G.R. No.

229940, September 10, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JIMBOY SUICO Y ACOPE, Accused-

Appellant.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This is an appeal filed by appellant Jimboy Suico y  Acope from the October 21, 2016
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R CR-HC No. 01329- MIN, affirming the July 25,
2014 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay City, Branch 8, in Criminal Case
No. 22228-11, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal transportation of
dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 3 otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in an Information 4 which
reads:

That on or about the 4th day of September 2011, in the morning, at Purok 12, Poblacion,
municipality of Cabanglasan, province of Bukidnon, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously keep, hold and possess and transport marijuana leaves with fruiting tops with the
use of a motorcycle – motor star color red with a combination of black and gray without plate
number, with an aggregate weight of 2,400 grams, [per] Chemistry Report No. D-101-
2011BUK, without authority nor permit from the government to possess the same.

CONTRARY to and in violation of Article II Section 5, R.A 9165.5

During arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution's evidence, consisting of the testimonies of Police Chief Inspector Ellen
Variacion-Avanzado (PCI Avanzado), PO3 Joevin Paciente (PO3 Paciente), PO1 Nelber Berdon
(PO1 Berdon), and PO3 Glenn Agpalza (PO3 Agpalza), as summarized by the appellate court, is
as follows:

[In] the morning of 4 September 2011, at around 8:30 x x x an Alert Team composed of five
police officers, namely: the Chief of Police of Cabanglasan, Bukidnon, Police Inspector Erwin R.
Naelga (PINSP Naelga), PO3 Joevin Paciente (PO3 Paciente), PO2 Rowland Linaban, PO1 Nelber
Berdon (PO1 Berdon), and PO1 Christopher Sibayan were at Purok 12, Brgy. Poblacion,
Cabangsalan, Bukidnon to set-up and man a checkpoint to implement a 'no plate, no travel'
policy.

At around 9:00 in the morning, while the Team was manning the checkpoint, PINSP Nealga
received a text message from an informant saying that there is an approaching red Motorstar
motorcycle with a black and gray color combination driven by a person carrying a backpack and
a yellow sack containing marijuana.
At around 9:30 in the morning, the members of the team saw a motorcycle approaching the
checkpoint. Upon seeing the checkpoint, the motorcycle immediately made a u-turn, however,
the driver of the motorcycle fell down. The driver then disembarked from the motorcycle and
then attempted to run. However, one of the members of the team was able to hold the
backpack of the driver after he fell down and the other members of the team requested him to
open it. Subsequently, the driver admitted that he was carrying marijuana. He thereafter
opened the backpack, which contained 2 bundles of fresh marijuana, and the yellow sack,
which also contained two bundles of fresh marijuana.

After confiscating the backpack and the sack containing marijuana, the driver of the motorcycle
was apprised of his Constitutional rights and thereafter taken to the police station where an
inventory of the seized items was made. The preparation of the said inventory was witnessed
by the Municipal Mayor of Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. Photographs were taken after the inventory
of the confiscated items.

After making the inventory, the members of the Team turned over the confiscated items to the
duty investigator at that time, [PO3 Agpalza], who after marking them, brought the items to the
Provincial Crime Laboratory together with the members of the apprehending team.

At around 3:30 in the afternoon, [PCI Avanzado] received a request for a crime laboratory
examination signed by PINSP Naelga together wi1h specimens contained in the backpack and
yellow sack brought by PO3 Agpalza. After conducting a qualitative examination on the
specimens, all four gave a positive result for being marijuana.6

The evidence for the defense, meanwhile, consisted of the lone testimony of the appellant
himself Appellant denied liability and claimed that he was framed-up. His testimony, as
summarized by the appellate court, is as follows:

On September 4, 2011, [appellant] was at Sitio Luringan, Caban[g]lasan, Bukidnon peddling

generic medicines. While driving his motorcycle on his way home, an armed group of 15
indigenous peoples known as the Lumads blocked his way, held his shoulders, and took the key
of his motorcycle.

The Lumads then made [appellant] go down from his motorcycle and took his backpack
containing money and the medicines that he was selling. The Lumads then scattered the
contents of the backpack on the ground and divided it among themselves.

[Appellant's] hands were then tied behind his back with a rope by 1he Lumads. He was then
made to ride his motorcycle together with two Lumads who took him to a two-storey house in
the town center of Cabanglasan, Bukidnon.

