Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus – ESTELA TUAN y BALUDDA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 176066 Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN,* DEL CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: August
11, 2010 |
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
For
review is the Decision[1]
dated September 21, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00381,
which affirmed with modification the Decision[2]
dated April 9, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Baguio City,
finding accused-appellant Estela Tuan y Baludda guilty in Criminal Case
No. 17619-R, of illegal possession of marijuana under Article II, Section 8 of
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as “The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,” as
amended; and in Criminal Case No. 17620-R, of violating Presidential Decree No.
1866, otherwise known as the “Illegal
Possession of Firearms,” as amended.
On
April 5, 2000, two separate Informations were filed before the RTC against
accused-appellant for illegal possession of marijuana and illegal possession of firearm.
The Informations read:
Criminal Case No.
17619-R
The undersigned
Public Prosecutor accuses ESTELA TUAN Y BALUDDA of the crime of VIOLATION OF
SEC. 8, ART. II OF REPUBLIC ACT 6425, AS AMENDED (Illegal Possession of
Marijuana), committed as follows:
That on or about
24th day of January 2000, at Barangay Gabriela Silang, in the City
of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in her
possession, custody, and control the following, to wit:
a)
Nine
(9) bricks of dried Marijuana leaves with an approximate total weight of 18.750
kgs., and
b)
One
(1) plastic bag containing dried Marijuana leaves weighing approximately .3 kg.
without any authority of law to do so in
violation of the above-cited provision of law.[3]
Criminal Case
No. 17620-R
The undersigned
Public Prosecutor accuses ESTELA TUAN Y BALUDDA of the crime of VIOLATION OF
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1866, AS AMENDED (Illegal Possession of Firearm), committed
as follows:
That on or about
the 24th day of January 2000, at Barangay Gabriela Silang, in the
City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused did then and there willfully and unlawfully have
in her possession, custody, and control one (1) Cal. .357 S & W revolver, a
high-powered firearm, without any license, permit or authority duly issued by
the government to possess or keep the same in violation of the above-cited law.[4]
Upon
her arraignment on April 18, 2000, accused-appellant, assisted by her counsel de parte, pleaded “NOT GUILTY” to both
charges.[5] Pre-trial and trial proper then ensued.
During
trial, the prosecution presented four witnesses: Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1
Modesto F. Carrera (Carrera), Police Officer (PO) 2 Jaime Chavez (Chavez), SPO2
Fernando Fernandez (Fernandez), and Forensic Chemist II Marina Carina Madrigal
(Madrigal).
The events, as recounted by the prosecution, are as
follows:
At around nine o’clock in the morning on January 24, 2000,
two male informants namely, Jerry
Tudlong (Tudlong) and Frank Lad-ing (Lad-ing) arrived at the office of the 14th Regional CIDG
(Criminal Investigation and Detention Group) at DPS Compound, Marcoville,
Baguio City, and reported
to SPO2 Fernandez, Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement
Unit (SDEU), that a certain “Estela Tuan” had been selling marijuana at
Barangay Gabriela Silang, Baguio City.
Present at that time were Police Superintendent Isagani Neres, Regional
Officer of the 14th Regional CIDG; Chief Inspector Reynaldo Piay,
Deputy Regional Officer; and other police officers.[6]
SPO2 Fernandez set out to verify the report of Tudlong and
Lad-ing. At around one o’clock in the
afternoon of the same day, he gave Tudlong and Lad-ing P300.00 to buy
marijuana, and then accompanied the two informants to the accused-appellant’s
house. Tudlong and Lad-ing entered
accused-appellant’s house, while SPO2 Fernandez waited at the adjacent
house. After thirty minutes, Tudlong and
Lad-ing came out of accused-appellant’s house and showed SPO2 Fernandez the
marijuana leaves they bought. After
returning to the CIDG regional office, SPO2 Fernandez requested the laboratory
examination of the leaves bought from accused-appellant. When said laboratory examination yielded
positive results for marijuana, SPO2 Fernandez prepared an Application for
Search Warrant for accused-appellant’s house.
