Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION .
.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
147677
December 1, 2003
-versus-
ROGELIO PIJO
MILADO,
Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:
This is an appeal
from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain
Province,[1]
in Criminal Case No. 1278, convicting appellant Rogelio Pijo Milado for
violation of Section 4, Article III of Republic Act 6425, as amended by
Republic Act 7659, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
to pay a fine of P500,000.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The information against
appellant reads, as follows:
That on or
about March 10, 1999, at Poblacion, Bontoc, Mountain Province, in the
morning
thereof, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously transport five and one fourth (5¼)
kilos
of indian hemp or marijuana leaves, buds and stems in brick form/shape
which was placed/contained in a black traveling bag by then and there
carrying
and bringing said marijuana from Talubin, Bontoc, Mountain Province, to
Poblacion, Bontoc, Mountain Province, knowing fully well that said
marijuana
is a prohibited drug.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Assisted by counsel
de parte, appellant pleaded not guilty to the information. Trial then
ensued
and the court a quo rendered the assailed decision.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A perusal of the
evidence[3]
adduced by the prosecution, reveals that in the morning of March 10,
1999,
Police Officers Dominic Faclangen and Glen Apangchan were on duty at
the
Bontoc Police Station when they received information from their asset
that
a man, coming from Talubin, was transporting marijuana onboard a
passenger
jeepney. The asset described the man as sporting a pony tail, wearing a
white jacket and carrying a bag.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Acting on the information
given, Faclangen and Apangchan proceeded to the edge of Samoki Bridge
at
the Chico River, which separates Samoki and Bontoc, to set up a
checkpoint.
Accompanying them was another police officer, Angel Komowang, whom they
picked up along the way. The policemen flagged down about four or five
vehicles before coming across a jeepney that had on board appellant,
who
fitted the description given by the asset including the fact that he
was
carrying a black bag. Certain that appellant was the man earlier
described
by their asset as the person transporting marijuana, the policemen
boarded
the jeepney and invited appellant and the driver to the police station.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon arriving at the
police station, but while still inside the vehicle, the policemen told
appellant to open the black bag. Appellant opened his bag and the
policemen
found what looked like 6 bricks individually wrapped in newspapers.
After
a laboratory analysis, the bricks were confirmed to be marijuana,
totaling
5,209.2 grams.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant, for his part,
admitted that he took a passenger jeepney bound for Bontoc in the
morning
of March 10, 1999. Onboard with him were some high school students, a
woman
and a 14-year-old child. Along the way, the jeepney picked up a certain
Derick Masilian, whom appellant knew was a policeman. Upon reaching
Bontoc,
the high school students and the woman alighted. The child also tried
to
alight but Masilian stopped him and told the driver to proceed to the
police
station. Along the way, three other policemen boarded the jeepney.
Appellant
tried to ask the policemen why he was being taken to the station, but
he
was told to do his explaining there.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the station, the
child was allowed to go but appellant was taken inside. Appellant was
then
confronted with a black bag that was found inside the jeepney. The
policemen
asked him how many kilos of marijuana were contained inside the bag.
Appellant
answered that he did not know anything about it. He explained that the
bag did not belong to him as he carried with him only a shoulder bag
containing
scissors and a manicure set. He denied transporting marijuana and
claimed
to be only a beautician by profession.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Only one assignment
of error was raised by appellant: The trial court erred in not
considering
the fact that the evidence allegedly seized from the accused was the
product
of an illegal search and seizure and, hence, inadmissible under the
Rules
of Evidence and Article II, Section 3(2) of the Constitution.cralaw:red
The aforecited argument
is without merit.cralaw:red
The general rule is
that a search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of
a valid search warrant. Nevertheless, the Constitutional proscription
against
warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions, such
as:
1) warrantless searches incidental to a lawful arrest; 2) seizures of
evidence
in plain view; 3) searches of a moving vehicle; 4) consented
warrantless
searches; 5) customs searches; 6) stop and frisk searches; and 7)
searches
under exigent and emergency circumstances.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court finds that
the evidence seized from appellant was the product of a search
incidental
to a lawful arrest.cralaw:red
In Sanchez v. Demetriou,[6]
the Court discussed the nature of an arrest:
"Arrest" is
defined under Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court as the taking
of
a person into custody that he may be bound to answer for the commission
of an offense. Under Section 2 of the same Rule, an arrest is effected
by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his voluntary
submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Application of actual
force, manual touching of the body, physical restraint or a formal
declaration
of arrest is not required. It is enough that there be an intention on
the
part of one of the parties to arrest the other and the intent of the
other
to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Going back to this
case, it cannot be denied that when the policemen saw appellant, and
that
he matched the description given to them by the asset, they were
certain
that he was the person they were looking for. It was based on this
conclusion
that appellant was brought to the police station. Although no "formal
arrest"
had yet been made, it is clear that appellant had already been deprived
of his liberty and taken into custody after the policemen told him to
stay
inside the jeepney and instructed the driver to drive them to the
police
station. The term "invited" may have been used by the police, but it
was
obviously a command coming from three law enforcers who appellant could
hardly be expected to defy.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, as a consequence
of appellant's arrest, the policemen were authorized to look at the
contents
of the black bag, on the ground that a contemporaneous search of a
person
arrested may be effected and may extend to areas that are within his
custody
and immediate control.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant tries to make
a case, however, that there was no valid arrest to begin with, as he
was
not committing any crime in full view of the arresting policemen. It is
too late for appellant to raise this object to the manner of his
arrest,
by filing a motion to quash the information prior to his arraignment,
is
deemed a waiver of his right to question the legality of the conduct of
his arrest.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the Court
has reviewed the evidence on record and is convinced beyond reasonable
doubt that the crime charged was committed and that appellant is guilty
thereof.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant's bare denials
cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers who
apprehended him while he was on board a moving vehicle transporting
five
kilos of marijuana.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As noted by the Office
of the Solicitor General:
Appellant
was
caught in the actual commission of a crime. He was, at that time,
transporting
marijuana, an illegal substance under R.A. 6425, as amended, or the
Dangerous
Drugs Law. Considering this and the fact that the prohibited article
was
found on board a moving vehicle, it is the duty of the police officers
to immediately seize the same even in the absence of a warrant.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Neither was this
the first time appellant was arrested for this type of offense.
Appellant
admitted in his testimony that in 1982 he was arrested for possession
of
marijuana in Dantay, Mountain Province. Appellant said he pleaded
guilty
and was sentenced to six years imprisonment and that he applied for
probation.[11]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All told, appellant
has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt under the evidence on
record.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the appealed
Decision is AFFIRMED. Costs de officio.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr.,
C.J.
,
Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago and Carpio,
JJ.
,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Branch 35.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 60.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
TSN, July 29, 1999; TSN, August 12, 1999; TSN, August 25, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
TSN, August 12, 1999, pp. 6–7; 1, 24; Exhibit "E," Records, p. 81.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
227 SCRA 627 (1993).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402 (1997); People v. Chua Ho
San,
308 SCRA 432 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
People v. Lopez, 245 SCRA 95 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
TSN, August 12, 1999, pp. 6–7, 19, 24; August 25, 1999, pp. 4–5, 10–11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Appellee's brief, pp. 8–9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
TSN, March 22, 2000, pp. 12, 15, 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |