THE PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
- versus
- Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
JESUS NUEVAS y GARCIA, TINGA,
and
REYNALDO DIN y GONZAGA, VELASCO, JR., JJ.
and FERNANDO INOCENCIO y
ABADEOS,
Appellants. Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
Jesus Nuevas y Garcia (Nuevas)
was charged[1]
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Reynaldo Din y Gonzaga (Din) and
Fernando Inocencio y Abadeos (Inocencio) were likewise charged[3]
with the same crime, before the same court.
Upon arraignment, Nuevas, Din and
Inocencio pleaded not guilty to the charges.[4]
As the evidence in the cases was common and the prosecution would utilize the
same witnesses, the cases were consolidated. After a joint trial on the merits,
the RTC rendered a Decision[5]
dated
WHEREFORE, finding all accused in
the above-entitled cases guilty beyond reasonable doubt, this Court hereby
sentences them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion
Perpetua and
each to pay [a] fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
The bricks of marijuana are hereby confiscated and
disposed in accordance with existing regulations.
SO ORDERED.[6]
To put in appropriate context the
operative facts on which adjudication of this case hinges, there is need to
recall the factual assertions of the witnesses for both the prosecution and the
defense.
PO3 Teofilo B. Fami (Fami) testified
that in the morning of
Fami and Cabling, together with
Nuevas, then proceeded to Purok 12, Old Cabalan,
On cross-examination, Fami revealed
that when the receipt of evidence seized was prepared, all three (3) accused
were not represented by counsel. He likewise disclosed that he was the one who
escorted all the accused during their physical examination. He also escorted
all three to the Fiscal’s office where the latter were informed of the charges
against them.[11]
Cabling corroborated Fami’s testimony. He, however, testified that after he and
Fami had introduced themselves as police officers, Din and Inocencio
voluntarily handed to Fami the marijuana dried leaves.[12]
On cross-examination, Cabling
testified that the arrest of Nuevas was the result of a tip from Fami’s
informant, conceding though that the name of Nuevas was not included in the
list of persons under surveillance. Fami then relayed the tip to Cabling.[13]
Cabling restated that Nuevas had voluntarily submitted the plastic bag he was
holding and that after Nuevas had been informed of the violation of law
attributed to him, he admitted his willingness to cooperate and point to his
other cohorts.[14]
When Fami and Cabling proceeded to the identified location of Nuevas’s cohorts,
they chanced upon Din and Inocencio along the road. Din was holding a bag while
Inocencio was looking into its contents.[15]
Cabling averred that Din voluntarily handed the plastic bag he was holding to
the police officers.[16]
For his defense, Nuevas testified that
in the morning of P1,500.00 and put it in his (Fami’s)
wallet. Fami then confronted Nuevas with shabu use but the latter denied the charge.
Before leaving the house with Nuevas, Fami brought out a plastic bag and told
Nuevas to carry it. Subsequently, they boarded a red owner—type jeep and
proceeded to Station B where Nuevas was put in jail. Nuevas further stated that
he did not know Din or Inocencio.[17]
Din, on the other hand, stated that at
about
Inocencio testified that he went to
his ‘compadre’ Din’s house in the morning
of
All three were found guilty as charged
and the judgment of conviction was elevated to the Court for automatic review. However,
on
In a Resolution[22]
dated
Before the Court of Appeals, Din and
Inocencio (appellants) argued that the trial court erred: (1) in finding them
guilty of the crime charged on the basis of the testimonies of the arresting
officers; and (2) n not finding that their constitutional rights have been
violated.[25]
The Court of Appeals in a Decision[26]
dated
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered,
the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the
SO ORDERED.[27]
The Court of Appeals restated the rule
that when the issue involves the credibility of a witness, the trial court’s
assessment is entitled to great weight, even finality, unless it is shown that
it was tainted with arbitrariness or there was an oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight or influence. The appellate court found Fami and
Cabling’s version of how appellants were apprehended to be categorical and
clear. Din, at the time of his
apprehension, was seen holding a plastic bag containing marijuana leaves. On
the other hand, Inocencio’s possession of the marijuana leaves was established
by the fact that he was seen in the act of looking into the plastic bag carried
by Din.[28]
With respect to appellants’ claim that
their constitutional rights have been violated, the appellate court stated that
the search in the instant case is exempted from the requirement of a judicial
warrant as appellants themselves waived their right against unreasonable
searches and seizures. According to the appellate court, both Cabling and Fami
testified that Din voluntarily surrendered the bag. Appellants never presented
evidence to rebut the same. Thus, in the instant case, the exclusionary rule
does not apply.[29]
Din and Inocencio are now before the
Court submitting for resolution the same matters argued before the Court of
Appeals. Through their Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplementary Brief)[30]
dated 22 March 2006, appellants stated that all the arguments necessary to
support their acquittal have already been discussed in the brief they had
submitted before the appellate court; thus, the filing of a supplemental brief
would be a mere reiteration of the
arguments discussed in said brief.[31]
The Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it is no longer filing a
supplemental brief.[32]
The conviction or acquittal of
appellants rests on the validity of the warrantless searches and seizure made
by the police officers and the admissibility of the evidence obtained by
virture thereof.
