EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 130568-69. March 21,
2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHE CHUN TING alias
"DICK," accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.: Missc
CHE CHUN TING
alias "DICK," a Hong Kong national, was found guilty by the trial
court on 22 August 1997 of delivering, distributing and dispatching in transit
999.43 grams of shabu;[1] and, having in his custody, possession and control
5,578.68 grams of the same regulated drug.[2] He was meted two (2) death sentences, one for
violation of Sec. 15 and the other for violation of Sec. 16, both of Art. III,
of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended).[3] He was likewise ordered to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00
in the first case, and P12,000,000.00 in the second.[4] He is now before us on automatic review.
The antecedent
facts: Following a series of buy-bust operations, the elements of the Special
Operation Unit, Narcotics Command, apprehended a suspected drug courier, Mabel
Cheung Mei Po, after she delivered a transparent plastic bag containing a white
crystalline substance to an informant, in full view of NARCOM agents. When
questioned, Mabel Cheung Mei Po cooperated with the government agents and
revealed the name of accused Che Chun Ting as the source of the drugs. Misspped
On 27 June 1996
the Narcotics Command deployed a team of agents for the entrapment and arrest
of Che Chun Ting. The team was composed of Major Marcelo Garbo, a certain
Captain Campos,[5] P/Insp. Raymond Santiago, SPO3 Renato Campanilla,
and a civilian interpreter. The members of the NARCOM team were in two (2)
vehicles: a Nissan Sentra Super Saloon driven by Mabel with P/Insp. Santiago
and SPO3 Campanilla as passengers; and the other vehicle, with Major Garbo,
Captain Campos and the civilian interpreter on board. At around 7 o’clock in
the morning they proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden in Pasay City where Che
Chun Ting was and had the place under surveillance. Later, they moved to the
McDonald’s parking lot where the civilian interpreter transferred to the Nissan
car. Mabel then called Che Chun Ting through her cellular phone and spoke to
him in Chinese. According to the interpreter, who translated to the NARCOM
agents the conversation between Mabel and Che Chun Ting, Mabel ordered one (1)
kilo of shabu.
At around 10:30
o’clock in the morning of the same day, Mabel received a call from the accused
that he was ready to deliver the stuff. She immediately relayed the message to
the NARCOM agents. After receiving the go-signal from Major Garbo, P/Insp.
Santiago, SPO3 Campanilla and Mabel proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden. The
other vehicle followed but trailed behind within reasonable distance to serve
as a blocking force.
Upon arriving at
the Roxas Seafront Garden, Mabel honked twice and went to Unit 122. The two (2)
NARCOM agents, who waited inside the car parked two (2) meters away, saw the
door of the unit open as a man went out to hand Mabel a transparent plastic bag
containing a white crystalline substance. The NARCOM agents immediately
alighted and arrested the surprised man who was positively identified by Mabel
as Che Chun Ting. Then the agents radioed their superiors in the other car and
coordinated with the security guard on duty at the Roxas Seafront Garden to
make a search of Unit 122. During the search SPO3 Campanilla seized a black bag
with several plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance in an open
cabinet at the second floor. The bag was examined in the presence of Major
Garbo, the accused himself, and his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz. The accused
together with the evidence was then brought to Camp Crame where Forensic
Chemist P/Sr. Inspector Julita T. de Villa after conducting laboratory tests
found the white crystalline substance to be positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.[6] Spped
The defense has a
different version. Nimfa Ortiz narrated that she sent her brother Noli Ortiz to
meet Mabel Cheung Mei Po in front of the Allied Bank at the EDSA Extension to
help the latter find a lawyer and at the same time get the laser disc she lent
to Mabel. Noli testified that when he got inside the car of Mabel a policeman
sitting at the back of the car suddenly hit him on the head. The car then
proceeded to McDonald’s at Roxas Boulevard near the Roxas Seafront Garden where
he was moved to another car, a green Nissan Sentra, with Major Garbo, Captain
Lukban and a certain Palma (perceived to be the civilian interpreter) on board.
Mabel stayed behind at McDonald’s until she was brought back to Camp Crame.
Noli Ortiz, Major
Garbo, Captain Lukban and Palma went to the Roxas Seafront Garden where they
parked the car five (5) to seven (7) meters away from Unit 122. Noli rang the
doorbell of the unit. When Nimfa opened the door, two (2) NARCOM officers
suddenly forced their way inside and searched the premises. Noli denied having
seen any black bag seized by SPO3 Campanilla; instead, what he saw was his
sister's video camera being carted away by the NARCOM agents. He further
testified that when his sister was made to sign a certification on the conduct
of the search on Unit 122 she was frightened and crying. He claimed that
accused Che Chun Ting was then asleep at the second floor of the unit.
