Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. L-63630 April 6, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MEDEL TANGLIEN ! ERNARDINO, defendant-appellant.
The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Katz N. Tierra for defendant-appellant.

GUTIERRE", #R., J.:
This is an appeal fo! the decision of the Re"ional Tial #out, $anch %&, Thid
'udicial Re"ion at San (enando, Pa!pan"a, $anch %&, findin" appellant Medel
Tan"liben ) $enadino "uilt) be)ond easonable doubt of violatin" Section %, *ticle II
of Republic *ct +%,- .Dan"eous Du"s *ct of &/0, as a!ended1 and sentencin" hi!
to life i!pison!ent, to pa) a fine of P,2,222 and to pa) the costs.
The info!ation filed a"ainst the appellant alle"ed3
That on o about the ,nd da) of Mach, &/4,, in the !unicipalit) of San (enando,
Povince of Pa!pan"a, Philippines, and 5ithin the 6uisdiction of this Honoable #out,
the above-na!ed accused M7D78 T*N98I$7N ) $7RN*RDINO, :no5in" full) 5ell
that Mai6uana is a pohibited du", did then and thee 5illfull), unla5full) and
feloniousl) have his possession, contol and custod) one .&1 ba" of died !ai6uana
leaves 5ith an appo;i!ate 5ei"ht of one .&1 :ilo and to tanspot .sic1 the sa!e to
Olon"apo #it), 5ithout authoit) of la5 to do so. .*t p. +, Rollo1
The posecution<s evidence upon 5hich the findin" of "uilt be)ond easonable doubt
5as based is naated b) the tial cout as follo5s3
It appeas fo! the evidence pesented b) the posecution that in the late evenin" of
Mach ,, &/4,, Patol!en Silveio =uevedo and Ro!eo 8. Pun>alan of the San
(enando Police Station, to"ethe 5ith $aan"a) Tanod Macaio Sacdalan, 5ee
conductin" suveillance !ission at the Victo) 8ine Te!inal co!pound located at
$aan"a) San Nicolas, San (enando, Pa!pan"a? that the suveillance 5as ai!ed not
onl) a"ainst pesons 5ho !a) co!!it !isde!eanos at the said place but also on
pesons 5ho !a) be en"a"in" in the taffic of dan"eous du"s based on info!ations
supplied b) info!es? that it 5as aound /3@2 in the evenin" that said Patol!en
noticed a peson cain" a tavelin" ba" .7;hibit 91 5ho 5as actin" suspiciousl) and
the) confonted hi!? that the peson 5as eAuested b) Patol!en =uevedo and
Pun>alan to open the ed tavelin" ba" but the peson efused, onl) to accede late on
5hen the patol!en identified the!selves? that found inside the ba" 5ee !ai6uana
leaves .7;hibit $1 5apped in a plastic 5appe and 5ei"hin" one :ilo, !oe o less?
that the peson 5as as:ed of his na!e and the eason 5h) he 5as at the said place
and he "ave his na!e as Medel Tan"liben and e;plained that he 5as 5aitin" fo a ide
to Olon"apo #it) to delive the !ai6uana leaves? that the accused 5as ta:en to the
police headAuates at San (enando, Pa!pan"a, fo futhe investi"ation? and that
Pat. Silveio =uevedo sub!itted to his Station #o!!ande his Investi"ato<s Repot
.7;hibit (1.
It appeas also fo! the posecution<s evidence that in the follo5in" !onin" o on
Mach @, &/4,, Pat. Silveio =uevedo as:ed his co-police!an Pat. Robeto =uevedo,
5ho happens to be his bothe and 5ho has had special tainin" on nacotics, to
conduct a field test on a little potion of the !ai6uana leaves and to have the e!ainin"
potion e;a!ined b) the P##8 at #a!p Olivas, San (enando, Pa!pan"a? that Pat.
