THIRD DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
142356
April 14, 2004
-versus-
LITA AYANGAO Y
BATONG-OG,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the February 29, 2000 decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City in Criminal Case
no.
99-1261 convicting the appellant of violating Section 4, Article 2 of
RA
7659, as amended, also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant Lita Ayangao
was charged with transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana in an
information[2]
that read:
That on or about the
13th day of August, 1999, in the Municipality of Mabalacat, Province of
Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,
the above-named accused, LITA AYANGAO y BATONG-OG, without any
authority
of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
dispatch
in transit or transport fifteen (15) bricks of dried marijuana leaves
with
the actual total weight of FOURTEEN KILOGRAMS AND SEVENTY FIVE
HUNDREDTHS
(14.75) of kilogram, a prohibited drug.cralaw:red
The appellant, through
counsel, filed a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged
did
not constitute an offense. This was denied by the trial court. Upon
arraignment,
the appellant pleaded not guilty.[3]
Thereafter, trial ensued.cralaw:red
The prosecution presented
three witnesses: PO3 Nestor Galvez, PO3 Bienvenido Sagum and Chief
Forensic
Chemist Daisy Panganiban-Babor. The prosecution’s version[4]
of the facts, as aptly summarized by the trial court, was:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Two weeks before August
13, 1999, PO3 Bienvenido Sagum and PO3 Nestor A. Galvez, members of the
Criminal Detection and Intelligence Group based at Diamond Subdivision,
Balibago, Angeles City, received information from one of their
informants
that a certain woman from Mountain Province delivers dried marijuana
leaves
for sale at Sapang Biabas, Mabalacat, Pampanga to some drug pushers.
Said
information was also relayed by the informant to C/Insp. Rhodel O.
Sermonia
who instructed the two operatives to conduct surveillance operation
against
their target female who was described by their informant as about 50
years
old, 5 feet in height, straight long hair and coming from Kalinga
province.cralaw:red
At around 5:00 o’clock
in the morning of August 13, 1999, their informant went to their
headquarters
and informed them that their suspect is due to arrive at Sapang Biabas,
Mabalacat. PO3 Sagum and PO3 Galvez, together with the informant,
immediately
went to Sapang Biabas and parked their car near the entrance of the
road
going to Sapang Biabas. While they were in their car, the informer
pointed
to them a woman bearing the same description given by the former. The
woman
alighted from the tricycle and subsequently loaded two sacks with
camote
fruits on top. The two officers proceeded to the place where the woman
was and noticed marijuana dried leaves protruding through a hole of one
of the sacks. Sagum and Galvez introduced themselves as police officers
and requested the woman to put out the contents of the said sacks. The
sacks yielded sweet potatoes mixed with 15 brick-like substance wrapped
in brown paper and masking tape. A brick, which was damaged on the side
and in plain view of the officers revealed dried marijuana leaves. The
woman who was arrested identified herself as accused Lita Ayangao y
Batong-Og
of Lacnog, Agbanawag Tabuk, Kalinga Province. Ayangao and the suspected
dried marijuana leaves were brought to the police officer’s headquarter
at Diamond Subdivision, Angeles City. The evidence confiscated from the
accused were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Olivas where it
was
examined by Chief Forensic Chemist Daisy P. Babor. The Initial
Laboratory
Report issued indicated that the specimens from the 15 bricks of
suspected
dried marijuana leaves weighing 14.75 kilograms were found to be
positive
for marijuana.cralaw:red
The defense, through
the testimonies of the appellant and Reynaldo Nunag, purok chairman of
Sitio Makabakle, presented a different version, again summarized by the
trial court:[5]
Accused Lita Ayangao
denied the charge made against her and alleged that she has nothing to
do with the marijuana allegedly found in her possession. She went to
Sapang
Biabas "Marimar," Camachile, Mabalacat, Pampanga from Tabuk, Kalinga
Province
on August 13, 1999 only upon the request of a certain Magda Dumpao.
Allegedly,
Magda bought a house in Mawaque, Mabalacat and learned that it was
being
sold again. Magda then requested her (accused) to talk to Jaime Alarcon
who acted as Magda’s agent in buying the house. It was Magda who
instructed
her on how to go to the house of Jaime Alarcon. She arrived at the
house
of Alarcon at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning and was welcomed
inside
by Gloria and Jocelyn Alarcon, Jaime’s wife and daughter-in-law. As
Jaime
was not around, she asked the Alarcon’s permission if she can have a
nap.
Gloria and Jocelyn allowed her to sleep on the sofa and while she was
resting,
at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, somebody knocked at the door.