In holding that the warrantless
searches and seizure are valid, the trial court ruled as follows:
While the confiscation of the bricks of
marijuana from the accused Jesus Nuevas was without a search warrant, it was
not bereft of a probable cause. The police team received informations [sic] from
an asset that on that day, a male person whom he sufficiently described will
deliver marijuana at the vicinity of Perimeter and Bonifacio S[t]., Pag-asa,
Olongapo City, a known drop point of illegal drugs. They went to the said area
upon that information. Their waiting was fruitful because not long afterwards
they saw the accused Jesus Nuevas alighting from a tricycle carrying a bag and
after confronting him, he voluntarily gave the bag containing bricks of dried marijuana leaves. With
respect to the confiscation of 2 ˝ kilos of marijuana and the apprehension of
accused Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio, it was a result of a continued
operation by the team which this time was led by accused Nuevas to get some
concession from the team for his own earlier apprehension. As the apprehension
of Nuevas was upon a probable cause, in the same vein was the apprehension of
Reynaldo Din and Fernando Inocencio and the recovery from them [of] 2˝ kilos of
dried marijuana leaves. The propriety of this conclusion is necessity [sic] because
of the impossibility of getting first a warrant in so short a time with such
cumbersome requirements before one can be issued. Before getting a warrant, the
culprits shall have already gone into hiding. These situations are not distant to
the case of People v[.] Jean Balingan (G.R. No. 105834, 13 Feb. 1995) where we
learned that expediency and practicality are some of the justification[s] in
the warrantless arrest.[33]
[Emphasis supplied]
Appellants maintain that there was no
basis for their questioning and the subsequent inspection of the plastic bags
of Nuevas and Din, as they were not doing anything illegal at the time.[34]
Our Constitution states that a search
and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such
search and seizure becomes “unreasonable” and any evidence obtained therefrom is
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.[35]
The constitutional proscription, however, is not absolute but admits of
exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest. (Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence);
2. Search of evidence in “plain view.” The
elements are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest
in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official
duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have
the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent;
(d) “plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;
3. Search of a
moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle’s inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable
cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented
warrantless search;
5. Customs
search;
6. Stop and
Frisk; and
7. Exigent and
emergency circumstances.[36]
In the instances where a warrant is
not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be
performed except without a warrant, what constitutes a reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from
the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the
search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched and the
character of the articles procured.[37]
The courts below anchor appellants’
conviction on the ground that the searches and seizure conducted in the instant
case based on a tip from an informant fall under one of the exceptions as Nuevas,
Din and Inocencio all
allegedly voluntarily surrendered the plastic bags containing marijuana to the
police officers.[38]
We differ.
First, the Court holds
that the searches and seizures conducted do not fall under the first exception,
warrantless searches incidental to lawful arrests.
A search incidental to a lawful arrest
is sanctioned by the Rules of Court.[39]
Recent jurisprudence holds that the arrest must precede the search; the process
cannot be reversed as in this case where the search preceded the arrest. Nevertheless,
a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if
the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. [40]
In this case, Nuevas, Din and
Inocencio were not committing a crime in the presence of the police officers.
Moreover, police officers Fami and Cabling did not have personal knowledge of
the facts indicating that the persons to be arrested had committed an offense. The
searches conducted on the plastic bag then cannot be said to be merely
incidental to a lawful arrest. Reliable
information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest under
Section 5(a), Rule 113. The rule
requires, in addition, that the accused perform some overt act that would
indicate that he “has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.”[41]
Secondly, neither could the searches
be justified under the plain view doctrine.