After about 15 minutes, two motorcycles driven by the companions of the Lumads who brought
[appellant] to the house, arrived. They brought with them the backpack that they took from
[appellant] and a sack that contained marijuana.

[Appellant] then overheard the owner of the house where he was brought calling the Mayor of
Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. After twenty minutes, two people arrived in the house, one introducing
himself to the owner of the house as the Mayor. [Appellant] then narrated to the Mayor what
happened but he did not listen to him.

The Mayor then called the police, who arrived after ten minutes. The police officers then untied
[appellant] to replace the rope with a handcuff. They then forced [appellant] to point to the
backpack and the bag containing marijuana while they took pictures of him. He was then
brought to the police station.7

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In a Decision8 dated July 25, 2014, the RTC held that the prosecution had established beyond
reasonable doubt the culpability of appellant for illegal transportation of marijuana through the
positive and credible testimonies of witnesses who were law enforcers. The RTC did not give
credence to appellant's defense of frame-up, denial and alibi as they were inherently weak and
could not prevail over the positive assertions of police witnesses. The RTC found that the
warrantless search and seizure made by the apprehending officers was valid and that the chain
of custody requirements were substantially complied with. The RTC thus ruled:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, accused Jimboy Suico y Acope is hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of [v]iolation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby
sentenced, as mandated under the said provision, to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and for him to PAY
A FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos.

The dangerous drugs submitted as evidence in this case are ordered transmitted to the PDEA
for destruction and/or disposition in conformity with pertinent laws, rules and regulations.

SO ORDERED.9

Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Appellant argued that there was failure to preserve the integrity of the
seized marijuana because of the serious lapses committed by the arresting team in complying
with the procedure in the custody and disposition of seized drugs. He claimed that the
prosecution failed to sufficiently establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the corpus
delicti of the offense charged.

In a Decision10 dated October 21, 2016, the CA sustained the conviction of appellant. It held
that the warrantless search and seizure was validly conducted and that the illegal transportation
of dangerous drugs by appellant was adequately established. It affirmed the RTC's disquisition
that appellant's lone testimony could not prevail over the positive testimony of the police
authorities who were presumed to have regularly performed their official duties in the absence
of any ill motive.

The CA likewise ruled that the totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution pointed to an
unbroken chain of custody from the moment the four bundles of marijuana were seized from
appellant up to the time these were presented in court. The CA explained that the prosecution
was able to "categorically demonstrate that the items seized from [appellant] at the checkpoint
were the same ones marked by the police, tested at the crime laboratory, and introduced,
identified, testified to and offered in open court."11 The CA held that the chain of custody rule
was substantially complied with as the identity and integrity of the seized drugs had not been
compromised.

Hence, appellant instituted this present appeal, arguing in his Appellant's Brief 12 that the failure
of the prosecution to prove compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA
9165 regarding the preservation of the seized item's evidentiary integrity must necessarily lead
to his acquittal. Appellant maintains that the arresting officers' failure to immediately mark the
items upon seizure raised a reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti of the
offense charged. He likewise argues that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the
seized items because the evidence merely showed that the marking was done in the presence
of the arresting team and not in his presence. Appellant also mentions a glaring gap in the
chain of custody of the confiscated item since the officer who received the specimen in the
crime laboratory did not testify. Appellant further doubts the veracity of his arrest.

Our Ruling

The appeal is unmeritorious.

Appellant's arrest was valid. The warrantless search and seizure was valid.

At the outset, it should be emphasized that appellant can no longer question the legality of his
arrest which should have been raised in a motion to quash the Information filed prior to his
arraignment. When he failed to file such motion, appellant was deemed to have submitted
himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court which precluded him from questioning the legality of
his arrest.13

In any event, the arrest of appellant and the incidental search and seizure of appellant's
backpack and sack containing marijuana were both valid. The arresting team in this case was
tasked to man a checkpoint in  Purok 12, Poblacion, Cabanglasan, Bukidnon in the
implementation of a "no plate, no travel" policy. PINSP Naelga received information that a
person carrying a backpack and yellow sack suspected of containing marijuana was riding a red
with black and gray combination Motorstar motorcycle and was bound for Poblacion.14 When
the motorcycle approached the checkpoint, the driver (appellant) immediately made a u-turn
and fell down from the motorcycle.15 Appellant then attempted to run but one of the police
officers, PO1 Berdon, managed to grab and get a hold of the backpack and yellow sack of
appellant.16 Upon the request of the arresting officers, appellant opened the backpack while
admitting that what was inside was dried marijuana.17 The arresting officers saw two bundles of
dried marijuana inside the backpack and another two bundles of dried marijuana in the yellow
sack.18 The arresting officers thereafter apprised appellant of his legal rights and brought
appellant and the illegal drugs to the police station.19

