Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus
- NELIDA DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC Y
JAPITANA & NORA JINGABO Y CRUZ, Accused-Appellants. |
|
G.R.
No. 177570 Present: CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, DEL
CASTILLO, and PEREZ, JJ. Promulgated: January
19, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
Accused-appellants
Nelida D. Dequina (Dequina), Joselito J. Jundoc (Jundoc), and Nora C. Jingabo
(Jingabo) were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch
27, with Violations of Section 4, in relation to Section 21, paragraphs (e-l),
(f), (m), and (o) of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The accusatory portion of the Amended
Information reads:
That on or about September 29, 1999, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confed erating together and helping one
another, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport or give away
to another any prohibited drug, did and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell, or offer for sale, deliver or transport marijuana dried
flowering tops with total weight of thirty two thousand nine hundred ninety
five (32,995) grams which is a prohibited drug.[1]
The case was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 99-177383.
Upon arraignment, all accused-appellants entered a plea of not guilty.[2]
The
prosecution presented four witnesses:
Police Officer (PO) 3 Wilfredo Masanggue (Masanggue), Senior Police
Officer (SPO) 1 Anthony Blanco (Blanco), PO3 Eduardo Pama (Pama), and Forensic
Chemist George de Lara (De Lara). The
RTC summarized the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as follows:
Police Officer III Wilfredo Masanggue testified that
at about 6:00 a.m., of September 29, 1999, he and SPO1 Anthony Blanco were
instructed by their superior, Chief Inspector Romulo Sapitula to proceed at the
corner of Juan Luna and Raxabago Sts., Tondo, Manila, where, according to the
report given by the informant, three persons – a male and two female[s] would be coming from Baguio City to deliver unknown
quantity of marijuana. In no time, they
arrived at the designated place and parked their mobile patrol car along Juan
Luna Street, facing the northern direction just near the corner of Raxabago
Street.
At around 9:00 a.m., they noticed a taxi cab coming
from Yuseco St. heading towards the direction of the pier. At a certain point along Raxabago Street,
about a hundred meters away from the position of their patrol car the taxi
stopped. From it emerged three
passengers – a man and two women – each one of them carrying a black travelling
bag. As the trio fitted the descriptions
given to them by Inspector Sapitula, they intently watched and monitored their
movements.
About one or two minutes later, as the trio started
walking towards the western portion of Raxabago St., they drove and trailed
them. As the patrol car got closer
behind them, [Dequina] noticed its presence.
She started walking in a more hurried pace (“parang walkathon”) as if
she wanted to run away (“parang patakbo”).
SPO1 Blanco alighted from the car and chased [Dequina] while PO3
Masanggue, who was behind the wheels also alighted and restrained [Jundoc] and
[Jingabo]. While thus trying to get
away, [Dequina] dropped the bag she was carrying. As a result, the zipper of the bag gave
way. Bundles of dried leaves wrapped in
transparent plastic bags case into view.
Suspecting the stuffs to be marijuana, they further inspected the other
two bags in the possession of [Jingabo] and [Jundoc] and found out that they
had the same contents. They boarded the
three accused, along with their bags in their patrol car and proceeded to the
hospital for physical examination before bringing them to their headquarters. While in transit, [Dequina] pleaded to them
to allow her to make a call but they did not heed the request as the car was
still in motion.
At the western Police District Headquarters at United
Nations Avenue, they turned over the three accused together with the bags to
PO3 Eduardo Pama, a police investigator of the district Anti-Narcotics Unit for
investigation. During the investigation,
it was discovered that each of the three black travelling bags confiscated from
the three accused contained eleven bricks of marijuana. In connection with the incident, he and SPO1
Blanco executed the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension dated September 30, 1999
(Exhs, “A” and submarkings).
SPO1 Anthony Blanco testified that in the early
morning of September 29, 1999, together with PO3 Wilfredo Masanggue, he was
dispatched by their superior to the corner of Juan Luna and Raxabago Sts.,
Tondo, Manila, where it was reported that shipment of marijuana would take
place. They were further informed that
the drug couriers were composed of a man and two women and that each of them
were carrying a travelling bag.
