SECOND DIVISION
THE
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,*
- versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
Acting Chairperson,
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR.,
SALVADOR PEÑAFLORIDA, JR., BRION, JJ.
Y CLIDORO,
Appellant. Promulgated:
April
10, 2008
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
Tinga, J.:
Subject
of this appeal is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01219, dated
The
Information against appellant reads:
That
on or about the 7th day of June, 1994, in the afternoon thereat, at
Barangay Huyon-huyon, Municipality of Tigaon, Province of Camarines Sur,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to sell, possess and to deliver with the use
of a bicycle, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his possession, control and custody, [o]ne bundle estimated to be one (1) kilo
more or less, of dried marijuana leaves (Indian Hemp) without the necessary
license, permit or authority to sell, administer, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug from
a competent officer as required by law.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Upon
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
Trial ensued.
Two
police officers and one forensic chemist testified for the prosecution.
SPO3
Vicente Competente (Competente) narrated that in his capacity as chief of the
Investigation and Operation Division of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
station in Tigaon, Camarines Sur, that he received a tip from an asset that a
bundle of marijuana was being transported by appellant to Huyon-huyon from another
barangay in Tigaon, Camarines Sur.[4] Major Domingo Agravante (Agravante), chief of
police of Tigaon, then organized a team composed of Competente as team leader,
SPO2 Ricardo Callo (Callo), SPO1
Portugal, PO3 Pillos and PO2 Edgar Latam.
The team boarded the police mobile car and proceeded to Sitio Nasulan in
Barangay Huyon-huyon.[5] They overtook appellant who was on a bicycle. The police officers flagged appellant down and
found marijuana wrapped in a cellophane and newspaper together with other
grocery items. The amount of P1550.00
was also found in appellant’s possession.
The police officers confiscated these items and took photographs thereof.
Appellant was then brought to the headquarters where he was booked. [6]
Callo,
who was the chief intelligence officer of Tigaon PNP, recounted that at around
Major
Lorlie Arroyo (Arroyo), a forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory Regional
Office No. V, was presented as an expert witness to identify the subject
marijuana leaves. She related that after
taking a representative sample from the 928-gram confiscated dried leaves, the same
was tested positive of marijuana. The findings
were reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-26-94 dated
Appellant
denied the accusations against him. Appellant,
who is a resident of Huyon-huyon, Tigaon, Camarines Sur, testified that in the morning of
Miranda
corroborated the testimony of appellant that the two of them went to
On
26 October 1998, the trial court rendered judgment finding appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of transporting a prohibited drug, a violation of Section 4, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, otherwise known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua and to pay a fine of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos,
with subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with law, in case of insolvency for
the fine and for him to pay the costs.
The
accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] shall be entitled to full credit of his
preventive imprisonment if he agreed to abide with the rules imposed upon
convicted person, otherwise, he shall be entitled to four-fifth (4/5) credit
thereof.
The
subject marijuana consisting of 928 grams, possession thereof being mala prohibita, the court hereby orders
its confiscation in favor of the Government to be destroyed in accordance with
law.
This
court, however, hereby recommends to His Excellency, the President of the
Philippines, through the Honorable Secretary of Justice to commute the above
penalty herein imposed, being too harsh; accordingly, the said penalty imposed
to accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr] shall be six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to
eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.[12]
In
convicting appellant, the trial court lent credence to the testimonies of the
police officers, thus:
Now going over the evidence
adduced, the court is convinced that the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.]
committed the offense of illegal possession of 928 grams of marijuana, if not,
of transporting it, as charged. This is
so, because it appears undisputed that on June 7, 1994, at about 1:00 o’clock
in the afternoon police officers Vicente Competente and his four (4) other
co-police officers apprehended the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] on the
roadside at Nasulan, Huyon-huyon, Tigaon, Camarines Sur [,] then riding on his
bicycle and placed on the still structure at its front, a thing wrapped in a
newspaper and found to be 928 grams of marijuana. No ill-motive has been presented by the
defense against the police officers Vicente Competente and companions by falsely
testifying against the accused Salvador Peñaflorida, Jr. So, the conclusion is inevitable that the
presumption that the police officers were in the regular performance of their
duties apply. The confiscation of the
marijuana subject of the instant case and the arrest of the accused Salvador
Peñaflorida[,Jr.] by the said police officers being lawful, having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is no need
for the warrant for the seizure of the fruit of the crime, the same being
incidental to the lawful arrest. Rightly
so, because a person caught illegally possessing or transporting drugs is
subject to the warrantless search.