Normally, "searches and seizures are x x x unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued
search warrant or warrant of arrest."20 However, searches incidental to lawful arrests, as in this
case, are allowed even without a warrant.21 As correctly ruled by both the lower courts, the
police officers had probable cause to justify the belief that appellant was an offender of the law
and that the contents of the backpack and sack he was carrying were instruments of an offense
not only in light of the confidential tip they received from an informant but also because of
appellant's peculiar acts of making a sudden u-turn before reaching the checkpoint and
attempting to run when the motorcycle he was driving crashed. Indeed, the arresting officers
were impelled to effect the arrest and seizure because of a probable cause. Given that the
search was valid, the arrest was likewise lawful because it was made upon the discovery of the
prohibited drug in appellant's possession.

Illegal transportation of dangerous drugs was established

"The essential element of the charge of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another." 22 As used under the Dangerous
Drugs Act, "transport" means "to carry or convey from one place to another." 23 The fact of an
actual conveyance or transportation itself is sufficient to support a finding that the criminal act
was committed.24

Here, it was well established during trial that appellant was caught carrying a backpack and
sack with bundles of marijuana when he was flagged down on board his motorcycle. The
prosecution had proven in the trial the fact of transportation of dangerous drugs. Appellant's
denial and defense of frame-up cannot be given credence. The Court has ruled that "[these]
defenses x x x, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can just
as easily be concocted x x x."25 We agree with the lower courts that appellant's unsubstantiated
lone testimony cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the police officers in view of the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty and in the absence of any improper
motive.26

The integrity and evidentiary value of seized drugs were preserved. There was an unbroken
chain of custody.

Appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of evidence
fails to sway. The testimonies of PO3 Paciente and PO1 Berdon revealed that, after the
confiscation of the black backpack and yellow sack with four bundles of marijuana at the
checkpoint, the members of the apprehending team led by PINSP Naelga brought appellant and
the confiscated items to the police station and turned them over to PO3 Agpalza who was the
duty investigator at that time. The prosecution's documentary and testimonial evidence showed
that the marking, physical inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items were all
done at the police station and witnessed by Rogelio C. Castillanes, the Municipal Mayor of
Cabanglasan, Bukidnon. PO3 Agpalza then testified that, after marking the items, he personally
brought the same to the Bukidnon Provincial Crime Laboratory for examination of the forensic
chemist, PCI Avanzado. PCI Avanzado in turn categorically testified that he received the illegal
drugs and that the examination yielded a positive result for marijuana.

Contrary to the assertion of appellant, there was compliance with the provision of Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 1064027 which provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous

Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, x x x
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, That the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That
noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

Here, the physical inventory was made at the police station by the apprehending
officers/arresting team as shown by their signatures in the Receipt/Inventory of Property
Seized.28 As the law now stands, the apprehending officer has the option whether to mark,
inventory, and photograph the seized items immediately at the place where the drugs were
seized, or at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer,
whichever is the most practicable or suitable for the purpose. In this case, the apprehending
officers found it more practicable to mark, inventory, and photograph the seized drugs at the
police station. As aptly noted by the CA, the marking at the place of confiscation which was a
checkpoint was rather difficult considering that it was in the middle of a public road.

Other than appellant's bare assertion, there appears nothing in the record to prove that
appellant was absent during the inventory, marking, and taking of photographs. On the other
hand, the evidence extant in the record shows that the appellant himself, together with the
seized items, were turned over at the police station and that photographs were taken of the
illegal drugs and appellant. There is no doubt that the seized illegal drugs were marked,
inventoried, and photographed in the presence of appellant.