SPO2
Fernandez, together with Tudlong and Lad-ing, filed the Application for a
Search Warrant before Judge Iluminada Cabato-Cortes (Judge Cortes) of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio City, Branch IV, at about one
o’clock in the afternoon on January 25, 2000.
Two hours later, at around three o’clock, Judge Cortes personally
examined SPO2 Fernandez, Tudlong, and Lad-ing, after which, she issued a Search
Warrant, being satisfied of the existence of probable cause. The Search Warrant read:
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:
GREETINGS:
It
appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned of the existence of facts upon
which the application for Search Warrant is based, after personally examining
by searching questions under oath SPO2 Fernando V. Fernandez of the CAR
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group with office address at DPS Compound,
Utility Road, Baguio City and his witnesses namely: Frank Lad-ing of Happy
Hallow, Baguio City and Jerry Tudlong, of Barangay Kitma, Baguio City, after
having been duly sworn to, who executed sworn statements and deposition as
witneses, that there is a probable cause to believe that a Violation of R.A.
6425 as amended by R.A. 7659 has been committed and that there are good and
sufficient reasons to believe that Estela Tuan, has in her possession and
control at her resident at Brgy. Gabriela Silang, Baguio City, the following:
-
Undetermined
Quantity of Marijuana Dried Leaves and/or Marijuana Hashish
x x x x
which are subject of the offense which
should be seized and brought to the undersigned.
You
are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at anytime in the day the
house of the accused Estela Tuan at Brgy. Gabriela Silang, Baguio City, and
forthwith seize and take possession of the following:
-
Undetermined
Quantity of Marijuana Dried Leaves and/or Marijuana Hashish
x x x nothing follows x x x
and bring said items to the undersigned
to be dealt with as the law directs.
This
Search Warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from date of issue, thereafter,
it shall be void.
The
officers must conduct the search and seize the above-mentioned personal items
in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of her family or
in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient
age and discretion residing in the same locality.
The
officers seizing the items must give a detailed receipt for the same to the
lawful occupant of the house in whose presence the search and seizure were
made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of the 2
witnesses mentioned, leave a receipt in the place in which the seized items
were found; thereafter, deliver the items seized to the undersigned judge
together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
Baguio
City, Philippines, this 25th day of January, 2000.
(SGD)ILUMINADA CABATO-CORTES
Executive Judge
MTCC, Branch IV[7]
Upon
receipt of the Search Warrant, SPO2 Fernandez, his team supervisor Police
Senior Inspector Rodolfo Castel, SPO1 Carrera, Police Senior Inspector Ricarte
Marquez and PO2 Chavez implemented the warrant.
Before going to the accused-appellant’s house, SPO2 Fernandez invited barangay officials to be present when
the Search Warrant was to be served, but since no one was available, he
requested one Eliza Pascual (Pascual), accused-appellant’s neighbor, to come
along.
The
CIDG team thereafter proceeded to accused-appellant’s house. Even though accused-appellant was not around,
the CIDG team was allowed entry into the house by Magno Baludda (Magno),
accused-appellant’s father, after he was shown a copy of the Search
Warrant. SPO2 Fernandez and Police
Senior Inspector Ricarte Marquez guarded the surroundings of the house,[8]
while SPO1 Carrera and PO2 Chavez searched inside.
SPO1
Carrera and PO2 Chavez began searching the rooms on the first floor in the
presence of Magno and Pascual. They
continued their search on the second floor.
They saw a movable cabinet in accused-appellant’s room, below which they
found a brick of marijuana and a firearm.
At around six o’clock that evening, accused-appellant arrived with her
son. The police officers asked
accused-appellant to open a built-in cabinet, in which they saw eight more
bricks of marijuana.[9] PO2 Chavez issued a receipt for the items
confiscated from accused-appellant[10]
and a certification stating that the items were confiscated and recovered from the
house and in accused-appellant’s presence.
The
nine bricks of marijuana were brought to the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) for examination.
The defense, on the
other hand, had an entirely different version of what transpired that day. It presented four witnesses, namely,
accused-appellant herself; Beniasan Tuan (Beniasan), accused-appellant’s
husband; Magno, accused-appellant’s father; and Mabini Maskay (Maskay), the
Barangay Captain of Barangay Gabriela Silang.