After they arrived at the designated area, they parked
their vehicle along Juan Luna near Raxabago Street. Then they waited. Suddenly, they noticed the arrival of a
taxicab from where three persons – a man and two women – alighted. Each of them was carrying a bag. The trio fitted the descriptions given to
them. As the suspects walked away, they
drove and trailed them. As they got
close behind them, accused Nelida Dequina noticed the presence of the mobile
car. She dropped the black bag she was
carrying and the same was unzipped. The
contents thereof consisting of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in transparent
plastic bags came into view. They
arrested the three suspects later identified as the accused herein and boarded
them into their car. While on board the
vehicle, [Dequina] and [Jundoc] confessed that the contents of the other two
bags confiscated from them were also marijuana.
At the WPD Headquarters, United Nations Avenue,
Manila, the three accused were turned over to the Office of the District
Anti-Narcotics Unit where they were investigated by PO3 Wilfredo Pama. It was there where the other two bags
confiscated from [Jingabo] and [Jundoc] were re-opened and confirmed to contain
marijuana.
In the course of his cross-examination, SPO1 Blanco
admitted that the three of them – Inspector Sapitula, PO3 Masanggue and
himself, along with the three accused, were photographed, at what appeared to
be a “sari-sari” store as their background.
The same appeared in the clipping of “Tonight” September 20, 1999 issue.
PO3 Eduardo Pama, an investigator from the District
Anti-Narcotics Unit of the WPD was the one who investigated the case. He placed the corresponding markings on the
packs of marijuana confiscated from the three accused after the same were
turned over to him by SPO1 Blanco and PO3 Masanggue. He marked the bag recovered from [Dequina]
“NDD” and the contents thereof “NDD-1” to “NDD-11”. He marked the bag taken from [Jundoc] “JJJ”
and the contents thereof “ JJJ-1” to “JJJ-11”.
Finally, he marked the bag recovered from [Jingabo] “NCJ” and the
contents thereof “NCJ-1” to “NCJ-11”. In
connection with his investigation, he prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest
Reports of the three accused (Exhs. “F”. “G” and “H”) as well as the Referral
Letter to the City Prosecutor’s Office (Exh. “I”). Afterwards, he brought the three bags of
suspected marijuana together with the letter-request to the National Bureau of
Investigation [(NBI)] Chemistry Division, for the laboratory examinations. The same were received thereat on September
29, 1999 at 10:12 in the evening. The
following day, September 30, 1999, at 10:38 p.m., certifications, corresponding
to each and every set of items recovered from the three accused were released
to PO3 Pama.
George De Lara, Forensic Chemist, Forensic Chemistry
Division, NBI, Manila testified that he conducted the laboratory examinations
of the subject specimens based on the letter-request from DANU Police
Superintendent Miguel de Mayo Laurel (Exh. “B” and submarkings). From the black bag (Exh. “K”) allegedly
recovered from [Dequina], he counted a total of eleven bricks of dried leaves
suspected to be marijuana which had a total weight of 10,915.0 grams. The results of the chemical, microscopic and
chromatographic examinations he conducted show that the said specimens were
positive for the presence of chemical found only in marijuana.
With regard to the bag allegedly confiscated from
[Jundoc] (Exh. “O”), witness counted eleven bricks of dried leaves believed to
be marijuana. The specimens had a total
weight of 11,010.0 grams. When subjected
to be same type of laboratory examinations, the specimens yielded positive
result for marijuana, a prohibited drug.
Anent the bag (Exh. “R”) with masking tape having the
mark “DDM-99-110” allegedly recovered from [Jingabo], witness also found eleven
bricks of dried flowering tops suspected to be marijuana which when weighed
yielded a total weight of 11,070.0 grams.
The results of similar types of examinations conducted confirmed the
specimens to be marijuana.
