G.R. No. 179941
People vs. Lito Lopez Macabare
August 24, 2009
Facts:
Accused
appellant Lito Macabare, a detention prisoner, was found guilty of violation of
Section 16 of RA 6425, as amended, after
a 410.6 grams of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu was found in
his Cell (in which he was the sole occupant) during a surprise check by the
police.
Macabare
denied ownership of the item found in his cell. He further claimed that the ‘coleman’
where the shabu was found in could have been owned by somebody else since there
had been various inmates who also sleep in his cell. Macabare contended that he
shouldn’t be convicted based on mere circumstancial evidence.
Lower courts
found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and a fine of 5million
which was reduced to 500,000.
Ruling:
Court
affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision.
To uphold a conviction based on
circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence
presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair and
reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others,
as the guilty person.
The circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient
to conclude that
Macabare indeed owned the contraband. Moreover, the prosecution was able to
show Macabare’s liability under the concepts of disputable presumption of
ownership(The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may
be contradicted and overcome by other evidence) and constructive
possession(when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or
when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it
is found).
The
Court also held that although it is true that the presumption of innocence
assumes primacy over the presumption of regularity, it cannot be applied in the
case at bar since the
circumstantial evidence imputing animus posidendi to
Macabare over the prohibited substance found in his kubol coupled
with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions
constitutes proof of guilt of Macabare beyond a reasonable doubt
0 comments:
Post a Comment