Gloria
opened it and two men, who identified themselves as CIS agents, told
Gloria
that they were looking for somebody who came from Baguio City. One of
the
men went to where she was then lying and asked Gloria who she was.
Gloria
answered that she came from Tabuk. The police officers asked her
(accused)
to go with them as they wanted to talk to her. When she refused, the
policemen
forced her out of the house and boarded her to their car. While she was
inside the car, she saw a sack and a carton box. The police brought her
to their headquarters at Diamond Subd., Angeles City. She was made to
sit
in a chair and in her view, the sack was opened and its contents were
placed
in (sic) a table. She then heard from the policemen that the contents
of
the sack were marijuana and accused her of owning it.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Reynaldo Nunag, purok
chairman of Sitio Makabakle, Marimar, Biabas, Mabalacat, Pampanga,
testified
that, as tricycle driver whose terminal is near the house of Jaime
Alarcon,
he did not see any unusual incident that happened in said vicinity in
the
morning of August 13, 1999. He also did not see how the accused was
arrested
and did not see the policemen’s car.cralaw:red
The trial court found
the prosecution’s version to be credible, reasoning that appellant’s
defense
of frame-up was not supported by evidence and thus could not prevail
over
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The law enforcer’s
testimonies
carried the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties.
The dispositive portion of the decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, accused Lita Ayangao y Batong-og is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable
doubt of violating Section 4 of Article II of R.A. 6425 as amended by
R.A.
7659 by transporting fourteen kilograms and seventy five hundredths
(14.75)
of a kilogram of marijuana, a prohibited drug, without authority. Said
accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Accused Lita Ayangao-Batong-og (sic) is further ordered to pay a fine
of
five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.[6]
The following assignments
of error are raised in this appeal:[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
I.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES DESPITE EXISTING SERIOUS INCONSISTENCIES AND INCREDIBILITY
THEREBY
CREATING DOUBT REGARDING THEIR TRUTHFULNESS AND CREDIBILITY.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT CONSIDERING FAVORABLY THE DEFENSE OF ALIBI AS A GROUND FOR
ACQUITTAL
OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT IN SPITE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE WHICH IS INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
IN HER FAVOR.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED
IN NOT ACQUITTING HEREIN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ON GROUND OF REASONABLE
DOUBT.
IV.
THE LOWER COURT
ERRED
IN FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE APPREHENDING OFFICERS VIOLATED
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S
MIRANDA RIGHTS.
After a thorough review
of the records, this Court finds that the prosecution was able to
discharge
its burden of proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The
decision of the trial court was supported by the evidence on record.cralaw:red
Regarding the credibility
of witnesses, this Court has ruled time and again that this is a matter
best assessed by the trial court judge since he has the opportunity to
observe the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the stand.8 Besides,
in this case, the inconsistencies criticized by the appellant were
minor
ones involving negligible details which did not negate the truth of the
witnesses’ testimonies nor detract from their credibility.[9]
Appellant also assigns
as error the illegality of her arrest because she was not read her
Miranda
rights. (This is in addition to her argument that the 15 bricks of
marijuana
were inadmissible since the warrantless search was invalid, not having
been made pursuant to a lawful arrest.) This contention is without
merit
since this Court has repeatedly ruled that, by entering a plea upon
arraignment
and by actively participating in the trial, an accused is deemed to
have
waived any objection to his arrest and warrantless search.[10]
Any objection to the arrest or acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person
of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the
objection
is deemed waived.[11]
Here, in submitting herself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when
she entered a plea of not guilty and participated in the trial, the
appellant
waived any irregularity that may have attended her arrest.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Assuming, however, that
there was no such waiver, pursuant People vs. Barros,[13]
reiterated in People vs. Aruta,[14]
the waiver of the non-admissibility of the "fruits" of an invalid
warrantless
arrest and warrantless search and seizure is not to be casually
presumed
for the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and
seizures
to retain vitality. The Court finds that the arrest was lawful as
appellant
was actually committing a crime when she was arrested — transporting
marijuana,
are act prohibited by law. Since a lawful arrest was made, the
resulting
warrantless search on appellant was also valid as the legitimate
warrantless
arrest authorized the arresting police officers to validly search and
seize
from the offender (1) any dangerous weapons and (2) the things which
may
be used as proof of the commission of the offense.[15]
In the present case,
the warrantless arrest was lawful because it fell under Rule 113,
Section
5(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This section provides
that a peace officer may arrest a person even without a warrant when,
in
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing
or is attempting to commit an offense. However, the police officer
should
be spurred by probable cause in making the arrest. Although the term
eludes
exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of
suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant
a cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the
offense
with which he is charged.[16]
The determination of probable cause must be resolved according to the
facts
of each case. In this case, the arresting officers had probable cause
to
make the arrest in view of the tip they received from their informant.