Appellant argues that the inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to who
was in possession of the seized items from the place of arrest to the police station cast doubt
on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. We find no apparent
inconsistencies in the testimonies that will dent the case of the prosecution. PO3 Paciente
testified that the seized items were turned over to the police station by the five police officers of
the apprehending team which was led by PINSP Naelga.29 This was corroborated by PO1 Berdon
when he stated that it was he who held the backpack and sack upon confiscation and handed
them over to PINSP Naelga who in turn brought the items to the police station.30 It has been
held that "[t]estimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and
relevant details concerning the principal occurrence."31 The identity of the person who actually
held the backpack and sack is immaterial. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs. In this case, there was no evidence
that the four bundles of marijuana found inside the backpack and sack were altered, tampered
with, contaminated, substituted, exchanged, or planted.
Appellant finally argues that the absence of testimony of PO1 Romeo Adlaon, Jr. (PO1 Adlaon),
the officer who received the specimen in the crime laboratory, was fatal and constituted a
glaring gap in the chain of custody. We are not swayed by appellant's argument that the non-
presentation of PO1 Adlaon as witness was fatal to the prosecution's case. As the Court held
in People v. Padua:32

[N]ot all [the] people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in
court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that
imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly
established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly
the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession
of the drugs should take the witness stand. x x x

The testimony of forensic chemist, PCI Avanzado, categorically demonstrated that the items he
tested/examined at the crime laboratory were the same ones seized from appellant as specified
in the inventory prepared by the apprehending team. Hence, we find the integrity of the drugs
seized intact and entertain no doubt that the drugs seized from appellant were the same ones
submitted for examination.

In fine, we sustain the trial court and the CA's finding that the requirements under RA 9165
have been sufficiently complied with. In light of the prosecution's evidence, both testimonial
and documentary, the lower courts correctly concluded that the identity, integrity and probative
value of the seized marijuana were adequately preserved. The prosecution has sufficiently
established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana, from the time the
apprehending officers seized the drugs to the time it was brought to the police station, then to
the crime laboratory for testing until the same was offered in evidence before the court.

The Court, therefore, sustains the conviction of appellant. As to the penalty, Article II, Section 5
of RA 9165 prescribes that the penalties for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs shall be
life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Thus, we
find the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 imposed by the trial court and
affirmed by the CA in order and proper.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed October 21, 2016 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01329-MIN, affirming the July 25, 2014 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City, Branch 8, in Criminal Case No. 22228-11, finding
appellant Jimboy Suico y  Acope GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal transportation of
dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro, C.J., (Chairperson), Bersamin, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.

Tijam, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:
1
 CA rollo, pp. 110-127; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and concurred in
by Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño.

2
 Records, pp. 63-98; penned by Presiding Judge Isobel G. Barroso.

3
 AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

4
 Records, pp. 2-3.

5
 Id. at 2.

6
 CA rollo, pp. 111-113.

7
 Id. at 113-114.

8
 Records, pp. 63-98.

9
 Id. at 97-98.

10
 CA rollo, pp. 110-127.

11
 Id. at 125.

12
 Id. at 23-37.

13
People v. Lara, 692 Phil. 469, 483 (2012).
14
 TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 6-8; TSN, February 4, 2014, pp. 6-8.

15
 Id. at 9; id. at 9.

16
 TSN, February 4, 2014, p. 10.

17
 TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 9-10.

18
 Id.; TSN, February 4, 2014, pp. 12-13.

19
 Id. at 16; Id. at 14.

20
Veridiano v. People, G.R. No. 200370, June 7, 2017, 826 SCRA 382, 397-398.
21
People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212,227-228 (2014).
22
People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509,522 (2016).
23
People v. Morilla, 726 Phil. 244, 252 (2014).
24
People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315, 333-334 (2010).
25
People v. Ygot, 790 Phil. 236, 241 (2016).
26
People v. Pasion, 752 Phil. 359, 369-370 (2015).
27
 AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9I65, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002". Approved July 15, 2014.

28
 Records, p. 8.

29
 TSN, September 10, 2013, p. 34.

30
 TSN, February 4, 2014, p. 27.

31
People v. Libnao, 443 Phil. 506, 519 (2003).
32
 639 Phil. 235, 251 (2010).

January 18, 2016

G.R. No. 206224

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JUAN ASISLO y MATIO, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before Us is a Notice of Appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated June 1, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04081, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated July 21, 2009 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC),  Branch 61, Baguio City, finding the accused-appellant Juan
Asislo y  Matio guilty of illegal sale of marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act (R.A.)  No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.