In
her testimony, accused-appellant declared that she worked as a vendor at Hangar
Market. Sometime in January 2000, while
she was selling vegetables at Hangar Market, her son arrived with two police
officers who asked her to go home because of a letter from the court.[11] At about six o’clock in the afternoon, she
and her husband Beniasan reached their residence and found a green paper bag
with marijuana in their sala. According to the police officers, they got
the bag from a room on the first floor of accused-appellant’s house. Accused-appellant explained that the room
where the bag of marijuana was found was previously rented by boarders. The boarders padlocked the room because they
still had things inside and they had paid their rent up to the end of January
2000.[12]
The
police officers also informed accused-appellant that they got a gun from under
a cabinet in the latter’s room, which accused-appellant disputed since her room
was always left open and it was where her children play.[13] Accused-appellant alleged that a Search
Warrant was issued for her house because of a quarrel with her neighbor named
Lourdes Estillore (Estillore).
Accused-appellant filed a complaint for the demolition of Estillore’s
house which was constructed on the road.[14]
Beniasan
supported the testimony of his wife, accused-appellant. He narrated that he and accused-appellant
were at their Hangar Market stall when two police officers came and asked them
to go home. Beniasan and
accused-appellant arrived at their residence at around six o’clock in the
evening and were shown the marijuana the police officers supposedly got from
the first floor of the house. The police
officers then made Beniasan sign a certification of the list of items
purportedly confiscated from the house.[15]
Magno
testified that he resided at the first floor of accused-appellant’s residence. He was present when the search was conducted
but denied that the Search Warrant was shown to him.[16] He attested that the confiscated items were
found from the vacant room at the first floor of accused-appellant’s house
which was previously occupied by boarders.
Said room was padlocked but was forced open by the police officers. In the course of the police officers’ search,
they pulled something from under the bed that was wrapped in green cellophane,
but Magno did not know the contents thereof.[17] The police officers also searched the rooms
of accused-appellant and her children at the second floor of the house, during
which they allegedly found a gun under the cabinet in accused-appellant’s
room. Magno claimed that he did not
personally witness the finding of the gun and was merely informed about it by
the police officers.[18]
Maskay, the Barangay Captain of Barangay Gabriela
Silang, Baguio City, was the last to testify for the defense. He corroborated accused-appellant’s
allegation that the latter had a quarrel with Estillore, and this could be the
reason behind the filing of the present criminal cases. He further remembered that the members of the
CIDG went to his office on January 24, 2000 to ask about the location of
accused-appellant’s house.[19]
The RTC, in its Decision dated April 9, 2002, found
accused-appellant guilty as charged and adjudged thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
as follows:
1. In Criminal
Case No. 17619-R, the Court finds the accused Estela Tuan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of marijuana (nine [9]
bricks of dried marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of 18.750 kilograms
and the one [1] plastic bag containing the dried marijuana weighing about .3
kilograms) in violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 as
amended by Section 13 of Republic Act 7659 as charged in the information and
sentences her to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The nine (9)
bricks of dried marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of 18.750 kilograms
and one (1) plastic bag containing dried marijuana leaves weighing
approximately .3 kilograms (Exhibit F, F-1, F-1-A to F-1-J) are ordered
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State to be destroyed immediately in
accordance with law.
The
accused Estela Tuan being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited 4/5
of her preventive imprisonment in the service of her sentence in accordance
with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code; and
2. In Criminal
Case No. 17620-R, the Court finds the accused Estela Tuan guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of firearms (one [1]
caliber .357 S & W revolver), a high powered firearm, without any license,
permit or authority issued by the Government to keep the same in violation of
Section 1, Republic Act No. 8294 which
amended Section 1 of PD 1866 as charged in the information and hereby sentences
her, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to imprisonment ranging from 4
years 9 months and 10 days of prision
correccional in its maximum period as Minimum to 6 years and 8 months of prision
mayor in its minimum period as Maximum and a fine of P30,000.00
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The firearm
caliber .357 S & W revolver without serial number is ordered forfeited in
favor of the State to be disposed of immediately in accordance with law.