Robeto =uevedo conducted a field test .7;hibit H1 on the !ai6uana leaves and found
positive esult fo !ai6uana .7;hibit 71? that the e!ainin" bi""e Auantit) of the
!ai6uana leaves 5ee ta:en to the P##8 at #a!p Olivas b) Pat. Robeto =uevedo
that sa!e da) of Mach @, &/4, .7;hibit * and *-&1 and 5hen e;a!ined, the sa!e
5ee also found to be !ai6uana .7;hibit # and #-&1. .*t pp. /-&2, Rollo1
Onl) the accused testified in his defense. His testi!on) is naated b) the tial cout as
follo5s3
The accused declaed that he "ot !aied on Octobe ,-, &/4& and his 5ife be"ot a
child on 'une &2, &/4,? that he 5as fo!el) e!plo)ed in the poult) fa! of his uncle
*le6ando #alu!a in *ntipolo, Ri>al? that he is en"a"ed in the business of sellin"
poult) !edicine and feeds, includin" chic:s, and used to conduct his business at
Ta)ta), Ri>al? that he "oes to Subic at ti!es in connection 5ith his business and
5heneve he is in Subic, he used to bu) #-ations fo! one Nena $allon and dispose
the sa!e in Manila? that he neve left his esidence at *ntipolo, Ri>al, on Mach ,,
&/4,? that on Mach @, &/4,, he 5ent to Subic to collect a balance of P&22.22 fo! a
custo!e theeat and to bu) #-ations? that he 5as able to !eet Nena $allon at +322
o<cloc: in the evenin" and he sta)ed in Nena<s house up to 4322 o<cloc: because he
had a din:in" spee 5ith Nena<s son? that he tied to catch the 4322 o<cloc: tip to
Manila fo! Olon"apo #it) but he failed and 5as able to ta:e the bus onl) b) /322
o<cloc: that evenin" that it 5as a Victo) 8ine $us that he ode and because he 5as
tips), he did not notice that the bus 5as onl) bound fo San (enando, Pa!pan"a? that
upon ali"htin" at the Victo) 8ine #o!pound at San (enando, Pa!pan"a he cossed
the steet to 5ait fo a bus "oin" to Manila? that 5hile thus 5aitin" fo a bus, a !an
5ho! he ca!e to :no5 late as Pat. Pun>alan, appoached hi! and as:ed hi! if he
has an) esidence cetificate? that 5hen he too: out his 5allet, Pat. Pun>alan "ot the
5allet and too: all the !one) inside the 5allet a!ountin" to P-%-.22? that Pat.
Pun>alan told hi! that he<ll be ta:en to the !unicipal buildin" fo veification as he !a)
be an NP* !e!be? that at the !unicipal buildin", he sa5 a police!an, identified b)
1
hi! late as Pat. Silveio =uevedo, sleepin" but 5as a5a:ened 5hen he aived that
Pat. =uevedo too: hi! upstais and told hi! to ta:e out eve)thin" fo! his poc:et
sa)in" that the pisones inside the 6ail !a) "et the sa!e fo! hi!? that inside his
poc:et 5as a fift)-peso bill and Pat. =uevedo too: the sa!e, tellin" hi! that it shall be
etuned to hi! but that it 5as neve etuned to hi!? that he 5as theeafte placed
unde detention and so!ebod) told hi! that he is bein" cha"ed 5ith possession of
!ai6uana and if he 5ould li:e to be bailed out, so!ebod) is 5illin" to help hi!? and,
that 5hen he 5as visited b) his 5ife, he told his 5ife that Patol!an Silveio =uevedo
too: a5a) all his !one) but he told his 5ife not to co!plain an)!oe as it 5ould be
useless. .Rollo, pp. &2-&&1
*ppellant, thou"h counsel de oficio *tt). 7niAue #han, aised the lone assi"n!ent of
eo in his appeal3
TH7 #OBRT A QUO 7RR7D IN #ONVI#TIN9 TH7 *##BS7D-*PP788*NT *ND
(INDIN9 HIM 9BI8TC O( TH7 #RIM7 #H*R97D ON INSB((I#I7NT *ND
DOB$T(B8 7VID7N#7. .*t p. %4, Rollo1
The Solicito-9eneal li:e5ise filed his bief, basicall) eiteatin" atin" the lo5e cout<s
findin"s.
