hand, testified that they confined their search and seizure operation on the ground floor of the house, and that the unlicensed gun and the shabu were taken from the petitioner; and the testimony of Chief Inspector Merced who, on the other hand, testified that the raiding team went up the second floor of the house then came down with sachets of shabu. We agree with the Court of Appeals that such inconsistencies are minor matters and that the testimonies dovetail on material points.23 The inconsistency does not impugn the fact that the gun, ammunition and shabu were all recovered and retrieved from the petitioner when he was confronted and frisked at the ground floor. Minor inconsistencies, far from detracting from the veracity of the testimony, even enhance the credibility of the witnesses, for they remove any suspicion that the testimony was contrived or rehearsed.24

On the second issue, petitioner contends that the conduct of the police officers cannot be justified under the exception to the rules against warrantless search and seizure. Respondents counter that the evidence were seized as a result of a lawful search and seizure made in plain view and as an incident to a lawful arrest of petitioner who was caught in flagrante delicto committing the crime of illegal gambling.

The police officers led by Chief Inspector Merced conducted a lawful entrapment operation on the petitioner who was reportedly the operator of the said illegal gambling operation. Police officers arrested petitioner while petitioner’s companions got away. When SPO2 Natividad noticed a conspicuous bulge in the petitioner’s pocket, he asked him to show its contents. Petitioner yielded a brown coin purse which contained a sachet of shabu. After a frisking made on the person of the petitioner, an unlicensed gun with three bullets were also confiscated. Patently, the warrantless search and seizure of the unlicensed gun, ammunition and shabu was lawfully made in plain view and as an incident to a lawful arrest.25

The interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. The recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence are (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.26

Patently, the warrantless search and seizure of the incriminating objects found in the possession of petitioner falls under the exceptions enumerated. Therefore, their admissibility in evidence cannot be questioned.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 25, 2003 and the Resolution dated August 11, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26050, denying the motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 107462.  August 30, 1996]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DELIA REYES y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant REY ARNEL REYES y GARBONELLA, accused.

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, J.:

Appellant Delia Reyes y dela Cruz and accused Rey Arnel Reyes y Garbonella were both charged with the crime of kidnapping in an information that reads as follows:

"That on or about the 8th day of May 1991, in the City of Angeles, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being both private individuals and one of them a former housemaid of the parents of the victim, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and for still unknown purpose or reason kidnap ASNIA (Malagu) MOHAMAD, a minor of 4 1/2 years of age, permanently separating said female child from her parents Rasmia and Almadin Mohamad since then to the present time."

The prosecution established that on May 8, 1991 at about 11:00 A.M., appellant went to the house of Almadin and Rasmia Mohamad in Angeles City, Pampanga to reapply as housemaid.  Appellant was a former housemaid of the Mohamads and was immediately accepted as the Mohamads had then no househelp. Appellant performed her chores, cleaned the house and attended to the  Mohamads' six children.  At about 3:00 in the afternoon, while  Rasmia was in the market and Almadin was praying at the mosque in the upper floor of their house, appellant invited the couple's three daughters, namely, Aslima, Badudin, and Asnia, nicknamed Malagu, aged four and a half, to watch a movie in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga.  The children readily agreed and they all left the house without telling their destination to anyone.

They had not walked too far when appellant remembered they forgot to lock the door of the house.  She instructed Aslima and Badudin to go back to the house and lock the door.  Aslima and Badudin did as they were told but when they returned to the place where they left appellant and their sister, the two were no longer there.

Aslima immediately informed her parents of the disappearance of appellant and Asnia.  The Angeles City police searched for them but to no avail.  The Mohamad couple organized a massive manhunt.  They sought the help of approximately 100 persons composed of relatives, friends and police and intelligence officers in Manila and the neighboring provinces.  They used the broadcast and print media.  The search dragged on for almost two months until the police came upon  accused Rey Arnel Reyes, appellant's cousin and also a former employee of the Mohamads.  On interrogation, Rey Arnel gave leads as to appellant's whereabouts.  It was at this time that the  information charging appellant of kidnapping was filed in court.  Rey Arnel Reyes was included as a co-accused.

Following Rey Arnel Reyes' leads,  the police arrested appellant  in Manila  on July 7, 1991.  The missing child, Asnia, was later found in the custody of an old lady in a squatter's area in Barangay Mabiga, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Asnia was embraced by her crying father who noticed that she had become "very thin and very pale." Asked why she kidnapped Asnia, appellant replied "wala lang."