He prepared separate certifications for the results of
the examinations he conducted on the specimens contained in three separate bags
allegedly confiscated from accused Dequina, Jundoc and Jingabo (Exhs. “C”, “D”
and “E”, respectively). He also prepared
NBI Forensic Chemistry Division Report No. DDM-99-108 dated October 1, 1999
(Exh. “L” and submarkings).[3]
For the
defense, only the accused-appellants took the witness stand. The RTC recapitulated the testimonies of the
accused-appellants, thus:
Accused Nelida Dequina testified that she became an
orphan at a tender age. With the help of
her aunt, she was able to pursue her studies.
She was a consistent scholar from elementary until college. While in the third year of her Accountancy
course, she encountered severe financial difficulties. She stopped schooling and worked instead. Soon, she had a relationship with a man with
whom she begot a child. The relationship
did not last. Not long after, she had a
relationship with another man. This time
she begot her second child named Samantha.
In May 1999, while the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) members
were having a parade in Iloilo City, she met a certain Salvacion Peñaredondo, a
member of the group. She calls her
Sally. Sally convinced her to join the
movement. Since she used to watch
similar group activities while in college, she manifested her desire to join
the movement by nodding her head. From
then on, Sally frequently visited her at home.
For a living, she was engaged in selling ready-to-wear dresses, frozen
meat and relief goods which Sally supplied to her.
On September 27, 1999, Sally told her that the
movement had decided to send her to a mission which would determine if she was really
qualified to join the group. She was
advised to bring alone two friends, preferably a woman and a gay. As at time Sally saw them in her company, she
chose Nora Jingabo and Joselito Jundoc to be her companions. Sally did not elaborate the real nature of
such mission. She did not press to know
more about the venture either. Before
they parted that day, Sally instructed her to fetch her two friends and meet
her (Sally) early in the morning of the following day, September 28, 1999 near
the entrance of the Gaisano Mall, the largest department store in Iloilo. She dropped by the public market and told
Nora and Joselito about the plan to meet Sally the following morning.
As agreed upon, they met Sally at the designated place
and time. Sally secretly told her that
the three of them would be going to Manila for a still undisclosed
mission. She was briefed that the three
of them will temporarily stay in the house of her [Dequina] relative in Manila. She was further instructed that they will go
to the Philippine Rabbit Terminal in Avenida where they will be met by members
of their group who will also monitor their movements. Afterwards, they will proceed to Dau,
Mabalacat, Pampanga where they will pick-up some bags. Thereat, somebody will meet and give them
instructions. From Dau, they will return
to Manila. They will alight at the first
ShoeMart Department Store which they will see along the way. A waiting tricycle would bring them to a
store where they could buy carton boxes for their bags.
Finally, a taxicab will fetch and bring them all the way to the pier.
[Dequina] received P3,000.00 from Sally for
their expenses and plane tickets for the three of them from Sally. However, she noticed that instead of their
true names, the tickets were in the names of other persons. Her plane ticket was in the name of Sarah
Ganje. That of [Jundoc] and [Jingabo]
were in the names of Rowenal Palma and Mary Grace Papa, respectively. Nervous, she thought of backing out at the
last minute but Sally assured her that she had nothing to worry about. Sally culminated by saying that something
will happen to her child if ever she backed out from the plan.
Because of the threat, [Dequina] went on with the
plan. Enroute to the Iloilo airport,
[Jundoc] and [Jingabo] expressed their anxieties about the venture but she
calmed them down and assured them that she will take care of everything.
From the Manila Domestic Airport, they proceeded to
her aunt’s place at Pitogo St., Guadalupe, Makati City where they rested after taking
their meal. At around 2:00 p.m., her
aunt woke her up and told her that the two vehicles – an owner-type jepney and
a passenger jepney with unfamiliar faces on board were lurking in their
vicinity for quite sometime.
At around 5:00 p.m., they left the place on board a
taxi to the Philippine Rabbit Terminal at Avenida, Rizal. While waiting for their schedule, two men
approached and handed to her bus tickets.
