PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTURO FIGUEROA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Arturo Figueroa was charged with Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition in an information that read:

“The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses ARTURO FIGUEROA
of the crime of Illegal Possession of the Firearm and Ammunition, committed as
follows:

“That on or about the 10th day of November 1989 at San Francisco
Subdivision, Brgy. San Juan, Municipality of Gen. Trias, Province of Cavite,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession and control one (1) pistol cal. 45 with defaced serial
number with one magazine and seven (7) live ammunitions for the said firearm
without first having obtained the necessary permit or license from competent
authority to possess the same.”^[1]

When arraigned, the accused entered a plea of “Not
Guilty;” thereupon, trial ensued.

It would appear that on 10 November 1989, at around seven o’clock
in the morning, Captain Lodivino Rosario, the Executive Officer of the 215th PC
Company, and his men arrived at the residence of accused Arturo Figueroa at
Barangay San Juan, San Francisco Subdivision, General Trias, Cavite, to serve a
warrant for his arrest issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 56,
in Criminal Case No. 411 and Criminal Case No. 412 (for the crime of Illegal
Possession of Ammunitions and for Violation of Section 16, Art. III, Republic
Act 6425). While serving the warrant of
arrest, the officers noticed, strewn around, aluminum foil packages of different
sizes in the sala. Suspecting
thus the presence of “shabu” in the premises, the arresting officers
requested appellant, as well as his brother and sister, to acquiesce to a
search of the house. The search yielded
a .45 caliber pistol, a magazine, seven live ammunitions, and a match box containing
an aluminum foil package with “shabu.” Confronted, Figueroa denied
ownership of the items. An inventory
was conducted by the PC team, attested to by Barangay Captain Bigornia, of the
seized items.

The accused, besides assailing the credibility of the witnesses
for the prosecution, questioned the admissibility in evidence of the firearm
and rounds of ammunition which, he claims, were discovered and taken during a
warrantless search.

On 30 October 1990, the trial court rendered a decision finding
the accused Arturo Figueroa guilty.

From the judgment, the decretal portion of which reads –

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua (life imprisonment) and to pay the costs.

“The firearm and ammunitions are confiscated and forfeited in favor
of the government.

“Capt. Lodivino Rosario, Executive Officer, 215th PC Coy, is
hereby ordered to return to Arturo Figueroa the motorcycle with Motor Engine
No. KIE 073574 taken from the house of the Figueroas on November 10, 1989.”^[2]
–

this appeal is interposed by Arturo
Figueroa (a) reiterating his argument against the admissibility against him of
evidence seized following a warrantless search and (b) challenging anew the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

The appeal cannot be sustained.

The .45 caliber pistol, magazine and rounds of ammunition were
not unlawfully obtained. While we might
concede difficulty in readily accepting the statement of the prosecution that
the search was conducted with consent freely given by appellant and
members of his household, it should be pointed out, in any case, that the
search and seizure was done admittedly on the occasion of a lawful arrest.^[3]

A significant exception from the necessity for a search warrant
is when the search and seizure is effected as an incident to a lawful arrest^[4]
and so, in People vs. Musa,^[5] this
Court elaborated; thus –

“The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a
suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to
include the premises or surrounding under his immediate control. Objects in 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 as evidence.”

Appellant faults the trial court for giving credence to the
testimony given by witnesses for the prosecution despite what he claims to be
inconsistencies in their declarations. Appellant particularly calls attention to the assertion of prosecution
witness Sgt. Atas, to the effect that appellant was with a companion
inside a room when arrested and that the seized firearm was found under the cushion
of the bed, against the statement of Capt. Rosario, another prosecution
witness, that appellant was alone when arrested and that the gun was found under appellant’s bed. We do not consider these discrepancies to be
so major as to warrant a complete rejection of their questioned testimony. It is not unnatural for witnesses of the
same incident to somehow perceive differently and to thereby vary in their
respective accounts of the event.^[6] The
contradiction of witnesses on minor details is nothing unusual and should be
expected.^[7]
We see no cogent reason for not according due respect to the findings of the
trial court on the credibility of the witnesses.

Finally, it is claimed that appellant was just
“framed-up.” The conduct of the appellant following his arrest would
belie this allegation. Appellant
himself admitted that he failed to complain about this matter when he was
apprehended. Neither did he report the
so-called “planting of the gun” to the police authorities nor did he
bring it up before the Metropolitan Trial Judge when he appeared for
preliminary investigation. In fact, it
would seem that the only time appellant mentioned the alleged
“frame-up” was when he testified at the trial of this case. No plausible reason was given by appellant
that would have prompted police authorities to falsely impute a serious crime
against him. Absent a strong showing to
the contrary, we must accept the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty.^[8]

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against
accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), and
Romero, J., concur.

Melo, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 5.

^[2]
Records, p. 109.

^[3]
See Section 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court.

^[4]
Alvero vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637.

^[5]
217 SCRA 597.

^[6]
People vs. Malazzab, 160 SCRA 123.

^[7]
Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 98.

^[8]
People vs. Ponsica, 230 SCRA 87.