This Court has already ruled that tipped information is sufficient
probable
cause to effect a warrantless search.[17]
Although the apprehending officers received the tip two weeks prior to
the arrest, they could not be faulted for not applying for a search
warrant
inasmuch as the exact date of appellant’s arrival was not known by the
informant. Apprehending officer PO3 Sagum testified[18]
as follows:
Q So what were the information
given you by your informer?
A Ang kausap po nila
iyong hepe namin[g] si Maj. Rhodel Sermonia tapos po sinabi lang po sa
amin ni Maj. Sermonia ang sinabi ng informant.cralaw:red
Q So you did not hear
the report of the informant?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What was the information
given by your superior?
A He told us that somebody
will be delivering marijuana at Sapang Bayabas and the informer knew
the
person.cralaw:red
Q Give us the complete
report?
A Sinabi po ng hepe
namin na sinabi ng informant na merong babaeng magdedeliver ng
marijuana
sa Sapang Bayabas at babalik daw po siya kung kailan magdedeliver.cralaw:red
Q On the date in question
August 13 at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning you were in your office?
A We were already at
Sapang Bayabas, sir.cralaw:red
Q Which is which now?
A Nasa Sapang Bayabas
na po, sir.cralaw:red
Q Before going to Sapang
Bayabas where did you come from?
A We were in the office,
sir.cralaw:red
Q What time where you
in the office?
A That is where we were
sleeping.cralaw:red
Q You were sleeping
there?
A Yes, sir, we are stay-in.cralaw:red
Q And then what happened?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Our informant came,
sir.cralaw:red
Q What time?
A 5:00 o’clock, sir.cralaw:red
Q What was the purpose
of the informant?
A Sinabi po niya sa
amin na darating na raw po iyong ano.cralaw:red
Q I thought that your
superior already informed you that the suspect or the accused will be
arriving
at 6:00 o’clock the first time?
A Sabi po sa amin noong
magpunta iyong informer sa office namin August 13 darating daw po iyong
babae.cralaw:red
Q It was on August 13
when he said that?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q Who was he talking
with then?
A Iyong Chief po namin
tapos kinausap ko rin po siya.cralaw:red
Q What time was that?
A Before 5:00, sir.cralaw:red
Q So they were talking
before 5:00 with your Chief?
A Yes, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q Where were you?
A I was outside, sir.cralaw:red
Q So you were not listening
to them?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q So you do not know
what they have talked about?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q And then what were
the instruction given by your superior?
A He said we will proceed
to Sapang Bayabas because there is a lady going there bringing
marijuana.cralaw:red
Q Did you ask the identity
of the woman?
A Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q What did he say?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A About 50 years of
age, 5 feet and with straight long hair?
Q How about the name,
was the name given to you?
A No, sir, he just said
she came from Kalinga.cralaw:red
Q Aside from that, was
the quantity of the drugs given to you that was to be brought?
A No, sir.cralaw:red
Q So you just learned
that the woman will be arriving at Sapang Bayabas at 6:00 o’clock?
A I do not know the
time she is arriving.cralaw:red
Q He did not tell you?
A He does not know,
sir.cralaw:red
Q The informant did
not tell you?
A Yes, sir, he just
said she will be coming in Sapang Bayabas.cralaw:red
Q You did not ask for
the time?
A He does not know,
sir.cralaw:red
Q What about the particular
place where the woman will deliver the drugs?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A Hindi niya po alam
basta doon sa entrance daw po ng Sapang Bayabas doon na po kami
mag-istambay.