The same men nosed out to them the vehicle where they were supposed to
board. She was further reminded by the
men that members of the movement will also be on board.
They arrived in Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga at about
12:30 a.m. of September 29, 1999. While
they were having their snacks, a couple went near and instructed them to cross
the road and take the bags from the three men whom they saw for the first
time. The couple also handed over to
them bus tickets. They were instructed
to board vehicles bound for Pasay and alight at the first Shoemart (SM)
Department Store that they will see along the way. They took the bags from the three men without
even bothering to know the contents thereof.
However, she noticed that the bags were very heavy.
As they boarded the Pasay bound bus, the conductor
took the bags from them and loaded the same in compartment section of the
vehicle. With the assistance of the bus
conductor, they alighted at SM North Edsa.
They transferred to a waiting tricycle, as per instruction given by
Sally. The tricycle dropped them at a
“sari-sari” store where they bought carton boxes where they placed two of the
three bags. From there, the driver lead
them to a waiting taxi where they loaded all their baggages. She and Nora occupied the back seat while
Joselito sat beside the driver. She
instructed the driver to take them to the pier for Iloilo bound ships.
As they entered the pier premises, a mobile patrol car
came from nowhere and blocked their path.
Two police officers emerged and ordered them to alight. Then, upon the policemen’s order, the driver
opened the taxi’s trunk where the three bags were loaded. The police officers forcibly opened one of
the three bags where they saw something wrapped in jute bags and plastic
bags. It was learned that the contents
of the bags were marijuana.
They were all herded into the mobile car. While on board the mobile car, the police
officers asked them if they had money.
When the policemen learned that they did not have money, they were
brought to a “sari-sari” store where a police officer named Sapitula was
waiting. Sapitula asked them
questions. At one point, Sapitula
slapped her. They were made to line up
and Sapitula summoned some press reporters who photographed them
They were brought to the Ospital ng Maynila. While being examined, she confided to a nurse
that she was manhandled by Sapitula.
They were brought to the office of the District Anti-Narcotics Unit
where corresponding charges were filed against them.
She insisted that the incident took place near the
pier and not at the corner of Raxabago and Juan Luna Sts., Tondo, Manila. Were if not for the threat that something
will happen to her daughter, she could not followed (sic) the orders of Sally.
The combined testimony of accused Nora Jingabo and
Joselito Jundoc established the following facts.
On September 27, 1999, while [Jundoc] and [Jingabo]
were tending to their fish stall in Iloilo Public Market, [Dequina], their
friend, came and invited them to meet her, for a still undisclosed reason, at
the ground floor of the Gaisano Mall, early in the morning of the following
day, September 28, 1999. As agreed upon,
they met at the designated place and time.
Not long thereafter, Sally joined them.
They knew Sally to be [Dequina’s] supplier of RTW’s and other
merchandise. For a while, [Dequina] and
Sally excused themselves and proceeded to the first floor of the mall where
they talked privately. Soon after Sally
left, [Jingabo] and [Jundoc] asked [Dequina] what they talked about. Instead of answering, [Dequina] asked if they
are willing to go with her to Manila in order to get something. While a little bit surprised, [Jingabo] and
[Jundoc] readily agreed as they had never been in the city before. [Dequina] handed to them their plane tickets. They were told that the same were given by
Sally. However, they noticed that the
plane tickets were not in their names but in the names of other persons. When they called the attention of [Dequina]
about it, the latter simply replied “Anyway that is free”. [Jingabo] noticed anxiety got the better of
Nelida at that time. Nevertheless, the
three of them enplaned for Manila at around 7:45 a.m. of September 28, 1999.
From the Ninoy Aquino Domestic Airport, they proceeded
to the house of [Dequina’s] aunt in Guadalupe, Makati City. In the afternoon, their host noticed the
presence of unfamiliar vehicles. Some of
these vehicles were even parked right in front of the house. Unmindful about it, they left Guadalupe at
around 6:00 p.m. and proceeded to a Philippine Rabbit Bus Terminal. Thereat, two male persons approached
[Dequina] and handed to her bus tickets.