The accused
Estela Tuan being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited 4/5 of her
preventive imprisonment in the service of her sentence in accordance with
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.[20]
The
records of the two criminal cases were forwarded to this Court by the RTC, but
the Court issued a Resolution[21]
dated October 13, 2004 transferring said records to the Court of Appeals
pursuant to People v. Mateo.[22]
On
September 21, 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision.
The
Court of Appeals held that the contested search and consequent seizure of the
marijuana bricks were done pursuant to the Search Warrant validly issued by the
MTCC. There was no showing of procedural
defects or lapses in the issuance of said Search Warrant as the records support
that the issuing judge determined probable cause only after conducting the
searching inquiry and personal examination of the applicant and the latter’s
witnesses, in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution. Hence, the appellate court affirmed the
conviction of accused-appellant for illegal possession of marijuana.
The
Court of Appeals, however, modified the appealed RTC judgment by acquitting
accused-appellant of the charge for illegal possession of firearm. According to the appellate court, the records
were bereft of evidence that the gun supposedly confiscated from
accused-appellant was unlicensed. The
absence of a firearm license was simply presumed by the police officers because
the gun was a defective paltik with
no serial number. That the said
condition of the gun did not dispense with the need for the prosecution to
establish that it was unlicensed through the testimony or certification of the
appropriate officer from the Board of the Firearms and Explosives Bureau of the
Philippine National Police.
In
the end, the Court of Appeals decreed:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the RTC of Baguio
City, Branch 6, dated April 9, 2002, is hereby MODIFIED such that the
conviction of accused-appellant for Violation of Section 8, Art. II, RA 6425,
as amended, is AFFIRMED while her conviction for Violation of PD 1866, as
amended, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is accordingly ACQUITTED
of the latter offense.[23]
In its Resolution dated October 20, 2006, the Court of
Appeals gave due course to
accused-appellant’s Partial Notice of Appeal and accordingly forwarded the
records of the case to this Court.
This
Court then issued a Resolution[24]
dated February 28, 2007 directing the parties to file their respective
supplemental briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice. Accused-appellant[25]
opted not to file a supplemental brief and manifested that she was adopting her
arguments in the Appellant’s Brief since the same had already assiduously
discussed her innocence of the crime charged.
The People[26]
likewise manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as the
issues have all been addressed in its Appellee’s Brief.
Accused-appellant
raised the following assignment of errors in her Brief: [27]
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE AND CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONIES OF THE
POLICE OFFICERS.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING
AS VOID THE SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Given
that accused-appellant was already acquitted of the charge of violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866 on the ground of reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 17620-R, her instant
appeal relates only to her conviction for illegal possession of prohibited or
regulated drugs in Criminal Case No.
17619-R. The Court can no longer
pass upon the propriety of accused-appellant’s acquittal in Criminal Case No.
17620-R because of the rule that a judgment acquitting the accused is final and
immediately executory upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the State
may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. Such acquittal is final and unappealable on
the ground of double jeopardy whether it happens at the trial court or on
appeal at the Court of Appeals.[28]
In
a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, such as Criminal Case
No. 17619-R, a case becomes a contest of credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies. In such a situation, this
Court generally relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which had the
distinct advantage of observing the conduct or demeanor of the witnesses while
they were testifying. Hence, its factual
findings are accorded respect – even finality – absent any showing that certain
facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been
overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[29]
The
Court finds no reason to deviate from the general rule in the case at bar.
Illegal
possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following
elements concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is
identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[30]
All the foregoing elements were duly proven to exist in Criminal Case No. 17619-R. The search conducted by SPO1 Carrera and PO2 Chavez in accused-appellant’s house yielded nine bricks of marijuana. Marijuana is a prohibited drug, thus, accused-appellant’s possession thereof could not have been authorized by law in any way. Accused-appellant evidently possessed the marijuana freely and consciously, even offering the same for sale. The bricks of marijuana were found in accused-appellant’s residence over which she had complete control. In fact, some of the marijuana were found in accused-appellant’s own room.
Accused-appellant
challenges the judgment of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, finding
her guilty of illegal possession of marijuana, by pointing out certain
inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that supposedly
manifested their lack of credibility, i.e.,
the date of the test buy and the manner by which the doors of the rooms of the
house were opened.