The defense
presented documents showing that the owner of Unit 122 was Nimfa Ortiz and not
accused Che Chun Ting who lived at 1001 Domingo Poblete St., BF Homes,
Paranaque.[7] This information, according to the defense, was
vital for purposes of ascertaining the legality of the search on Unit 122 as
well as the seizure therein of a black bag containing several plastic bags of shabu.
Finally, the defense assailed the lower court for relying on the testimony of
Mabel who turned hostile witness in the course of the trial.[8]
Accused Che Chun
Ting now contends that the trial court erred: (a) in convicting him on the
basis of the shabu seized inside Unit 122, which was constitutionally
inadmissible as evidence since it was seized without a search warrant; (b) in
failing to recognize that the testimony of Mabel Cheung Mei Po, who turned
hostile witness in the course of the trial, has discredited the prosecution
case and cast doubt on the testimonies of P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla;
and, (c) in assuming that the entire white crystalline substance seized is
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Jospped
We resolve. The
1987 Constitution ordains that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without
a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Thus -
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, shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.[9]
It further
mandates that any evidence obtained in violation thereof shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.[10]
The right is not
absolute and admits of certain well-recognized exceptions. For instance, a
person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense, without a search
warrant.[11] The search may extend beyond the person of the one
arrested to include the permissible area or surroundings within his immediate
control.[12]
The issue is
whether this case falls within the exception.
The accused was
admittedly outside unit 22 and in the act of delivering to Mabel Cheung
Mei Po a bag of shabu when he was arrested by the NARCOM operatives.
Moreover, it is borne by the records that Unit 122 was not even his residence
but that of his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz, and that he was merely a sojourner
therein. Hence, it can hardly be said that the inner portion of the house
constituted a permissible area within his reach or immediate control,[13] to justify a warrantless search therein. Sppedjo
The lawful arrest
being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under
the exception, the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject,
time and place of the arrest. As to subject, the warrantless search is
sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may
be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or
"anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the
offense." With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search, it
must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid,
the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or
immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested,[14] or the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control.
It must be
stressed that the purposes of the exception are only to protect the arresting
officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might be armed
with a concealed weapon, and also to prevent the person arrested from
destroying the evidence within his reach.[15] The exception therefore should not be strained
beyond what is needed in order to serve its purposes, as what the Solicitor
General would want us to do.
We therefore hold
that the search in Unit 122 and the seizure therein of some 5,578.68 grams of shabu
do not fall within the exception, hence, were illegal for being violative of
one’s basic constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
As a consequence
of the illegal search, the things seized on the occasion thereof are
inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. They are regarded as
having been obtained from a polluted source, the "fruit of a poisonous
tree." However, objects and properties the possession of which is
prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the
illegality of their seizure. Thus, the shabu seized by the NARCOM
operatives which cannot legally be possessed by the accused under the law, can
and must be retained by the government to be disposed of in accordance with
law.
Be that as it
may, the inadmissibility of the 5,578.68 grams of shabu in evidence does
not totally exonerate the accused. The illegal search in Unit 122 was preceded
by a valid arrest. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto as a
result of an entrapment conducted by NARCOM operatives on the basis of the
information provided by Mabel Cheung Mei Po regarding the accused's illegal
trade. NARCOM agents P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla saw him handing over
a bag of white crystalline substance to Mabel Cheung Mei Po. His arrest was
lawful and the seized bag of shabu weighing 999.43 grams was admissible
in evidence, being the fruit of the crime. Miso
The second
assigned error hinges on the credibility of witnesses. As we have consistently
stressed in the majority of appeals in criminal cases, appellate courts give
weight, and at times even finality, to the findings of the trial judge who is
in a better position to determine the credibility of witnesses, as he can
observe firsthand their demeanor and deportment while testifying. Appellate
courts have none of the judge’s advantageous position; they rely merely on the
cold records of the case and on the judge’s discretion.
As mentioned
earlier, Mabel Cheung Mei Po turned hostile witness in the course of the trial.
The defense capitalized on such fact and hammered the prosecution on this
point, arguing that Mabel’s testimony during her cross-examination virtually
belied the prosecution’s factual theory of the case and cast doubt on the
testimony of the NARCOM agents.