They were pointed to the particular vehicle where they were to board.
They reached Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga between 12:30
and 1:00 a.m. of September 29, 1999.
While they were having their snacks, a couple approached [Dequina] and
they had a talk. Thereafter, the couple
motioned them to three male persons, each carrying a bag, at the opposite side
of the road. Upon [Dequina’s]
instruction, they took the bags from the three men. Then, they waited for their ride back to Manila.
As they boarded the bus, the conductor loaded their
bags inside the compartment. They
alighted at SM EDSA at around 6:00 a.m. of September 29, 1999. They boarded a waiting tricycle. When they reached a certain store, the trike
driver bought carton boxes where they loaded two of the three bags. Thereafter, the tricycle driver pointed
[Dequina] to a waiting taxi where they boarded along with their baggages.
As they entered the pier premises, a police officer on
board a mobile patrol car ordered them to stop.
They were ordered to alight and the police officers ordered the driver
to open the taxi’s compartment. One of
the police officers took a knife from his pocket and slashed one of the
bags. Then, the policemen told them that
what they had in their bags were marijuana.
The police officers ordered them to board the mobile car while the bags
were loaded inside the compartment of the same car.
They were brought to a “sari-sari” store where a
certain Chief Sapitula, whom they later knew to be the police officers’
superior, was waiting. Sapitula
interrogated [Dequina] and at one point, he slapped her. Sapitula summoned press people who took their
photographs. Thereafter, they were
brought to the “Hospital ng Bayan” and finally, to the police precinct were
they were charged accordingly.[4]
The parties
dispensed with the testimony of Prose M. Arreola, a representative of Air
Philippines, since they were willing to stipulate on the existence of the
passenger manifest, on which appeared the accused-appellants’ assumed names, as
well as the accused-appellants’ plane tickets for the flight from Iloilo to
Manila on September 28, 1999 at 7:00 a.m.
The RTC, in a
Decision dated October 30, 2000, found the accused-appellants guilty as
charged. The dispositive portion of said
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment is hereby
rendered finding accused NELIDA
DEQUINA y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC y
JAPITANA and NORA JINGABO y CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Illegal transport marijuana and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. Each of them is
ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.[5]
The
accused-appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing
decision, but the RTC denied the same in its Order dated December 27, 2000.
Accused-appellants
then filed a notice of appeal on January 25, 2001. Thus, the records of
Criminal Case No. 99-177383 were forwarded to this Court. Pursuant to our decision in People v. Mateo,[6]
however, we referred the case to the Court of Appeals,[7]
where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01431.
Accused-appellants
made the following assignment of errors in their brief:
I
The court a quo erred
in finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal
transport of marijuana.
II
The court a quo
gravely erred in admitting in evidence the seized items from the
accused-appellants despite the fact that they were seized in violation of their
constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure.[8]
In its
Decision[9]
dated August 16, 2006, the appellate court affirmed accused-appellants’
conviction. It decreed:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, in
Manila, in Criminal Case No. 99-177393, finding accused-appellants NELIDA
DEQUINA y DIMAPANAN, JOSELITO JUNDOC y JAPITANA and NORA JINGABO y CRUZ guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of illegally transporting 32[,]995 grams of marijuana
is hereby AFFIRMED.[10]
Hence,
accused-appellants appealed to this Court.
In our
Resolution dated July 4, 2007, we required the parties to file their respective
supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within 30 days from notice. Both parties manifested that they no longer
intend to file any supplemental brief considering that they have already raised
all the issues and arguments in their original briefs.
We find no
merit in the present appeal.
The
accused-appellants were charged with and convicted of the offense of illegal
transport of marijuana, defined and penalized under Section 4 of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, which provides:
SEC. 4. Sale,
Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation 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
sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of
such transactions.
Accused-appellants
assail their conviction, asserting that their arrests were illegal. They were not doing anything illegal that
would have justified their warrantless arrest, much less a warrantless search
of their persons and belongings. A
search made without a warrant cannot be justified as an incident of arrest
unless the arrest itself was lawful.