Besides, object 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.[13]
In
view of the penalty imposed, the case was directly appealed to this Court on automatic
review. Pursuant to our decision in People
v. Mateo,[14]
however, this case was referred to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed appellant’s
conviction on
In
a Resolution[15] dated
Hence,
the instant case is now before this Court on automatic review.
In assailing his conviction,
appellant submits that there is doubt that he had freely and consciously
possessed marijuana. First, he claims
that the alleged asset did not name the person who would transport the
marijuana to Huyon-huyon. In view of the
“vague” information supplied by the asset, the latter should have been
presented in court. Second, upon receipt
of the information from the asset, the police officers should have first
investigated and tried to obtain a warrant of arrest against appellant, instead
of arbitrarily arresting him. Third,
appellant maintains that he is not aware of the contents of the package. Fourth, upon arrival at the headquarters, the
police did not determine the contents and weight of the package. Fifth, appellant argues that the findings of
the forensic expert are questionable because there is doubt as to the identity
of the package examined.[17]
Prefatorily, factual findings of the
trial courts, including their assessment of the witness' credibility are
entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court
of Appeals affirm the findings.[18] Indeed, the trial court is in the best
position to assess the credibility of witnesses since it has observed firsthand
their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[19] After a review of the records of this case,
we find no cogent reason to disregard this time-honored principle.
We shall retrace the series of events
leading to the arrest of appellant and resolve the issues raised by him.
Acting on an asset’s tip, a police team
was organized to apprehend appellant who was allegedly about to transport the
subject marijuana. Appellant is wrong in
concluding that the asset did not name appellant. As early as
Q: Did your [a]sset tell you the place and
the person or persons involved?
A: Yes[,]sir.
Q:
Where and who?
A: He said that marijuana is being transported from Tigaon town to Bgy. Huyon-huyon by Salvador Peñaflorida, Jr.[21]
Moreover, on cross-examination, the
defense counsel even assumed that according to the asset’s tip it was appellant
who was assigned to deliver the contraband.
And the witness under cross-examination affirmed it was indeed appellant
who would be making the delivery according to the tip:
Q: Will you inform this Honorable Court who has given you the tip that the accused was going to deliver that marijuana[?] [W]ho is [this] person?
A: It was a confidential tip.
Q: Now, but [sic] on June 1 you were in your office?
A: Yes[,] sir[.] I was in the office.
Q: Since your office is just near the
Municipal Trial Court of Tigaon and you were given a tip that
x x x
Q: The tip that was given to you that it was
A:
Yes[,] sir[.] That he would
deliver marijuana.
Q:
So, at the time that you form[ed] a
team,
A:
When the tip was given to us[,] I
have not seen him[.] [B]ut the tip is he
will deliver from Tigaon to Huyon-huyon, that is why we chased him.[22] [Emphasis
supplied]
Prescinding
from the above argument, appellant insists that the asset should have been
presented in court. He invoked the court
ruling in People v. Libag,[23]
wherein the non-presentation of the informant was fatal to the case of the
prosecution. Libag cannot find application in this case. In that case, the crime charged was the sale
of shabu where the informant himself
was a poseur-buyer and a witness to the transaction. His testimony as a poseur-buyer was indispensable
because it could have helped the trial court in determining whether or not the
appellant had knowledge that the bag contained marijuana, such knowledge being
an essential ingredient of the offense for which he was convicted.[24] In this case, however, the asset was not
present in the police operation. The
rule is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not
essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution
because his testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative. Informants
are generally not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity
and preserve their invaluable service to the police.[25]
Competente testified that his team caught
up with appellant who was riding a bicycle.
He saw the marijuana in a package which appellant was carrying inside
his basket, thus:
Q: And
so as the team leader x x x and in connection with the instruction of Chief
Domingo Agravante, what did you do?
A: We used the mobile and proceeded to the place, to the route where the marijuana was being transported.
Q: When you said we to whom are you referring to?
A: The team.
Q: Were you able to go to the place as you said?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, upon reaching the place, [sic] what place was that?