These
alleged inconsistencies and contradictions pertain to minor details and are so
inconsequential that they do not in any way affect the credibility of the
witnesses nor detract from the established fact of illegal possession of
marijuana by accused-appellant at her house.
The Court has previously held that discrepancies and inconsistencies in
the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality
touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their
credibility. Testimonies of witnesses
need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning
the principal occurrence.[31]
Inconsistencies
as to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the
witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to
strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies
have been rehearsed.[32]
Accused-appellant
further questions the non-presentation as witnesses of Lad-ing and Tudlong, the
informants, and Pascual, the neighbor who supposedly witnessed the
implementation of the Search Warrant, during the joint trial of Criminal Case
Nos. 17619-R and 17620-R before the RTC.
This Court though is unconvinced that such non-presentation of witnesses
is fatal to Criminal Case No. 17619-R.
The
prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as
witnesses. The prosecution need not
present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the
quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the
other witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely
corroborative in nature. The Court has
ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute
suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.[33]
Although
Criminal Case No. 17619-R involves illegal possession of marijuana, the
following pronouncement of this Court in People
v. Salazar,[34]
relating to the illegal sale of the same drug, still rings true:
Neither is her
right to confront witnesses against her affected by the prosecution's failure
to present the informer who pointed to her as a drug pusher. 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 be merely corroborative
and cumulative. In a case involving
the sale of illegal drugs, what should be proven beyond reasonable doubt is the
fact of the sale itself. Hence, like the non-presentation of the marked money
used in buying the contraband, the non-presentation of the informer on the
witness stand would not necessarily create a hiatus in the prosecutions'
evidence. (Emphasis ours.)
Lastly,
accused-appellant insists that the items allegedly seized from her house are
inadmissible as evidence because the Search Warrant issued for her house was
invalid for failing to comply with the constitutional and statutory
requirements. Accused-appellant
specifically pointed out the following defects which made said Search Warrant
void: (1) the informants, Lad-ing and Tudlong, made misrepresentation of facts
in the Application for Search Warrant filed with the MTCC; (2) Judge Cortes of
the MTCC failed to consider the informants’ admission that they themselves were
selling marijuana; and (3) the Search Warrant failed to particularly describe
the place to be searched because the house was a two-storey building composed
of several rooms.
The right of a person against unreasonable searches
and seizure is recognized and protected by no less than the Constitution, particularly,
Sections 2 and 3(2) of Article III which provide:
SEC. 2. 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.
SEC. 3. x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding. (Emphases ours.)
Accordingly, Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure laid down the following requisites for the issuance of a valid search
warrant:
SEC. 4. Requisites
for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines.
SEC. 5. Examination
of complainant; record. – The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing
and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted.
Therefore,
the validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following
factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must
be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other
person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine,
under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may
produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized.[35]
There is no dispute herein that the second and third
factors for a validly issued search warrant were complied with, i.e., personal determination of probable
cause by Judge Cortes; and examination, under oath or affirmation, of SPO2
Fernandez and the two informants, Lad-ing and Tudlong, by Judge Cortes. What is left for the Court to determine is
compliance with the first and fourth factors, i.e., existence of probable cause; and particular description of
the place to be searched and things to be seized.
In People v.
Aruta,[36] the
Court defined probable cause as follows:
Although
probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it generally signifies a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong
in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is
guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
It likewise refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances
which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought
in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is
in the place to be searched.
It ought to be
emphasized that in determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and
circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of our rules of evidence of which his knowledge is
technically nil. Rather, he relies on
the calculus of common sense which all reasonable men have in abundance. The
same quantum of evidence is required in determining probable cause relative to
search. Before a search warrant can be issued, it must be shown by substantial
evidence that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being
connected with criminal activity, and that the items will be found in the place
to be searched.
A
magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was
substantial basis for that determination.
Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge
brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects
in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to
be searched.[37] Such substantial basis exists in this case.
Judge
Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the Search Warrant for
accused-appellant’s residence after said judge’s personal examination of SPO2
Fernandez, the applicant; and Lad-ing and Tudlong, the informants.