Accused-appellants insist that the description of the persons who were
transporting marijuana relayed by the Chief of Police to the apprehending
officers, PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco, was so general that it could not be
sufficient ground for the apprehension of accused-appellants.
The People
counters that accused-appellants’ arrests were lawful as they were then actually
committing a crime. Since
accused-appellants were lawfully arrested, the resulting warrantless search of
their persons and belongings was also valid.
In addition, accused-appellants did not refute that they were indeed
transporting prohibited drugs when they were arrested and, instead, alleged as
defenses that Dequina acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear, and
Jundoc and Jingabo were merely accommodating a trusted childhood friend.
After a
thorough review of the records, we find that the judgment of the RTC, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, was supported by the evidence on record. The People was able to discharge the burden
of proving the accused-appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Well-settled
is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to great respect and accorded the
highest consideration by the appellate court.
Since credibility is a matter that is peculiarly within the province of
the trial judge, who had the first hand opportunity to watch and observe the
demeanor and behavior of witnesses both for the prosecution and the defense at
the time of their testimony,[11]
we have no reason to disregard the findings of the lower court, as affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.
In this case,
Chief Inspector Sapitula, in the early morning of September 29, 1999, received
a tip that a huge amount of marijuana would be transported from Baguio City to
the Manila pier, which will then be loaded on vessels bound for Iloilo. Acting on the information he received, Chief
Inspector Sapitula dispatched PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco to the corner of
Raxabago and Juan Luna Streets, where they were supposed to watch out for two
females and one male. PO3 Masanggue and
SPO1 Blanco posted their mobile patrol car near said corner. From where they were at, PO3 Masanggue and
SPO1 Blanco spotted three persons, two females and one male – who turned out to
be accused-appellants – alighting from a taxi at the corner of Raxabago and
Juan Luna Streets, each carrying a traveling bag. PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco then followed
accused-appellants until one of them, Dequina, dropped her traveling bag. The traveling bag fell open and inside, PO3
Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco saw dried leaves in transparent plastic bags. It was only then that the two police officers
apprehended accused-appellants and their persons and belongings searched.
As PO3
Masanggue testified:
Q Now, on
September 29, 1999 at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning will you please tell
us where you were?
A I
reported to Headquarters Office for INSS briefing and information.
Q And
while you were there can you recall if there is any unusual incident that
happened?
x x x x
WITNESS:
Yes,
your Honor.
PUB. PROS. TAN, JR.:
After
the formation what happen?
x x x x
WITNESS
After
our formation we are informed by our chief that he received a telephone call
and receive an information that three persons will be arriving and will deliver
marijuana.
Q And
what else if any did your chief tell you?
A And we
were dispatched by our chief to the place where the marijuana will be dropped
at corner Juan Luna and Raxabago.
Q And did
you indeed go there?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
district is that, Mr. Witness?
A District
II of Manila.
Q And,
then what transpired when you went there?
A We saw
three persons alighting from a taxi and each of them carrying a black bag.
Q And
what did you do?
A When we
saw that the three persons who alighted from the taxi match with the
description of the persons we are looking for we approach them.
Q And
what happen when you approach them?
A When we
were about to approach them one of them by the name of [Dequina] tried to run
away.
x x x x
Q And
then what did you do if any when she try to run away?
A We
chase her and told her to stop running and she drop the bag she was carrying.
Q You
state that we, who else are you referring to?
A SPO1
Anthony Blanco.
Q Now,
when she drop the bag from her shoulder what did you do if any?
A When
the bag fell the zipper open and we saw dry leaves wrapped in a transparent
plastic bag from the inside.
Q And
then what did you do if any?
A Because
I was convinced that the person is the one match the person we are looking for
and as our SOP we brought them to the Ospital ng Maynila for medical
examination.
Q You
stated you brought them or she only you brought her?