Ho5eve, befoe this #out had the chance to act on appeal, counsel de oficio *tt).
7niAue #han died. Theeafte, this cout appointed a ne5 counsel de oficio, *tt). Dat>
Tiea and pusuant theeto, the Deput) #le: of #out, in behalf of the #le: of #out,
eAuied the ne5 counsel to file he appellant<s bief. The latte co!plied and, in he
bief, aised the follo5in" assi"n!ent of eos3
I
TH7 8OE7R #OBRT 7RR7D IN *DMITTIN9 *S 7VID7N#7 TH7 P*#D*97 O(
M*RI'B*N* *88797D8C S7IF7D (ROM D7(7ND*NT-*PP788*NT *S IT E*S *
PRODB#T O( *N BN8*E(B8 S7*R#H EITHOBT * E*RR*NT.
II
TH7 8OE7R #OBRT 7RR7D IN *DMITTIN9 *S 7VID7N#7 TH7 *88797D
P*#D*97 O( M*RI'B*N* 87*V7S *S TH7 87*V7S SBPPOS7D8C S7IF7D
(ROM *##BS7D EH7N IT E*S N7V7R *BTH7NTI#*T7D.
III
TH7 8OE7R #OBRT 7RR7D IN NOT RB8IN9 TH*T TH7 PROS7#BTION (*I87D
TO PROV7 TH7 9BI8T O( D7(7ND*NT-*PP788*NT. .*t pp. /,-/@, Rollo1
It is contended that the !ai6uana alle"edl) sei>ed fo! the accused 5as a poduct of
an unla5ful seach 5ithout a 5aant and is theefoe inad!issible in evidence.
This contention is devoid of !eit.
One of the e;ceptions to the "eneal ule eAuiin" a seach 5aant is a seach
incident to a la5ful aest. Thus, Section &, of Rule &,+ of the &/4- Rules on #i!inal
Pocedue povides3
Section &,. Seach incident to a la5ful aest. * peson la5full) aested !a) be
seached fo dan"eous 5eapons o an)thin" 5hich !a) be used as poof of the
co!!ission of an offense, 5ithout a seach 5aant.
Mean5hile, Rule &&@, Sec. -.a1 povides3
. . . * peace office o a pivate peson !a), 5ithout a 5aant, aest a peson3
.a1 Ehen, in his pesence, the peson to be aested has co!!itted, is actually
committin, o is atte!ptin" to co!!it an offense.
*ccused 5as cau"ht in fla"ante, since he 5as ca)in" !ai6uana at the ti!e of his
aest. This case theefoe falls sAuael) 5ithin the e;ception. The 5aantless seach
5as incident to a la5ful aest and is conseAuentl) valid.
In the case of !eople ". #laudia$ &+2 S#R* +%+, G&/44H this #out, confonted 5ith the
sa!e issue, held that3
*ppellant #laudio 5as cau"ht tanspotin" pohibited du"s. Pat. Daniel did not need a
5aant to aest #laudio as the latte 5as cau"ht in fla"ante delicto. The 5aantless
seach bein" an incident to a la5ful aest is in itself la5ful. .Nolasco V. PaIo, &%0
S#R* -2/1. Theefoe, thee 5as no infi!it) in the sei>ue of the &.& :ilos of
!ai6uana.
Ee ae not un!indful of the decision of this #out in !eople ". Amininudin$ &+@ S#R*
%2, G&/44H. In that case the P# offices had ealie eceived a tip fo! an info!e that
accused-appellant. 5as on boad a vessel bound fo Iloilo #it) and 5as ca)in"
!ai6uana. *ctin" on this tip, the) 5aited fo hi! one evenin", appoached hi! as he
descended fo! the "an"plan:, detained hi! and inspected the ba" he 5as ca)in".