On May 14, 2008, accused-appellant Asislo, Jose Astudillo, and Samuel Pal-iwen were similarly
charged with the violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
That on or about the 13th day of May, 2008 in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and
mutually aiding one another, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously deliver and
transport NINETY-ONE (91) BRICKS and TWO (2) TUBE TYPE OF DRIED MARIJUANA LEA YES,
a dangerous drug, in different sizes, thickness, and weight, weighing a total of ONE HUNDRED
TEN (110) KILOGRAMS, to PDEA undercover agents, knowing fully well that said "marijuana
dried leaves" are dangerous drugs, in violation of the abovementioned provision of law.3

During the arraignment, all of the accused entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, the trial on
the merits ensued.

As found by the trial court, the prosecution presented the following version of the events
leading to the arrest of all the accused:

Sometime in the second week of April 2008, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera
Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR)  Office received intelligence information from PDEA-La Union
about the proliferation and distribution of marijuana in La Union, and the same revealed that
the accused Juan Asislo had delivered a huge volume of marijuana in Baguio City to an
unidentified buyer sometime in the first week of April 2008. Regional Director PCI Edgar S.
Apalla directed IAl Ferdinand Natividad to coordinate and communicate with PDEA-La Union to
build a case against Asislo.4

In the third week of April 2008, the confidential infonnant, "Jojo", arrived at the Office of PDEA-
CAR in Baguio City and introduced himself. Natividad instructed him to continue dealing with
Asislo, and to inform them of any developments regarding Asislo's alleged illicit activities. On
April 28, 2008, Jojo reported that he met Asislo along with his unidentified companions. Asislo
asked him to look for a buyer of the 300 kilos of marijuana in exchange for a commission.
Natividad ordered Jojo to inform Asislo that a buyer from Manila was interested to purchase 200
kilos of marijuana.5

On May 2, 2008, Jojo reported that Asislo disclosed that the prevailing price of marijuana was
Pl,500.00 per kilo. Per Natividad's instruction, Jojo apprised Asislo that the buyer from Manila
who was willing to buy 200 kilos of marijuana will be in Baguio for a vacation. In a phone call,
Asislo insisted in talking with the buyer. Natividad talked with him through the phone
and..reiterated to him his interest to buy 200 kilos of dried marijuana leaves. However, Asislo
notified him that he only had around 100 kilos of marijuana leaves. Natividad settled with
Asislo, and asked the latter to wait for his call for the delivery of the marijuana.6

On May 8, 2008, Asislo called Natividad that they were prepared to deliver about 110 kilos of
marijuana on May 13, 2008. Upon learning the negotiations of Natividad with Asislo, PCI Apalla
formed the team for the entrapment operation composing of Natividad as the poseur-buyer,
SPO4 Romeo Abordo as the team leader, and SPO2 Cabily Agbayani and SPO1 Emerson
Lingbawan as the members of the back-up team and arresting officers.7

In the evening of May 12, 2008, they agreed to have their transaction within the vicinity of
Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio City, near a certain "car wash" area between 7 o'clock and 8
o'clock in the morning on May 13, 2008.8
Around 5 o'clock in the morning on May 13, 2008, the entrapment and arresting team
proceeded to the area. Asislo related to Natividad that he was with other four individuals on
board a dark blue Kia Besta van with plate number XFC 682. At 7:30 in the morning, the Besta
van stopped at about 30 meters from the agreed place of transaction. Two men alighted from
the vehicle and approached Natividad. One of them was Jojo, who then introduced the other as
Asislo. Natividad asked Asislo to see the marijuana before he pays. Thereafter, Asislo ordered
the van's driver, Jose Astudillo, to open the compartment. Natividad saw five sacks and a plastic
bag. Asislo asked his other companion, Samuel Pal-iwen, to help him pull out one sack and
opened the same in front of Natividad. The sack was loaded with bricks of marijuana.9

Natividad removed his ball cap, their pre-arranged signal, and held Asislo in a tight embrace. He
removed his service firearm and introduced himself as a PDEA agent. The back-up team rushed
to the scene and arrested the other accused. SPO2 Agbayani recited to Asislo and his
companions their constitutional rights. SPO1 Lingbawan searched the van, and found four sacks
containing bricks of marijuana and a plastic bag with two pieces of tube type of marijuana
leaves inside. SPO4 Abordo seized Asislo's cell phone. The van used in transporting the
marijuana was impounded at the PDEA-CAR Office.10

Because of the volume of the confiscated dangerous drugs, the team brought the sacks of
marijuana to the PDEA-CAR Field Office for proper markings and documentations. Thereafter,
the drugs were turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP)  Crime Laboratory Office at
Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for chemical analysis. Asislo and his two companions
were subjected to urine examination, which yielded negative results, at the PNP Laboratory
Office.11