A No,
sir. I’m referring to the three accused
in this case.
x x x x
Q And why
did you bring the other two persons when you said that it was only [Dequina] who
dropped the bag?
A Because
they were together who alighted from the taxi.
x x x x
Q And
what transpired in your office?
A We
brought them to our chief and also the bag which contained the dried leaves
suspected to be marijuana and the bag was later turn over to the Anti Narcotic
Unit.
x x x x
Q So you
mean to say that there were three (3) bags that were recover by you from the
three accused?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And, so
in your office you stated that you turn over the said three (3) bags to whom,
Mr. Witness?
A To the
investigator of DANU.
Q What is
DANU?
A District
Anti Narcotics Unit.
Q And do
you know what they do with the bag if you know to the bag?
A They
counted the contains of all the bag sir and found out that each bag contain
eleven (11) blocks of suspected marijuana.[12]
The positive
and categorical testimony of PO3 Masanggue, corroborated by SPO1 Blanco,
deserves weight and credence in light of the presumption of regularity accorded
to the performance of their official duties as police officers, and the lack of
motive on their part to falsely testify against accused-appellants.
To discredit
PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco, accused-appellants claimed that they were
blocked by the police officers at the pier and not at the corner of Juan Luna
and Raxabago Streets; and that PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco did not mention in
their testimonies passing by a sari-sari store to meet up with Chief
Inspector Sapitula and presenting accused-appellants to the media. These details, however, are immaterial, not
really departing significantly from the police officers’ version of the events
surrounding accused-appellants’ arrest and search, which yielded the marijuana
they were transporting. At any rate,
certain parts of the testimonies of PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco were
corroborated by the accused-appellants themselves (i.e., that the police officers, prior to bringing
accused-appellants to the police headquarters, first brought accused-appellants
to the Ospital ng Maynila for medical examination), PO3 Pama (i.e., that each of the three traveling
bags turned over to him by PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco contained 11 bricks of
marijuana), and NBI Forensic Chemist De Lara (i.e., that the dried leaves marked and turned over to him by PO3
Pama tested positive for marijuana).
There is no
question that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellants and the warrantless
seizure of the marijuana were valid and legal.
Settled is
the rule that no arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant
issued by a competent judicial authority.
The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures.[13] It further decrees that any evidence obtained
in violation of said right shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.[14]
Nevertheless,
the constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures
admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions, as follows: (1) warrantless
search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence in
plain view; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search;
(5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency
circumstances.[15]
On the other
hand, Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest
without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the
following circumstances:
a)
When, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When
an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
“Transport”
as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean “to carry or convey
from one place to another.”[16] The evidence in this case shows that at the
time of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in flagrante carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their
traveling bags. PO3 Masanggue and SPO1
Blanco need not even open Dequina’s traveling bag to determine its content
because when the latter noticed the police officers’ presence, she walked
briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally dropped her traveling bag, causing
the zipper to open and exposed the dried marijuana bricks therein. Since a crime was then actually being
committed by the accused-appellants, their warrantless arrest was legally
justified, and the following warrantless search of their traveling bags was
allowable as incidental to their lawful arrest.
Besides,
accused-appellants did not raise any protest when they, together with their
bags containing marijuana, were brought to the police station for investigation
and subsequent prosecution. In People v. Fernandez,[17]
we ruled that:
When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents
to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later
complaining thereof. x x x. The right to be secure from unreasonable
search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either
expressly or impliedly.[18]
In order to
exonerate herself from criminal liability, Dequina contends that she
transported the marijuana under the compulsion of an irresistible fear. Jundoc and Jingabo, on the other hand, claim
that they went along to accommodate Dequina, a trusted childhood friend.
We are
unconvinced.
A person who
acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from
criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. Actus
me invito factus non est meus actus.