Said ba" contained !ai6uana leaves. The #out held that the !ai6uana could not be
ad!itted in evidence since it 5as sei>ed ille"all). The ecods sho5, ho5eve, that
thee 5ee cetain facts, not sin" in the case befoe us, 5hich led the #out to declae
the sei>ue as invalid. *s stated theein3
The pesent case pesented no such u"enc) (o! the conflictin" declaations of the
P# 5itnesses, it is clea that the) had at eact t5o da)s 5ithin 5hich the) could have
obtained a 5aant of aest and seach *!innudin 5ho 5as co!in" to Iloilo on the
MJV Eilcon /. His na!e 5as :no5n. The vehicle 5as identified. The date of its aival
5as cetain. *nd fo! the info!ation the) had eceived, the) could have pesuaded a
6ud"e that thee 5as pobable cause, indeed, to 6ustif) the issuance of a 5aant. Cet
2
the) did nothin". No effot 5as !ade to co!pl) 5ith the la5. The $ill of Ri"hts 5as
i"noed alto"ethe because the P# lieutenant 5ho 5as the head of the aestin" tea!,
had dete!ined on his o5n authoit) that a Kseach 5aant 5as not necessa).K
In contast, the case befoe us pesented u"enc). *lthou"h the tial cout<s decision
did not !ention it, the tanscipt of steno"aphic notes eveals that thee 5as an
info!e 5ho pointed to the accused-appellant as ca)in" !ai6uana. .TSN, pp. -,--@1
(aced 5ith such on-the-spot info!ation, the police offices had to act Auic:l). Thee
5as not enou"h ti!e to secue a seach 5aant. Ee cannot theefoe appl) the ulin"
in Aminnudin to the case at ba. To eAuie seach 5aants duin" on-the-spot
appehensions of du" pushes, ille"al possessos of fiea!s, 6ueten" collectos,
s!u""les of contaband "oods, obbes, etc. 5ould !a:e it e;te!el) difficult, if not
i!possible to contain the ci!es 5ith 5hich these pesons ae associated.
*ccused-appellant li:e5ise assets that the pac:a"e of !ai6uana leaves supposedl)
sei>ed fo! hi! 5as neve authenticated and theefoe should not have been ad!itted
as evidence. He capitali>es on the fact that the !ai6uana pac:a"e bou"ht b)
patol!an Robeto =uevedo to the P# #i!e 8aboato) fo e;a!ination did not
contain a ta" beain" the na!e of the accused. Ee ule, ho5eve, that since
Patol!an =uevedo testified that he "ave the !ai6uana pac:a"e to"ethe 5ith a lette-
eAuest fo e;a!ination, and the foensic che!ist Mailene Salan"ad li:e5ise testified
that she eceived the !ai6uana to"ethe 5ith the lette-eAuest and said lette-eAuest
boe the na!e of the accused, then the eAuie!ents of pope authentication of
evidence 5ee sufficientl) co!plied 5ith. The !ai6uana pac:a"e e;a!ined b) the
foensic chec:list 5as satisfactoil) identified as the one sei>ed fo! accused.
7ven assu!in" a"uendo that the !ai6uana sent to the P# #i!e 8aboato) 5as not
popel) authenticated, still, 5e cannot discount the sepaate field test conducted b)
5itness Robeto =uevedo 5hich )ielded positive esults fo !ai6uana.
8astl), the appellant clai!s that the evidence upon 5hich he 5as convicted 5as
insufficient and doubtful and that the posecution failed to pove his "uilt.
In attac:in" the sufficienc) of evidence, the appellant aves that the info!e should
have been pesented befoe the lo5e cout. Ee discad this a"u!ent as a futile
atte!pt to evive an alead) settled issue. This #out has uled in seveal cases that
non-pesentation of the info!e, 5hee his testi!on) 5ould be !eel) cooboative o
cu!ulative, is not fatal to the posecution<s case. .People v. *sio, 9.R. No. 4%/+2,
Septe!be &, &/4/? .People v. Viola, 9.R. No. +%,+,, Mach &+, &/4/? People v.