A: Sitio
Nasulan, Barangay Huyon-huyon, Tigaon, Camarines Sur.
Q: And upon reaching the place together with the other member of the team, what did you find if you found any?
A: We overtook our suspect while riding in a bicycle and we stopped him.
Q: And did the suspect stop?
A: Yes[,] sir.
Q: Tell us the name of your suspect?
A: Salvador
Peñaflorida[,] Jr. y Clidoro.
Q: And after stopping the accused in this case, what else did you do[,] if any[,] together with the team?
A: When we saw the marijuana and other
groceries in his bicycle we invited him to the headquarters.[26]
Callo also
confirmed that he saw appellant transporting and in possession of the subject
marijuana:
Q: When
you reached there[,] what happened next?
A: We have not reached yet [sic] the Huyon-huyon proper. [W]e are in Nasulan when we met the man who had with him the marijuana.
x x x
Q: After
you talked with the person with marijuana[,] what happened next?
A: We saw on his bicycle a wrap[ped] marijuana.
Q: Who
was in possession of that?
A:
Q:
How is that person related to the
accused in this case now?
A: He is the one, sir.
Q: Kindly
describe to us the marijuana that you are able to tell that it was marijuana?
A: It was wrapped on [cellophane] and newspaper. We saw the edges of the marijuana.
Q:
For the [record], kindly describe
to us the edges of the marijuana[;] its appearance and color.
A: It
was like a shape of ½ ream of coupon bond and the color is green.[27]
These
positive and categorical declarations of two police officers deserve weight and
credence in light of the presumption of regularity accorded to them and the
lack of motive on their part to falsely testify against appellant.
Appellant resorts to a challenge on
the validity of his arrest predicated on lack of a warrant of arrest. The OSG correctly justifies the failure to
apply for an arrest warrant because at that point, time was of the essence in
appellant’s apprehension, noting in the same breath that there is no law
requiring investigation and surveillance upon receipt of tips from assets
before conducting police operations.[28] The
police officers succinctly testified on this point when cross-examined, viz:
Q: Will
you inform this Honorable Court who has given you the tip that the accused was
going to deliver that marijuana, who is that person?
A: It was a confidential tip.
Q:
Now, but [sic] on June 1 you were
in your office?
A: Yes[,] sir[.] I was in the office.
Q: Since
your office is just near the Municipal Trial Court of Tigaon and you were given
a tip that Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] will be delivering marijuana, why did you
not get a [w]arrant of [a]rrest from the court?
A: There was no time to apply for a search warrant because just after the information was received, we proceeded.
x x x
Q: If
that is true, Mr. Competente that you were given a tip, the most that you will
do is first see the Judge of Tigaon in as much as you have not seen yet [sic] the said person carrying marijuana?
A: There was no time for us to apply, because the marijuana is being delivered so we have no more time to see the Judge.
x x x
Q: Are you aware of the law that illegally confiscated marijuana cannot be used in court?
FISCAL SOLANO: Conclusion of law.
A: Yes, sir[.] [I]f it is illegally confiscated it cannot be used in court.
ATTY.
CLEDERA: Despite that prohibition under
the rules[,] you insisted in apprehending Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] without
warrant of arrest inspite of the fact that you know that restriction?
A: Our apprehension was in plain view.
Q: How
can you see that it was in open view when according to you the house of
A: I could see that because the marijuana was carried in his bicycle, we have seen it.
Q: In
what street?
A: Huyon-huyon[,]
Sitio Nasulan, Tigaon, Camarines
Q: About
what time did you see him?
A:
x
x x[29]
The police was tipped off at around
1:00 p.m. that appellant was transporting marijuana to Huyon-huyon. Certainly, they had no time to secure an
arrest warrant as appellant was already in transit and already committing a
crime. The arrest was effected after
appellant was caught in flagrante delicto. He was seen riding his bicycle and carrying
with him the contraband, hence, demonstrating that a crime was then already being
committed. Under the circumstances, the
police had probable cause to believe that appellant was committing a crime. Thus, the warrantless arrest is
justified.
Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425,
as amended by R.A. No. 7659, states:
SEC.
4.
Jurisprudence defines “transport” as
“to carry or convey from one place to another.”[30] In the instant case, appellant was riding his
bicycle when he was caught by the police.
He admitted that he was about to convey the package, which contained
marijuana, to a certain Jimmy Gonzales.