An object is in plain view if it is
plainly exposed to sight. Where the
object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain
view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and
may be seized. In other words, if the
package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance
that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain
view. It must be immediately apparent to
the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.[42]
Records show that the dried marijuana
leaves were inside the plastic bags that Nuevas and Din were carrying and were
not readily apparent or transparent to the police officers. In Nuevas’s case,
the dried marijuana leaves found inside the plastic bag were wrapped inside a
blue cloth.[43]
In Din’s case, the marijuana found upon inspection of the plastic bag was “packed
in newspaper and wrapped therein.”[44]
It cannot be therefore said the items were in plain view which could have
justified mere seizure of the articles without further search.[45]
On the other hand, the Court finds
that the search conducted in Nuevas’s case was made with his consent. In Din’s
case, there was none.
Indeed, the constitutional immunity
against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived.
However, it must be seen that the consent to the search was voluntary in order
to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search, i.e., the consent was unequivocal, specific, and intelligently
given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred, but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The question whether a consent to a search
was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from the totality
of all the circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which
consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant;
(2) whether he was in a public or
secluded location; (3) whether he
objected to the search or passively looked on;
(4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive police procedures; (6) the defendant's belief that
no incriminating evidence will be found;
(7) the nature of the police questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning
took place; and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person
consenting. It is the State which has
the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary
consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given.[46]
In Nuevas’s case, the Court is
convinced that he indeed voluntarily surrendered the incriminating bag to the
police officers. Fami testified in this wise:
FISCAL BELTRAN:
Q Now,
when you saw this accused carrying this Exhibit “D,”[47]
for your part, what did you do?
A I just talked to him and asked him where
he was going and according to him, he acted arrogantly, sir.
Q This
arrogant action of the accused Jesus Nuevas, when you confronted him did he
resist?
A How did he show his elements, [sic] he said, “So what if you
are policeman[?]”
Q And being confronted with that arrogance, what did you do
next?
A Later on he kept calm by saying [sic] in Waray dialect, sir.
x x x x
Q What, exactly, did he tell you in Waray
dialect?
A “Sir Famir[sic], don’t charge me, sir[.]
I am planning to go home to
x x x x
Q So
when the accused speak [sic] to you in Waray, what else did you do if you did
anything?
A I pretended that I agree in his [sic] offer but I also asked
him where are the other staffs[sic] sir. [48]
x x x x
Q With respect to the bag that you
confiscated from him, what did you do?
A He voluntarily pointed it to me and I
checked it, the bag, for verification, sir.[49]
Cabling likewise testified as follows:
Q When Fami got this from the accused, he
opened this thing that he got?
A The subject voluntarily submitted the
same, sir.
Q Upon the order of Fami to open it?
A Nobody ordered it, sir.[50]
There is reason to believe that Nuevas
indeed willingly submitted the plastic bag with the incriminating contents to
the police officers. It can be seen that in his desperate attempt to exculpate
himself from any criminal liability, Nuevas cooperated with the police, gave
them the plastic bag and even revealed his ‘associates,’ offering himself as an
informant. His actuations were consistent with the lamentable human inclination
to find excuses, blame others and save oneself even at the cost of others’
lives. Thus, the Court would have affirmed Nuevas’s conviction had he not
withdrawn his appeal.
However, with respect to the search
conducted in the case of Din, the Court finds that no such consent had actually
been given. Fami testified as follows:
FISCAL BELTRAN
Q Now,
what did you do when you saw Din with that Exhibit “C,” the plastic bag?
A Din said that “Oo, Sir, that is owned by Nuevas” [sic] and I took the said plastic bag.
Q When you took this plastic bag from
Din….
Was the accused Jesus
Nueva [sic] present when Din told you
that?
A Yes,
sir. Nuevas alighted also [from] the vehicle with Cabling.
Q And
what was the reaction of Nuevas when Din told you that the bag belongs to him?
A I did not react, sir.
Q After
getting that plastic bag from Reynaldo Din, what did you
do with it?
A I inspected the bag and I found out that
there is still marijuana packed in newspaper and wrapped therein, sir.[51]
[Emphasis supplied.]
Cabling, however, gave a different
testimony, viz.:
FISCAL BELTRAN
Q And upon siting [sic] the two subject
persons you have just indicated in your earlier testimony, what did you do?
A We approached them and introduced
ourselves as police officers, and pinpointed by Nuevas as the ones who kept suspected
prohibited drugs, sir.
Q After you approached these two people,
what happened?
A These
two people, upon introducing ourselves, [sic] voluntarily surrendered to Fami
those marijuana dry leaves, sir.[52]
The police officers gave inconsistent,
dissimilar testimonies regarding the manner by which they got hold of the bag.
This already raises serious doubts on the voluntariness of Din’s submission of
the plastic bag. Jurisprudence requires that in case of consented searches or
waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it is
fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the
right exists; (2) the person involved had knowledge, either actual or
constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an
actual intention to relinquish the right.[53]
The prosecution failed to clearly show
that Din intentionally surrendered his right against unreasonable searches.