#apulon", &+2 S#R* -@@ G&/44H? People v. #eele"ia, &%0 S#R* -@41.
*s to doubtfulness of evidence, 5ell-settled is the ule that findin"s of the tial cout on
the issue of cedibilit) of 5itnesses and thei testi!onies ae entitled to "eat espect
and accoded the hi"hest consideation b) the appellate cout. Since cedibilit) is a
!atte that is peculial) 5ithin the povince of the tial 6ud"e, 5ho had fist hand
oppotunit) to 5atch and obseve the de!eano and behavio of 5itnesses both fo the
posecution and the defense at the ti!e of thei testi!on) .People v. Te6ada, 9.R. No.
4&-,2, (ebua) ,&, &/4/? People v. Tula, &+0 S#R* ,041, 5e find no eason to
distub the follo5in" findin"s3
The testi!on) of posecution 5itnesses Patol!en Silveio =uevedo and Ro!eo
Pun>alan ae positive and sufficientl) clean to sho5 the co!!ission b) the accused of
the offense heein chatted. These posecution 5itnesses have no !otive to fabicate
the facts and to foist a ve) seious offense a"ainst the accused. The :no5led"e on
5hat these 5itnesses testified to 5ee .sic1 acAuied b) the! in the official
pefo!ance of thei duties and then, .sic1 bein" no sho5in" that the) ae pe6udiced
a"ainst the accused, thei testi!onies deseve full cedit.
The testi!onies of the afoe-!entioned petitione that 5hat the) found in the
possession of the accused 5ee !ai6uana leaves 5ee cooboated b) the
e;a!ination findin"s conducted b) Pat. Octobe to Salan"ad of the P##8, 5ith station
at ca!p Olivas, San (enando, Pa!pan"a .7;hibits # and #-&1. .Rollo, p. &&1
Moeove, if thee is tuth in the testi!on) of the accused to the effect that Pat.
Pun>alan "ot all the !one) fo! his 5allet 5hen he 5as accosted at the Victo) 8ine
Te!inal and 5as told 6ust to :eep Auiet othe5ise he 5ill be Ksalva"edK 5h) 5ill Pat.
Pun>alan still bin" the accused to the !unicipal $uildin" fo inteo"ation andJo
veificationL Eould not Pat. Pun>alan be e;posin" his identit) to the accusedL This is
unnatual. *nd this is also tue on the testi!on) to the accused that Pat. Silveio
=uevedo "ot his fift)-peso bill aid neve etuned the sa!e to hi!. If the police!en
eall) "ot an) !one) fo! the accused and that the !ai6uana leaves do not belon" to
the accused, 5h) 5ill the t5o police!en still poduce in #out as evidence that
e;pensive-loo:in" tavelin" ed ba" .7;hibit 91 ta:en fo! the accused and 5hich
contained the !ai6uana in Auestion if the instant case is a !ee fabicationL
*s alead) stated, all the evidence, oal and docu!enta), pesented b) the
posecution in this case 5ee all based on pesonal :no5led"e acAuied b) the
posecution 5itnesses in the e"ula pefo!ance of thei official duties and thee is
nothin" in thei testi!onies to sho5 that the) ae bias .sic1 o that the) have an)
pe6udice a"ainst the heein accused. $et5een the testi!onies of these posecution
5itnesses and that of the uncooboated and self-sevin" testi!on) of the accused,
the fo!e should pevail. .Rollo, p. &@1
8i:e5ise, the appellant chose to li!it his defense to his o5n testi!on). He could have
availed hi!self thou"h co!pulso) cout pocesses of seveal 5itnesses to buttess
his defense. Since not one othe 5itness 5as pesented no 5as an) 6ustification fo
the non-appeaance "iven, the inadeAuac) of his lone and uncooboated testi!on)
e!ains. It cannot pevail "is-a-"is the positive testi!onies "iven b) the posecution
5itnesses. Moeove, the appellant<s havin" 6u!ped bail is a:in to fli"ht 5hich, as
coectl) obseved b) the lo5e cout, is an added cicu!stance tendin" to establish
his "uilt.