SPO2
Fernandez based his Application for Search Warrant not only on the information
relayed to him by Lad-ing and Tudlong.
He also arranged for a test buy and conducted surveillance of
accused-appellant. He testified before
Judge Cortes:
COURT:
Q. You are applying for a Search Warrant and
you alleged in your application that Estela Tuan of Brgy. Gabriela Silang,
Baguio City, is in possession of dried marijuana leaves and marijuana hashish,
how did you come to know about this matter?
A. Through the two male persons by the name
of Frank Lad-ing and Jerry Tudlong, Your Honor.
Q. When did these two male persons report to
your office?
A. January 22, Your Honor.
Q. This year?
A. Yes, your honor.
Q. To whom did they report?
A. To me personally, Your Honor.
Q. How did they report the matter?
A. They reported that a certain Estela Tuan
is selling dried Marijuana leaves and marijuana hashish, Your Honor.
Q. What else?
A. She is not only selling marijuana but
also selling vegetables at the Trading Post in La Trinidad, Your Honor.
Q. They just told you, she is selling
marijuana and selling vegetables, that is already sufficient proof or
sufficient probable cause she is in possession of marijuana, what else did they
report?
A. That they are also selling marijuana in
large volume at their house.
Q. What did you do when you asked them
regarding that matter?
A. They had a test buy and they were able to
buy some commodities yesterday, Your honor.
Q. Who bought?
A. Tudlong and Lad-ing, Your Honor.
Q. How did you go about it?
A. I accompanied the said persons and kept
watch over them and gave them money after which, they were able to purchase and
when they purchased the said items or drugs, they were even informed that if
you wanted to sell then you could come and get. Your Honor.
COURT:
Q. Where is that P300.00?
A. It is with them, Your Honor.
Q. You did not entrap her?
A. No, Your Honor, because it is only a test
buy.
Q: And that was January 22. Why did you not apply immediately for search
warrant?
A: Because we still have to look at the
area and see to it that there are really some buyers or people who would go and
leave the place, Your Honor.
Q: What did you observe?
A: Well, there are persons who would go
inside and after going inside, they would come out bringing along with them
something else.
Q: Did you not interview these people?
A: No, Your Honor. We did not bother.[38]
Lad-ing
and Tudlong affirmed before Judge Cortes that they were the ones who informed
SPO2 Fernandez that accused-appellant was keeping and selling marijuana at her
house, and that they took part in the test buy.
Lad-ing
narrated:
COURT:
Q: Mr. Lad-ing, you said that you are
working at the Trading Post. What kind
of work do you have there?
A: I am a middleman of the vegetable
dealers, Your Honor.
COURT:
Q: Did you come to know of this person
Estela Tuan?
A: Yes, Your Honor, because there was an
incident wherein we were conducting our line of business when they came and
joined us and we became partners, Your Honor.
Q: You said, they, how many of you?
A: A certain Jerry Tudlong, Estela Tuan and
myself, Your Honor.
Q: In other words, Estela Tuan went with
you and later on she became your partner in that business?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: And so what happened when she became a
partner of your business?
A: When we were about to divide our profit,
we then went at their residence at Gabriela Silang, Baguio City, Your Honor.
Q: What happened?
A: While we then sitted ourselves at the
sala, she told us that if we wanted to earn some more, she told us that she has
in her possession marijuana which could be sold, Your Honor.
Q: And so, what happened?
A: After which, she showed the marijuana,
Your Honor.
Q: Where was the marijuana?
A: It was placed in a cellophane, in a
newspaper, Your Honor.
Q: How big?
A: A dimension of 10 x 4 inches, Your
Honor.
Q: With that size, where did she show you
the box of this cellophane?
A: At the place where we were sitted at the
receiving room, Your Honor.
Q: In other words, she went to get it and
then presented or showed it to you?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Where did she go, if you know?
A: Because at the sala, there is a certain
room located at the side that is the place where she got the same, Your Honor.
Q: Where is this house of Estela Tuan
located, is it along the road or inside the road or what?
A: It is near the road but you have to walk
in a little distance, Your Honor.
Q: Will you describe the place where Estela
Tuan is residing?