On the other hand, the version of the defense is as follows:

At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon on May 11, 2008, Astudillo, after a day's work of driving a
passenger jeepney, was watching a billiards game inside a building at the jeepney station at
Sasaba, Santo!, La Union. The store where the other accused, Asislo and Pal-iwen, worked as
broom makers was also in the same building.12

Around that time, Astudillo saw Jojo conversing with Asislo. While busy making brooms, Pal-
iwen was nearby and within hearing distance. Astudillo heard Jojo inquiring about anyone who
leases any closed vehicle for transportation of brooms and bananas. Asislo suggested one
Jimmy Tado. He accompanied Asislo and Jojo when they proceeded to Tad-o's place. After
reaching an agreement, Tad-o asked Astudillo to travel with Asislo and to return the vehicle at
Sasaba.13

Around 1 o'clock in the morning on May 13, 2008, Pal-iwen saw Jojo and some companions
load brooms and sacks in the van. With Pal-iwen and Asislo, Jojo drove the van bound for
Baguio City. Jojo unloaded the brooms and bananas at the San Fernando City Market. Then,
Astudillo showed up after Asislo called him on the cell phone.

Astudillo then drove the van to Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio City. Upon arrival, Asislo and
Jojo alighted from the van and proceeded to the construction site of Asislo's uncle for coffee.
The PDEA agents suddenly arrived and arrested them. They were brought to the PDEA-CAR
Office at the Melvin Jones, Burnham Park, Baguio City where they were accused of delivering
marijuana.

On July 21, 2009, the Baguio City RTC convicted Asislo of the crime of illegal sale, while it
acquitted Astudillo and Pal-iwen due to insufficiency of evidence against them and the failure of
prosecution to establish conspiracy. In convicting accused-appellant Asislo, the RTC ratiocinated
that the sale of illegal drugs, like any other sale, is perfected upon the meeting of the minds
between the vendor and the vendee with respect to the subject matter and as regards the
cause or consideration.14 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment finding the accused Juan Asislo GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt and he is sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P5,000,000.00.

Accused Jose Astudillo and Samuel Pal-iwen are hereby ACQUITTED for insufficiency of
evidence and they are ordered RELEASED from custody unless being held for some other lawful
reasons which require their continued detention.

SO ORDERED.15

Accused-appellant Asislo, through the Public Attorney's Office, appealed before the CA arguing
that the R TC erred in convicting him due to the lapses in the chain of custody of the seized
dangerous drugs, and the failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The CA, in affirming the decision of the RTC, held that the presentation of the buy-bust
money is not indispensable to the prosecution of a drug case. 16 However, the CA reduced the
fine to Pl,000,000.00, the  fallo  of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated July 21, 2009 rendered by the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 61, is, except for the amount of fine imposed which
is REDUCED to One Million (Pl,000,000.00) Pesos, hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.17

Aggrieved, accused-appellant Asislo now seeks his acquittal before this Court lamenting that the
prosecution failed to establish an unbroken link in the chain of custody. He avers that the PDEA
agents did not comply with the procedures mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, since
there was a lapse of time from the seizure of the illicit drugs to the marking and inventory. In
his Supplemental Brief, Asislo maintains that the fact that it was only Natividad who marked the
confiscated drugs casts a shadow of doubt to the authenticity of the evidence presented before
the court.

The appeal lacks merit.

Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.  - The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof;

Correlatively, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)  of R.A. No. 9165
provides:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items [.]18

In many cases, this Court has held that "while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in
reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."19 Since the law
itself provided exceptions to its requirements., the non-compliance with Section 21 of the IRR is
not fatal and does not make the items seized inadmissible. 20 The most important factor is "the
preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."21

In the prosecution of a case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the primary consideration is to
ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs have been preserved from the time
they were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as evidence in court.22 The
prosecution must establish with moral certainty that the specimen submitted to the crime
laboratory and found positive for dangerous drugs, and finally introduced in evidence against
the accused was the same illegal drug that was confiscated from him.23