While it may not be contrary to human nature for one to be jolted into surrendering
something incriminating to authorities, Fami’s and Cabling’s testimonies do not
show that Din was in such a state of mind or condition. Fami and Cabling did
not testify on Din’s composure—whether he felt surprised or frightened at the
time—which fact we find necessary to provide basis for the surrender of the
bag. There was no mention of any permission made by the police officers to get
or search the bag or of any consent given by Din for the officers to search it.
It is worthy to note that in cases where the Court upheld the validity of
consented search, the police authorities expressly asked, in no uncertain
terms, for the consent of the accused to be searched. And the consent of the accused was
established by clear and positive proof.
Neither can Din’s silence at the time
be construed as an implied acquiescence to the warrantless search. In People
v. Burgos,[54]
the Court aptly ruled:
x x x As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent
upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in
the position of either contesting an officer’s authority by force, or waiving
his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to
a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a
demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.[55]
Without the dried marijuana leaves as
evidence, Din’s conviction cannot be sustained based on the remaining evidence.
The Court has repeatedly declared that the conviction of the accused must rest
not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.[56]
As such, Din deserves an acquittal.
In this case, an acquittal is
warranted despite the prosecution’s insistence that the appellants have
effectively waived any defect in their arrest by entering their plea and by their
active participation in the trial of the case. Be it stressed that the legality
of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
accused. Inspite of any alleged waiver, the dried marijuana leaves cannot be
admitted in evidence against the appellants, Din more specifically, as they
were seized during a warrantless search which was not lawful. A waiver of an
illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility
of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.[57]
Turning to Inocencio’s case, the Court
likewise finds that he was wrongly convicted of the crime charged. Inocencio’s supposed
possession of the dried marijuana leaves was sought to be shown through his act
of looking into the plastic bag that Din was carrying.[58]
Taking a look at an object, more so in
this case peeping into a bag while held by another, is not the same as taking
possession thereof. To behold is not to hold. Indeed, the act attributed to
Inocencio is insufficient to establish illegal possession of the drugs or even
conspiracy to illegally possess the same. The prosecution failed to show by
convincing proof that Inocencio knew of the contents of the bag and that he
conspired with Din to possess the illegal items. Inocencio was firm and
unshakeable in his testimony that he had no part in any delivery of marijuana
dried leaves.
Finally, the law enforcers should be
reminded of the Court’s dated but nevertheless current exhortation:
x x x In the final analysis, we in the
administration of justice would have no right to expect ordinary people to be
law-abiding if we do not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some
lawmen, prosecutors and judges may still tend to gloss over an illegal search
and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime
regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This kind of attitude
condones law-breaking in the name of law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters
the more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual denigration
of society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law
enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society,
we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the
parameters set by the Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies
the means.[59]
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]The Information against
Nuevas reads:
CRIMINAL CASE No. 458-97
That on or about the twenty-seventh (27th)
day of September, [sic] 1997, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without
being lawfully authorized, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in his person, possession and control[,] marijuana dried
leaves/fruiting tops approximately weighing ONE AND ONE-HALF KILOS (1.5) which
are prohibited drugs.
CONTRARY
TO LAW. (Records, p. 2)
[3]The
Information against Din and Inocencio reads:
CRIMINAL CASE No. 459-97
That on or about the twenty-seventh (27th)
day of September, [sic] 1997, in the City of Olongapo, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, without being lawfully authorized, did then and
there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and knowingly have in their persons, possession
and control[,] marijuana dried leaves/fruiting tops approximately weighing TWO
AND ONE-HALF KILOS (2.5) which are prohibited drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Records, p. 28)
[26]
[35]Const., Art. III, Secs. 2 and 3 (2),
which provides:
SEC. 2. The
right of the people to be secured 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.
SEC 3. x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
[36] People v. Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752, 771
(2003) citing People v. Bolasa, 378
Phil. 1073, 1078-1079 (1999).
[39]Rule
126, Sec. 13, provides:
SEC.
13. Search incidental to a lawful arrest.—A person lawfully arrested may
be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) likewise states:
SEC. 5.
Arrest without warrant; when lawful.— A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a)
When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; x x x x.
[46]Caballes v. Court of Appeals, supra note
37 at 286.
[53]Caballes v. Court of Appeals, supra note
37 at 289 citing People v. Figueroa,
G.R. No. 134056, 6 July 2000, 335 SCRA 249, 263.