A: Well, it is a two storey house, the
walls are made of galvanized iron Sheets, Your Honor.
COURT:
Q: Do you know who are staying there?
A: I do not know who is living with her,
however, that is her residence, Your Honor.
Q: How many times did you go there?
A: It was my second time to go at that time
we were sent by PO Fernandez to purchase marijuana, Your Honor.
Q: Where is the marijuana now?
A: It is in the possession of PO Fernandez,
Your Honor.
Q: Where is the marijuana placed?
A: In a newspaper, Your Honor.
Q: What happened next?
A: We handed to her the amount of P300.00,
your Honor.
Q: And she gave you that marijuana?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
x x x x
Q: How many rooms are there in the first
floor of the house of Estela Tuan?
A: Three rooms, Your Honor, it has a dining
room and beside the place is the receiving room where we sitted ourselves, Your
Honor.
Q: When you already bought marijuana from
her, what did she tell you, if any?
A; Well, if we would be interested to buy
more, I still have stocks here, Your Honor.[39]
Tudlong
recounted in more detail what happened during the test buy:
COURT:
Q: My question is, when she told you that
she has some substance for sale for profit and you mentioned marijuana, did you
talk immediately with Frank or what did you do?
A: We reported the matter to the Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group, your Honor.
x x x x
Q: What time?
A: We went to the office at 9:00 – 9:30
o’clock in the morning, Your Honor.
Q: When you went there, what did you do?
A: The amount of P300.00 was given
to Frank and we were instructed to purchase, Your Honor.
Q: Did you go?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
x x x x
Q: Will you tell what happened when you
went to the house of the woman?
A: Well, we were allowed to go inside the
house after which, we were made to sit down at the receiving area or sala, Your
Honor.
Q: When you went there, you were allowed to
enter immediately?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Who allowed you to enter?
A: The female person, Your Honor.
Q: What happened when you were asked to be
sitted?
A: During that time, Frank and the female
person were the ones conferring, Your Honor.
Q: Did you hear what they were talking
about?
A: That Frank was purchasing marijuana,
Your Honor.
Q: What did the woman tell you?
A: After we handed the money, a plastic
which was transparent, was then handed to Frank, it was a plastic and there was
a newspaper inside, Your Honor.
x x x x
Q: So, you did not actually see what is in
the newspaper?
A: No, Your Honor, however, I know that
that is marijuana.
Q: Why?
A: Because that was our purpose, to buy
marijuana, Your Honor.
Q: And you have not gotten marijuana
without Estela Tuan informing you?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Will you tell us what kind of materials
were used in the house of Estela Tuan?
A: Two storey, the walls are made of GI
sheets, Your Honor.\
Q: Is the house beside the road or do you
have to walk?
A: It is near the road. Upon reaching the road, you still have to
walk a short distance, Your Honor.
Q: Where did Estela Tuan get the newspaper
placed in a transparent plastic?
A: She got it from a room because were then
made to wait at the sala, Your Honor.
Q: Did she tell you how much she can sell
marijuana?
A: She told us, Your Honor.
Q: What?
A: Well, the marijuana that we purchased
was worth P300.00[.] However, we
could divide it into two small packs and we could sell it at P20.00 per
piece so that you can also have some gain.
COURT:
Q: After that, to whom did you sell?
A: We did not sell the marijuana, Your
Honor.
Q: I thought you are going to sell
marijuana and so you went there?
A: We were just instructed by PO Fernandez
to verify what we are telling him was true, Your Honor.[40]
Accused-appellant’s
contention that MTCC Judge Cortes failed to consider the informants’ admission
that they themselves were selling marijuana is utterly without merit. First,
even after carefully reviewing the testimonies of Lad-ing and Tudlong before
Judge Cortes, this Court did not find a categorical admission by either of the
two informants that they themselves were selling marijuana. In fact, Tudlong expressly denied that he and
Lad-ing sold the marijuana, having only bought the same from the
accused-appellant for the test buy. Moreover,
even if the informants were also selling marijuana, it would not have affected
the validity of the Search Warrant for accused-appellant’s house. The criminal liabilities of accused-appellant
and the informants would be separate and distinct. The investigation and prosecution of one
could proceed independently of the other.