The records of the case show that the authorities were able to preserve the integrity of the
seized marijuana, and establish in the trial that the links in the chain of custody of the same
were not compromised. While it is true that the drugs were not marked immediately after its
seizure and not in the presence of the accused, the prosecution was able to prove, however,
that the bricks of marijuana contained in five sacks and a plastic bag confiscated during the
buy-bust operation were the same items presented and identified before the court.
After the seizure of the marijuana and the arrest of the accused, IAl Natividad called PCI Apalla
through mobile phone and reported the operation. Due to the volume of the confiscated drugs,
PCI Apalla ordered IAl Natividad and his companions to bring the sacks of marijuana to their
field office for proper markings and documentations. Thereafter, IAl Natividad, SP02 Agbayani
and SPO 1 Lingbawan rode the Besta van with Asislo, Pal-iwen and Astudillo. IAl Natividad
stayed at the back of the van beside the confiscated drugs. Upon reaching the office, they
placed the three accused in jail and then unloaded the five sacks and the plastic bag. Then, IAl
Natividad marked each of the sacks and on top of each brick with "Exhibit A," his initials "FTN,"
his signature and the date "5-13-08." After the marking, the sacks were stored in their
stockroom, which Natividad locked. He then prepared the documents such as the inventory of
the items and the request for physical examination. In the afternoon of the same day, the
authorities conducted an inventory of the seized drugs and photographed the same while
witnessed by the assistant city prosecutor, an elected official and a member of the media. PCI
Apalla requested for the physical examination of the three accused and for the laboratory
examination of the drugs. The confiscated items were then turned over to the evidence
custodian who then brought the same, together with the three accused, to Camp Dangwa for
examination. The PNP Regional Crime Laboratory received the seized items at 4:30 in the
afternoon of the same day.24 After the examination, the submitted items tested positive for the
presence of marijuana, as reflected in the Chemistry Report No. D-023-2008 prepared by
Forensic Chemical Officer Edward Gayados.25 The items were then submitted to the RTC for
safekeeping.26 Subsequently, IAl Natividad identified in court the marked items as the one he
seized from Asislo during the operation.

Although it was not specified who received the items in the laboratory in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses, the fact that the minute details of the seized items described in the
chemistry report coincide with the specifications in the inventory prepared by the PDEA leaves
no doubt that the bricks of marijuana received by the laboratory for examination were the same
drugs seized by the PDEA agents from Asislo.

This Court, therefore, finds that the court a quo  and the CA aptly held that the requirements
under R.A. No. 9165 had been sufficiently complied with. The prosecution successfully
established the unbroken chain of custody over the recovered marijuana, from the time the
apprehending officers seized the drugs, to the time it was brought to the PDEA Office, then to
the crime laboratory for testing, until the time the same was offered in evidence before the
court.

The R TC, which the CA affirmed, convicted accused-appellant with the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and

Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.  - The
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (Pl0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who,
unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a
broker in any of such transactions.27
The acts, such as deliver and sell, enumerated in the foregoing provision have been explicitly
defined under Article I, Section 3 of the same statute, to wit. :

Section 3. Definitions.  - As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

xxxx

(k) Deliver.  - Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or

otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.

xxxx

(ii) Sell.  - Any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical whether for money or any other consideration.

xxxx

A review of the allegations in the Information in Criminal Case No. 28307-R readily reveals that
accused-appellant Asislo is charged with "delivery and transport" of marijuana although the
Information charges the accused with violation of Section 5, R.A. No. 9165.

Accused-appellant Asislo could still be convicted for violation of Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No.
9165, because the evidence on record clearly establish "delivery and transport" although
prosecution witness IAl Natividad admitted, during the direct28 and cross29 examination, the lack
of consideration/payment for the 110 kilograms of marijuana:

PROS. ESPINOSA:

Q: Mr. witness, you said that Pl,500.00 per kilo?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: Did you prepare for marked money for the buying of [this] marijuana?

A: Actually we do not have that big amount of money, as an arrangement before our dispatch
for that operation I will make a trick with the suspect Juan that I will first see the items before I
will [hand] to him the money, ma'am.

Q: So you didn't prepare for any Pl,500.00 money or fake money?

A: No, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: You mean you talk about the Pl50,000.00 only 3 hours before the operation?

A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: You did not [think] of that even the first meeting with the suspect of preparing the
Pl,500.00?

A: No, ma'am because this is only delivery.

A TTY. A WIS AN:

Q: So this was a buy-bust operation, is that correct?

A: Actually, Sir.

Q: Did you prepare any buy-bust money for that operation?

A: Actually this is not purely a buy-bust operation[,] this 1s a mere delivery of item, Sir.

Q: And when you say delivery[,] how would you differentiate that from a buy-bust operation?