Ee ta:e e;ception, ho5eve, to the tial cout<s findin" that3
3
The died !ai6uana leaves found in the possession of the accused 5ei"hs one .&1
:ilo, !oe o less. The intent to tanspot the sa!e is clea fo! the testi!on) of Pat.
Silveio =uevedo 5ho declaed, a!on" othe thin"s, that 5hen he confonted the
accused that ni"ht, the latte told hi! that he .accused1 is bin"in" the !ai6uana
leaves to Olon"apo #it). Moeove, considein" the Auantit) of the !ai6uana leaves
found in the possession of the accused and the place he 5as aested 5hich is at San
(enando, Pa!pan"a, a place 5hee the accused is not esidin", it can be said that
the intent to tanspot the !ai6uana leaves has been cleal) established. .Rollo, pp.
&@-&%1
The alle"ed e;ta6udicial confession of the accused 5hich, on the othe hand, he
cate"oicall) denied in cout, that he is tanspotin" the !ai6uana leaves to Olon"apo
#it) cannot be elied upon. 7ven assu!in" it to be tue, the e;ta6udicial confession
cannot be ad!itted because it does not appea in the ecods that the accused, duin"
custodial investi"ation, 5as appised of his i"hts to e!ain silent and to counsel and
to be info!ed of such i"hts. In !eople ". %uero &2% S#R* @0/ G&/4&H, the #out
ponounced that Kinas!uch as the posecution failed to pove that befoe Dueo !ade
his alle"ed oal confession he 5as info!ed of his i"hts to e!ain silent and to have
counsel and because thee is no poof that he :no5in"l) and intelli"entl) 5aived those
i"hts, his confession is inad!issible in evidence. This ulin" 5as eiteated in !eople
". Tolentino, &%- S#R* -/0 G&/4+H, 5hee the #out added that3
In effect, the #out not onl) abo"ated the ule on pesu!ption of e"ulait) of official
acts elative to ad!issibilit) of state!ents ta:en duin" in-custod) inteo"ation but
li:e5ise dispelled an) doubt as to the full adoption of the &iranda doctine in this
6uisdiction. It is no5 incu!bent upon the posecution to pove duin" a tial that pio to
Auestionin", the confessant 5as 5aned of his constitutionall) potected i"hts.
The tial 6ud"e li:e5ise found the !ai6uana to 5ei"h one :ilo, !oe o less, and fo!
this findin" e;tacted a clea intent to tanspot the !ai6uana leaves. It !a) be pointed
out, ho5eve, that althou"h the info!ation stated the 5ei"ht to be appo;i!atel) one
:ilo, the foensic che!ist 5ho e;a!ined the !ai6uana leaves testified that the
!ai6uana 5ei"hed onl) +22 "a!s Such a!ount is not a consideable Auantit) as to
conclusivel) confe upon the accused an intent to tanspot the !ai6uana leaves. No
can it be said that the intent to tanspot is cleal) established fo! the fact that the
accused 5as aested at San (enando, Pa!pan"a, a place 5hich is not his
esidence. #onviction of a ci!e 5ith an e;te!el) sevee penalt) !ust be based on
evidence 5hich is cleae and !oe convincin" than the infeences in this case. Ehat
5as theefoe poved be)ond easonable doubt is not his intent to tanspot the
!ai6uana leaves but his actual session.
The offense co!!itted b) the appellant is possession of !ai6uana unde Section 4 of
Republic *ct No. +%,- .Dan"eous Du"s *ct of &/0, as a!ended1.
EH7R7(OR7, the 6ud"!ent of conviction b) the tial cout is heeb) *((IRM7D but
MODI(I7D. The appellant is sentenced to suffe the penalt) of i!pison!ent an"in"
fo! si; .+1 )eas and one .&1 da) to t5elve .&,1 )eas and fine of Si; Thousand
.P+,222.221 Pesos. SO ORD7R7D.
4