Appellant, however, denies any
knowledge that the package in his possession contained marijuana. But the trial court rejected his contention,
noting that it was impossible for appellant not to be aware of the contents of
the package because “marijuana has a distinct sweet and unmistakable aroma x x
x which would have alarmed him.”[31]
Taking one step further, the
appellate court went on to declare that being mala prohibita, one commits the crime under R.A. No. 6425 by mere
possession of a prohibited drug without legal authority. Intent, motive or knowledge thereof is not
necessary.[32]
Appellant, in the main, asserts that
he did not freely and consciously possess marijuana.[33] In criminal cases involving prohibited drugs,
there can be no conviction unless the prosecution shows that the accused
knowingly possessed the prohibited articles in his person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present
together with his possession or control of such article. Animus
possidendi is only prima facie. It is subject to contrary proof and may be rebutted
by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over
the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the
possessor to explain absence of animus
possidendi.[34]
Knowledge refers to a mental state of
awareness of a fact. Since courts cannot
penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with
certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary. Animus
possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis
by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused,
as well as the surrounding circumstances.
Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events
in each particular case.[35]
Appellant
failed to satisfactorily establish his lack of knowledge of possession in the
instant case. First, the marijuana was
found in the bicycle he himself was driving.
Second, the police officers first readily saw in plain view the edges of
the marijuana leaves jutting out of the package. Third, it is incredulous that appellant did
not ask Obias what the package contained when the latter requested him to do
the delivery errand since the package was wrapped in a newspaper and weighed
almost one kilogram. The same observation was reached by the trial court:
Finally,
it is very hard for the court to accept the claim of the accused Salvador Peñaflorida[,Jr.] that
he does not know that the thing wrapped in a newspaper which Boyet Obias, now
dead, requested the accused Peñaflorida[,Jr.] would deliver to a certain Jimmy
Gonzales whose present whereabouts is not known, was a marijuana. Its odor is different especially from
tobacco. This was observed by the court
during the trial of the case, everytime the wrapper containing the subject
marijuana with a volume of 928 grams is brought to court its odor is
noticeable. For the accused Peñaflorida[,Jr.],
not to notice it is hard to believe.
Rightly so, because marijuana has a distinct sweet and unmistakable
aroma very different from (and not nauseating) unlike tobacco. This aroma would have alarmed him.[36]
Furthermore, it appeared from the cross-examination
of appellant that Obias was an acquaintance.
In the ordinary course of things, one is expected to inquire about the
contents of a wrapped package especially when it is a mere acquaintance who
requests the delivery and, more so, when delivery is to a place some distance
away.
Anent appellant’s claim that the
package examined by Arroyo was not the one confiscated from him, the appellate
court had this to say:
SPO3
Competente testified that marijuana was confiscated from appellant. The pictures of appellant, together with the
items seized from him, depict a package containing dry leaves suspected to be
marijuana. On the other hand, Forensic
Chemist Arroyo testified that the specimen she examined was delivered to her by
Major Agravante on
Despite intense grilling from the
defense counsel, Arroyo never faltered and was in fact consistent in declaring
that she received the specimen from Agravante on
Finally, the lower courts correctly
sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of one million pesos by virtue
of the amendment to Section 4, R.A. No. 6425 by R.A. No. 7659.[38]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing,
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 30
in Criminal Case No. T-1476, finding appellant Salvador Peñaflorida y Clidoro
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No.
6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) as amended, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to pay a
fine of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), is AFFIRMED in
toto.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
(On official leave)
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMB
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
ARTURO
D. BRION
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.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Acting
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]Rollo, pp. 3-10. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, and concurred in by Associate Justices Monina Arevalo Zeñarosa and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Special Fourteenth Division.
[2]CA rollo, pp. 19-26. Presided by Judge Alfredo A. Cabral.
[4]TSN,
[7]TSN,
[9]The return of the subpoena indicated that Boyet Obias is already dead while Jimmy Gonzales cannot be found in the given address.
[14]G.R.
Nos. 147678-87,
[16]
[19]Bricenio
v. People, G.R. No. 157804,
[24]
[30]People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740, 754 (2001), citing People v. Jones, 278 SCRA 345, 355 (1997).
[32]Rollo, p. 7.
[38]SEC. 4.