Almadin and Rasmia Mohamad spent P300,000.00 more or less for reward money, transportation, board and lodging expenses in searching for Asnia.  The couple also suffered mental and emotional anguish and spent sleepless nights worrying over their lost daughter.

Appellant denied she kidnapped Asnia.  She claimed that on May 8, 1991, at about 3:00 p.m., she asked permission from Almadin to take his three daughters for a walk.  Almadin consented but told her not to walk too far away from the house.  She took the children to the market where they purchased a pair of slippers.  She met there a friend, Agnes Viriales.  Agnes told appellant to go to Mabalacat to get the latter's clothes.  Thereupon, appellant instructed the two older children to go home while she took Asnia with her to Mabalacat.  She did not ask further permission from Almadin as he was praying in the mosque.

Appellant saw her sister, Clarita Reyes, who just arrived from La Union, in Agnes' house in Mabalacat.  She was informed by Clarita that their mother died the previous day.   She and her sister immediately left for San Fernando, La Union after instructing Agnes to bring Asnia to her family.  Agnes and the Mohamads were acquaintances.  After her mother's burial, appellant did not return to Angeles City but proceeded to Manila where she worked as an ago-go dancer.

During the trial, accused Rey Arnel Reyes escaped from prison and was tried in absentia.  On September 3, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment  acquitting accused Rey Arnel Reyes for lack of evidence but convicting appellant of the crime of kidnapping.  Appellant was sentenced to reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the Mohamad couple actual and moral damages in the total amount of P300,000.00, thus:

"WHEREFORE, for lack of evidence, accused Rey Arnel Reyes y Garbonella is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged.

On the other hand, this Court finds  accused Delia Reyes y dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged in the information for kidnapping.  There being no modifying circumstance in attendance, the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby imposed upon said accused Delia Reyes y dela Cruz.  She is also hereby ordered to indemnify the spouses Almadin and Rasmia Mohamnad the sum of P200,000.00 as actual damages for expenses they incurred in the search for the victim, and P100,000.00 as moral damages, and also to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED."

Hence, this appeal where she contends:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED INSPITE OF PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT ACCUSED DELIBERATELY FAILED TO RESTORE THE MINOR/VICTIM TO HER PARENTS."

The crime of kidnapping under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code is committed:  (1) when the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and (2) the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardian.

Appellant concedes that she was hired by the Mohamad family as a housemaid and that she was entrusted with the care of their children.  She claims that the prosecution failed to prove that she deliberately and intentionally failed to return Asnia to her parents.   She contends that the death of her mother left her confused and bewildered.  She rushed to La Union to see her mother's remains and  relied on her friend, Agnes, to return Asnia to her parents.  In wrongfully trusting her friend, she contends she could not be convicted of  kidnapping.

We find appellant's excuse incredible.  To start with, appellant failed to corroborate the alleged death of her mother.  Moreover, it is hard to believe that the news about the mother's death would so unsettle appellant that she had to rush to La Union without first returning Asnia to her parents in Angeles City.  Asnia was a mere four and a half-year old child entrusted to her care and  Angeles City is but a few kilometers away from Mabalacat.  It would have taken appellant a few minutes to return to Angeles and tell the Mohamads about her predicament.

We hold that appellant's negligence is wanton and gross as to amount to a deliberate and willful scheme to take the child away from her parents.  This willfulness is sufficiently established by the following circumstances: (1) appellant  lured Asnia and her sisters into leaving their house;  (2) she instructed the two elder sisters to go home but kept the youngest with her; (3) she and Asnia could not be located despite extensive search by the authorities and the widespread publicity generated through the television, radio and print media;  (4)  the child was found two months later and only after the arrest of appellant; and (5) appellant harbored ill-feelings against the Mohamad family.  She revealed on the witness stand that the Mohamads did not pay her salary for five months when she worked for them in 1989. In contrast, there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were impelled by improper motives to testify falsely against appellant.

The non-presentation of Asnia and Agnes Viriales to whom appellant entrusted Asnia, does not weaken the case for the prosecution.  Even without their testimonies, there is sufficient evidence to prove appellant's guilt.  If appellant believed that their testimonies could have exculpated her, she could have availed of the coercive processes of the court to have them produced as witnesses. She failed to do so.  Their non-presentation will not exculpate her.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the Regional Trial Court Branch 58, Angeles City in Criminal Case No. 91-476  is affirmed.  Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado (Chairman), Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.

Romero, J., on leave.