But we are not
persuaded. Mabel Cheung Mei Po turned hostile witness understandably because of
her adverse interest in the case. She was separately charged for violation of
Sec. 15, Art. III, RA 6425,[16] although she was subsequently acquitted by the trial
court on reasonable doubt.[17] It is therefore to be expected that she would be
extremely cautious in giving her testimony as it might incriminate her. At any
rate, the testimony of the police informant in an illegal drug case is not
essential for the conviction of the accused since that testimony would merely
be corroborative and cumulative.[18] Hence, even if we concede that Mabel Cheung Mei Po’s
testimony was discredited on account of the dismissal of the criminal case
against her, the prosecution could still rely on the testimonies of the
arresting officers and secure a conviction on the basis thereof.
Further, the
attempt of the accused to downgrade the testimonies of the NARCOM agents is
bereft of substantial basis since it has not been shown that they had an
improper motive for testifying as they did. It would not be amiss to point out
that NARCOM agents are not just ordinary witnesses but are law enforcers. As
compared to the baseless disclaimers of the witnesses for the defense, the
narration of the incident of the police officers is far more worthy of belief
coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly
performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary.[19] From the evidence at hand, we find no reason to
denigrate their declarations.
Indeed, there is
no doubt from the records that the accused was caught in flagrante delicto,
i.e., in the act of delivering shabu. The evidence for the
prosecution is both substantial and convincing. At its core is the testimony of
P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla who categorically pointed to the accused
as the person who handed to Mabel a plastic bag of white crystalline substance
which, upon forensic examination, was found positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. As can be gleaned from the assailed decision
of the trial court, the narration of events by the police officers is positive,
credible and entirely in accord with human experience. It bears all the
earmarks of truth that it is extremely difficult for a rational mind not to
give credence to it. They testified in a clear, precise and straightforward
manner, and even the rigid cross-examination by the defense could not dent the
essence of their testimonies. Nexold
As regards the
third assigned error, the accused questions the accuracy of the laboratory
tests conducted by the forensic chemist on the seized articles. He contends
that the PNP Crime Laboratory should have subjected the entire 999.43 grams and
5,578.66 grams of white crystalline substance taken from him, to laboratory
examination and not merely representative samples thereof in milligrams.
The argument is
untenable. Primarily, there is no law or rule of evidence requiring the
forensic chemist to test the entire quantity of seized drugs to determine
whether the whole lot is really prohibited or regulated drugs as suspected. On
the contrary, it has always been the standard procedure in the PNP Crime
Laboratory to test only samples of the drugs submitted for laboratory
examination. A sample taken from a package may be logically presumed to be
representative of the whole contents of the package.[20]
Moreover, we held
in one case that chemical analysis is not an indispensable prerequisite to
establish whether a certain substance offered in evidence is a prohibited drug.
The ability to recognize these drugs can be acquired without any knowledge of
chemistry to such an extent that the testimony of a witness on the point may be
entitled to great weight. Such technical knowledge is not required, and the
degree of familiarity of a witness with such drugs only affects the weight and
not the competency of his testimony.[21] Manikx
At any rate, it
was up to the defense to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
findings of the forensic chemist were erroneous. In the absence of such
evidence, the positive results of the tests conducted by the chemist should be
accepted as conclusive. After all, she has in her favor the presumption that
she regularly performed her official duty, which was to carry out those tests
in accordance with the accepted standard procedure.[22]
All told, this
Court is satisfied that the prosecution has established the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt in Crim. Case No. 96-8932. Accordingly, he must
suffer for his serious crime of poisoning the health and future of this nation.
However, we refrain from imposing the capital punishment. As amended by RA
7659, Sec. 20, Art. IV of The Dangerous Drugs Act now provides in
part that the penalty in Sec. 15, Art. III, shall be applied if the dangerous
drug involved is, in the case of shabu or methylampethamine
hydrochloride 200 grams or more and the delivery or distribution of
regulated drugs without proper authority is penalized with reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00.
Thus the law prescribes two (2) indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua and
death. Pursuant to Art. 63 of The Revised Penal Code, since there were
neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attending accused's violation
of the law, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is the proper
imposable penalty.
The legislature
never intended that where the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved exceeds
those stated in Sec. 20, the maximum penalty of death shall automatically be
imposed. Nowhere in the amendatory law is there a provision from which such a
conclusion may be drawn. On the contrary, this Court has already concluded in
People v. Gatward[23] that RA 7659 did not amend Art. 63 of The Revised
Penal Code, and the rules therein were observed although the cocaine
subject of that case was also in excess of the quantity provided in Sec. 20.[24] Maniksx
With respect to
Crim. Case No. 96-8933, since the constitutional right of the accused against
unreasonable searches and seizures was violated, which rendered the evidence
against him inadmissible, he is acquitted of the offense charged.