An act done by me against my will is not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable
as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will. The duress, force,
fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily
harm if the act be done. A threat of
future injury is not enough. The
compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the
accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.[19] Here, Dequina’s version of events that
culminated with her and Jundoc and Jingabo’s arrests on September 29, 1999 is
implausible. Equally far-fetched is
Jundoc and Jingabo’s assertion of blind trust in Dequina and total ignorance of
the transportation of marijuana. We
agree with the Court of Appeals when it observed that:
While [Dequina] wants us to believe that she acted under compulsion and
that a certain Sally called all the shots, she nevertheless admitted that their
accommodations when they reached Manila was with her aunt in Guadalupe. On cross examination, she said that it was
she who told Sally that they were going to stay with her aunt. More importantly, the alleged threat on her
daughter was unclear. At one point in
her testimony, she claimed that her daughter was to be under the custody of
Sally while she was away. However,
during the trial her lawyer manifested that her daughter was in fact in Manila
and in the court room attending the hearing.
Moreover, accused-appellants themselves picture a very precise and
elaborate scheme in the transport of the huge shipment of marijuana. With this, it is simply contrary to human
experience that the people behind the shipment would entrust the same to an unknowing
and uncertain person such as [Dequina] and her two stooges, unless they
themselves were in on it. Furthermore,
the scheme or transport of the marijuana shipment was so exact that [Jundoc]
and [Jingabo] only had enough time to rest in the house of [Dequina’s] aunt in
Guadalupe – from the time they arrived in Manila in the morning to the time
they had to go to provincial bus station in the afternoon, negating their
purported desire to see Manila. Clearly,
the defense’ story is riddled with holes.[20]
Conspiracy
can be inferred from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when said
acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
interests. Although the same degree of
proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of
the presence of conspiracy, it need not be proven by direct evidence. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated.[21] Thus, as found by the RTC, conspiracy by and
among accused-appellants was present in this case, as it may be inferred from
the following acts of accused-appellants:
This was shown when by their account, the three accused left Iloilo
together, stayed in Manila for a while, left for Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga and
returned to Manila thereafter. They were
together when the apprehending police officers pounced on them near the pier
premises on their way back to Iloilo, each of them carrying a travelling bag
which contained
marijuana. x x x.[22]
With the
enactment and effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659,[23]
the penalty imposable upon violators of Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended, is reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00)
to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) if the marijuana involved weighs 750
grams or more. The quantity of marijuana
involved in this case weighs 32,995 grams, hence, the applicable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the imposable penalty is composed of
two indivisible penalties, the rules for the application of indivisible
penalties under Article 63[24]
of the Revised Penal Code should be
applied. As there is neither mitigating
nor aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime, the RTC correctly
imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua. Finally, considering that
the penalty imposed is the indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, the Indeterminate Sentence Law could not be
applied.[25]
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED.
The Decision dated August 16, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 01431, which affirmed the Decision dated October 30, 2000 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27, in Criminal Case No. 99-177383,
finding accused-appellants guilty
of the crime of illegal transport of marijuana and sentencing them to reclusion perpetua,
and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each, is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
|
[1] Records, p. 19.
[2] Id. at 31.
[3] Id. at 155-158.
[4] Id. at 158-164.
[5] Id. at 167-168.
[6] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[7] CA rollo, p. 114.
[8] Id. at 84.
[9] Rollo, pp. 3-13; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, concurring.
[10] Id. at 12.
[11] People v. Tangliben, G.R. No. 63630, April 6, 1990, 184 SCRA 220, 227.
[12] TSN, January 26, 2000, pp. 4-10, 14-15.
[13] 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
[14] 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3(2).
[15] People v. Gonzales, 417 Phil. 342, 357 (2001).
[16] People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740, 754 (2001).
[17] G.R. No. 113474, December 13, 1994, 239 SCRA 174.
[18] Id. at 184.
[19] People v. Del Rosario, 365 Phil. 292, 299-300 (1999).
[20] Rollo, pp. 9-10.
[21] People v. Licayan, 415 Phil. 459, 475 (2001).
[22] Records, p. 167.
[23] An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for other Purposes
[24] Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. –
x x x x
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
x x x x
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
x x x x
[25] People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481, 494 (1999).