Equally
without merit is accused-appellant’s assertion that the Search Warrant did not
describe with particularity the place to be searched.
A
description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving
the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or description that points out
the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional
requirement of definiteness.[41] In the case at bar, the address and
description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific
enough. There was only one house located
at the stated address, which was accused-appellant’s residence, consisting of a
structure with two floors and composed of several rooms.
In
view of the foregoing, the Court upholds the validity of the Search Warrant for
accused-appellant’s house issued by MTCC Judge Cortes, and any items seized as
a result of the search conducted by virtue thereof, may be presented as
evidence against the accused-appellant.
Since
it is beyond any cavil of doubt that the accused-appellant is, indeed, guilty
of violation of Article II, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, the
Court shall now consider the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon her.
Article
II, Section 8, in relation to Section 20(3), of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, provides:
SEC. 8. Possession or Use of
Prohibited 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 possess or use any
prohibited drug subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof. (As amended by
R.A. 7659)
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. - The penalties for
offenses under Sections 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A,
15 and 16 of Article III of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs
involved is in any of the following quantities:
1.
40
grams or more of opium;
2.
40
grams or more of morphine;
3.
200
grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
4.
40
grams or more of heroin;
5.
750 grams or
more of Indian hemp or marijuana;
6.
50
grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
7.
40
grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrocholoride; or
8.
In
the case of other dangerous drugs, the quantity of which is far beyond
therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs
Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for the purpose. (Emphasis supplied.)
Pursuant
to Article II, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, illegal
possession of 750 grams or more of the prohibited drug marijuana is punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. Accused-appellant had in her possession a
total of 19,050 grams of marijuana,
for which she was properly sentenced to reclusion
perpetua by the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In
the same vein, the fine of P500,000.00 imposed upon accused-appellant by
the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is also correct, as the same is
still within the range of fines imposable on any person who possessed
prohibited drugs without any authority, under Article II, Section 8 of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Decision dated September 21, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00381, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
*
Per Special Order No. 876
dated August 2, 2010.
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe with Associate Justices Renato C.
Dacudao and Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring; rollo, pp. 3-13.
[2] Penned
by Judge Ruben C. Ayson (now Court of Appeals Justice); CA rollo, pp.
129-152.
[3] CA
rollo, p. 14.
[4] Id.
at 16.
[5] Records,
p. 11.
[6] TSN,
September 29, 2000, p. 4.
[7] Records,
pp. 80-81.
[8] TSN,
September 29, 2000, p. 16.
[9] TSN,
February 5, 2001, pp. 14-16.
[10] Id.
at 19.
[11] TSN,
November 27, 2001, pp. 2- 3.
[12] Id.
at 4-5.
[13] Id.
at 6.
[14] Id.
at 9-11.
[15] TSN,
September 26, 2001, pp. 3-10.
[16] TSN,
October 25, 2001, p. 7.
[17] Id.
at 9, 15.
[18] Id.
at 10.
[19] TSN,
January 21, 2002, p. 10.
[20] CA
rollo, pp. 150-152.
[21] Rollo, p. 106.
[22] G.R.
Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[23] Rollo, p. 12.
[24] Id.
at 14.
[25] Id. at 39-40.
[26] Id.
at 17.
[27] Id.
at 29-38.
[28] People
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 168188-89, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 185,
206.
[29] People v. Corpuz, 442 Phil. 405, 415
(2002).
[30] People v. Lagata, 452 Phil. 846, 853
(2003).
[31] People v. Uy, 392 Phil. 773, 787 (2000).
[32] People v. Amazan, 402 Phil. 247, 261
(2001).
[33] People v. Pidoy, 453 Phil. 221, 228
(2003).
[34] 334
Phil. 556, 571 (1997).
[35] Romer Sy Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, G.R. No.
174570, February 22, 2010.
[36] 351
Phil. 868, 880 (1998).
[37] People v. Tee, 443 Phil. 521, 539-540
(2003).
[38] Records,
pp. 71-72.
[39] Id.
at 72-74.
[40] Id.
at 76-78.
[41] People
v. Tee, supra note 37 at 541.