Finally, we take
this opportunity to remonstrate the law enforcement agencies regarding respect
for the constitutional rights of persons suspected of committing crimes. As the
phalanx of our united efforts to stem the surging tide of drug-trafficking in
this country, the police force is not only expected to be well-trained and
well-equipped in the detection and apprehension of drug pushers, but more
importantly, it must also be aware that arrests, searches and seizures should
at all times and in all instances be done within the context of the
Constitution. While we encourage an active and vigorous law enforcement, we
nevertheless defer to and uphold the sacredness of constitutional rights. In
the instant case, while the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by
this Court on the accused may be sufficient to put him away for good, it is
nonetheless lamentable that he will walk away unpunished in the other case of
possession of more than 5,000 grams of illegal narcotics on account of a
blunder which could have easily been avoided had the NARCOM officers faithfully
adhered to the requirements of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the trial court in Crim. Case No.
96-8932 convicting accused CHE CHUN TING alias "DICK" for violation
of Sec. 15, Art. III, of RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended) is AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that the penalty imposed by
the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The accused is ordered
to pay a fine in the increased amount of P2,000,000.00, and the costs.
In Crim. Case No.
96-8933, accused CHE CHUN TING alias "DICK" is ACQUITTED for failure
of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt the evidence
against him being inadmissible.
The 999.43 grams
and 5,578.68 grams of shabu, subject of Crim. Case Nos. 96-8932 and
96-8933 are FORFEITED in favor of the government to be turned over immediately
to the Dangerous Drugs Board and the National Bureau of Investigation for
proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. Manikanx
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima,
Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Crim. Case No. 96-8932.
[2] Crim. Case No. 96-8933.
[3] Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to
ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by
law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug
x x x x
Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a 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 x x x x (Note: Sec. 20, Art. IV, RA 6425 provides the penalties for offenses under Secs. 15 and 16 which shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved is in any of the following quantities: x x x x 3. 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride)
[4] Decision penned by Judge Lilia C. Lopez, RTC-Br. 109, Pasay City.
[5] Identified by defense witnesses as a certain Captain Lukban.
[6] Seven (7) self-sealing transparent plastic bags marked as Exhs. "A-1" through "G-1," thus: Exh. "A-1" - 999.43 grams (handed by the accused to Mabel); Exh. "B-1" - 753.18 grams; Exh. "C-1" - 977.68 grams; Exh. "D-1" - 964.28 grams; Exh. "E-I" - 933.18 grams; Exh. "F-1" - 974.58 grams; and, Exh. "G-1" - 975.78 grams; see RTC Records, p. 16.
[7] The court a quo ordered the City Prosecutor's Office and/or Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice to conduct a preliminary investigation for purposes of determining the complicity of Nimfa Ortiz, owner of Unit 122, in the crime, having in her possession and control the 5,578.68 grams of shabu found in her unit.
[8] Sec. 12, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides that a witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him into the witness stand.
[9] Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 Constitution.
[10] Sec. 3 (2), Art. III; id.
[11] Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
[12] People v. Santos, G.R. No. 106213, 23 September 1994, 236 SCRA 689, citing People v. Catan, G.R. No. 92928, 21 January 1992, 205 SCRA 235 and People v. Liquen, G.R. No. 97952, 6 August 1992, 212 SCRA 288.
[13] See Espano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120431, 1 April 1998, 288 SCRA 558.
[14] See Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Cuevas in Nolasco v. Paño, G.R. No. 69803, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 152.
[15] Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 1st Ed., 1987, p. 105.
[16] People v. Mabel Cheung Mei Po, Crim. Case No. 96-1217.
[17] 23 December 1996 Order penned by Judge Dennis M. Villa-Ignacio, RTC-Br. 143, Makati City.
[18] People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, 27 January 1997, 266 SCRA 607; People v. Lising, G.R. No. 125510, 21 July 1997, 275 SCRA 804.
[19] See People v. Blas, G.R. No. 97930, 27 May 1992, 209 SCRA 339.
[20] People v. TangWai Lan, G.R. Nos. 118736-37, 23 July 1997, 276 SCRA 24.
[21] People v. Bandin, G.R. No. 104494, 10 September 1993, 226 SCRA 299.
[22] People v. Borja, G.R. No. 71838, 26 February 1990, 182 SCRA 581.
[23] G.R. Nos. 118772-73, 7 February 1997, 267 SCRA 785.
[24] See People v. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872, 30 January 1998, 285 SCRA 703.