(Emphasis and Italics supplied).cralaw:red
Although there was testimony
by PO3 Galvez that the informant told them the exact date of arrival,
the
trial court gave more weight to the testimony of PO3 Sagum that stated
otherwise, as evidenced by his finding that the informant arrived at
the
police station at 5:00 A.M. on August 13, 1999 and informed them that
the
appellant was arriving at 6:00 A.M.[19]
The judgment call of the trial court on which of these two conflicting
testimonies to believe should prevail because it involved the
assessment
of the credibility of witnesses.[20]
Thus, without proof that some facts or circumstances of weight or
substance
having a bearing on the result of the case have been overlooked,
misunderstood
or misapplied, this Court will not overturn such finding as the judge
was
in a better position to observe the demeanor of the two witnesses.[21]
In those cases where
this Court invalidated a warrantless search on the ground that the
officers
could have applied for a search warrant, the concerned officers
received
the tip either days prior to the arrival or in the afternoon of a
working
day. In People vs. Aminudin,[22]
this Court found that the officers received the tip two days prior to
the
actual date of arrival of accused Aminudin. In People vs. Encinadak,[23]
the police officers were tipped off at 4:00 P.M. on May 20, 1992 that
accused
Encinada would arrive at 7:00 A.M. the next day. Thus, the officers had
time to obtain search warrants inasmuch as Administrative Circulars 13
and 19 of the Supreme Court allowed the application for search warrants
even after office hours. In People vs. Aruta,[24]
the police officers received the information on December 13, 1988 that
accused Aruta would arrive on a Victory Liner Bus at 6:30 P.M. on
December
14, 1999, giving them a day to obtain a warrant.cralaw:red
In the present case,
the informant arrived at the police station at 5:00 A.M. on August 13,
1999 and informed the officers that the appellant would be arriving at
6:00 A.M. (just an hour later) that day. The circumstances clearly
called
for an immediate response from the officers. In People vs. Valdez,[25]
this Court upheld the validity of the warrantless arrest and
corresponding
search of accused Valdez as the officer made the arrest on the strength
of a similar on-the-spot tip. In the case at bar, though all other
pertinent
details were known by the officers except the date, they could not have
applied for a search warrant since the validity of a warrant was only
for
10 days.[26]
Considering that the officers did not know when the appellant was going
to arrive, prudence made them act the way they did.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The appellant also faults
the trial court for failing to give weight to her defense of alibi.
Appellant’s
alibi could not prevail over the overwhelming evidence presented by the
prosecution. Alibi as a defense is inherently weak[27]
and for it to serve as basis for an acquittal, the accused must
establish
by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at
the
time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) the physical
impossibility
to be at the scene of the crime.[28]
The appellant failed to meet these two requirements. Jaime Alarcon’s
house
where appellant claimed to be sleeping at the time of her arrest, was
only
10 meters from the tricycle terminal where she was arrested by the
officers.[29]
Thus, the trial court was correct in ruling that the alibi of appellant
was not enough to acquit her of the charges.cralaw:red
With the effectivity
of RA 7659, Section 4 of RA 6425, provides the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P10,000,000 if the
marijuana
involved weighs 750 grams or more. Since the penalty is composed of two
indivisible penalties, the rules for applying the penalties in Article
63 of the Revised Penal Code are applicable, pursuant to the ruling in
People vs. Simon[30]
wherein the Court recognized the suppletory application of the rules on
penalties in the Revised Penal Code and the Indeterminate Sentence Law
to the Dangerous Drugs Act after its amendment by RA 7659. Thus, as the
appellant was found to be transporting 14.75 kilograms of marijuana,
the
trial court was correct in imposing the lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua
since there was no aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and in not
applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law which is not applicable when indivisible
penalties are imposed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the judgment
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, of Angeles City, finding the
appellant
guilty of transporting a prohibited drug and sentencing her to
reclusion
perpetua and to pay the fine of P500,000, is hereby AFFIRMED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Morales, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Eliezer R. de los Santos.
[2]
Records, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Records, p. 40.
[4]
Records, p. 139-140.
[5]
Records, p. 141-142.
[6]
Records, p. 145.
[7]
Rollo, p. 45-46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People vs. Sullano, 331 SCRA 649 [2000]; People vs. Encinada, 280 SCRA
72, 82 [1997].
[9]
Madrid vs. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 570 [2000].
[10]
People vs. Mandraga, 344 SCRA 628 [2000].
[11]
People vs. Tidula, 292 SCRA 596 [1998].
[12]
People vs. Lagarto, 326 SCRA 693 [2000].
[13]
231 SCRA 557 [1994].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
288 SCRA 626 [1998].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Section 13, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure [2000].
[16]
People vs. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 [1999].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Supra, citing People vs. Aruta; People vs. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703
[1998].
[18]
TSN, January 19, 2000, p. 14-17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Records, p. 139.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
People vs. Encinada, 280 SCRA 72 [1997].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
People vs. Mendoza, 327 SCRA 695 [2000]; People vs. Albao, 287 SCRA 129
[1998].
[22]
163 SCRA 402 [1988].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
280 SCRA 72 [1997].
[24]
Supra note 8.
[25]
Supra note 16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Section 10 Rule 126, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
[27]
People vs. Milliam, 324 SCRA 155 [2000].chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[28]
People vs. Suelto, 325 SCRA 41 [2000].
[29]
TSN, January 19, 2000, p. 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[30]
234 SCRA 555 [1994]. |