A: In a buy-bust operation[,] there is an exchange for [monetary] consideration between

poseur-buyer and the suspect[,] whereas in delivery there is no monetary consideration but the
items ... the item was shown to the poseur-buyer there is no need to show him the supposed
money, Sir.

xxxx

Q: But you mentioned earlier that the agreement between you and Juan was for the sale of
marijuana at the price of Pl,500.00 per kilo?

A: If they could not deliver the item if there is no monetary consideration, Sir.

Q: So actually there is a buy-bust operation?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: But you did not prepare for the buy-bust operation?

A: Yes, Sir.

Q: And you proceeded to the place without any buy-bust money?

A: Yes, Sir.

xxxx

Q: During that short span of time you were only about to talk a little?

A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And Juan asked for the money?

A: No[,] I was the one who asked the item before I will give the money to him, Sir.

Q: So Juan did not ask from you the payment of any item during the conversation?

A: Yes because there was already an arrangement, Sir.

xxxx

In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-
buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal
transaction.30 In the case at bar, the sale was not consummated since there was no receipt of
the consideration. IA1 Natividad arrested Asislo immediately after the latter opened one of the
sacks loaded with bricks of marijuana. It was also admitted that the agents did not prepare
marked money for the buy-bust operation.

Nevertheless, Asislo can still be liable for violation of Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 for
illegal delivery and transportation of marijuana.

The essential element of the charge of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another. 31 As defined in the case of People
v. Mariacos,32 "transport" means "to carry or convey from one place to another."33

There is no definitive moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug. When the
circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transportation
itself, there should be no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act.34 The fact that
there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was
committed.35

In the instant case, records established beyond any doubt that accused-appellant Asislo was
found in possession of the sacks containing marijuana, and was arrested while in the act of
delivering or transporting such illegal drugs to Natividad, the poseur-buyer, at the agreed place
in Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio City, near a certain "car wash."

It is undisputed that Asislo, who was a farmer and a broom maker at the time of his
arrest,36 had no authority under the law to deliver the marijuana, a dangerous drug. The
testimony of IAI Natividad provided the following details in his direct testimony:

PROS. ESPINOSA

Q: Before contacting the delivery of marijuana bricks, Mr. witness how did you come about with
the delivery of the marijuana?

A: Sometime on the second week of April 2008[,] our office received an intelligence information
relayed to us by our intelligence counterpart in La Union, ma'am.
xxxx

Q: So what happened after Apalla received these information, Mr. witness?

A: PCI Apalla designated me as the case officer and instructed me also that I keep in touch with
our counterpart in La Union for purposes of strengthening the case against the suspect
personalities, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: So what happened after that, Mr. witness when Apalla tell you that you will now coordinate
with the intelligence officer counterpart in La Union?

A: I coordinated with our counterpart in La Union between 2nd and 3rd week of April, I
personally contacted PDEA Region 1 regarding the illicit activity of the suspects and one of the
leader of the group is with an alias Juan from Sasaba, Santol, La Union and he has also an
unidentified cohorts, ma'am.

Q: This Juan you are telling me is Juan Asislo, am I right, Mr. witness?

A: Yes, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: When the CI introduced himself to you, did he not mention about the activities of the
suspects, who are the suspects, he did not made mention of that?

A: He did mention, ma'am.

Q: So what did he tell you about the activities of these persons?

A: That they were involved in the proliferation and distribution of marijuana in La Union and
other provinces like Benguet and Baguio, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: What are these drug activities then?

A: They deliver undetermined volume of marijuana to the unidentified buyers of marijuana in La

Union and nearby provinces, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: So what did they talk about?

A: The CI relayed to the suspect that his prospective buyer from Manila is willing to buy 200
kilos of marijuana in that agreed price, ma'am.
Q: So what was the response of the suspect?

A: During the conversation, the suspect advise[ d] the CI that he wants also to talk with the
prospective buyer, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: So what happened after that?

A: So as per request by suspect Juan the CI gave to me his mobile phone and I talked with
suspect Juan regarding the transaction, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: You talked immediately about the transaction, you did not even introduce yourself to the
suspect, Mr. witness?

A: I introduced myself as the buyer of marijuana, ma' am.

Q: How did you introduce yourself to him, did you use any name?

A: No, ma' am I just told him that I am the buyer of Jojo, the name of the CI.

Q: So what did you tell the suspect, that you are interested to buy 200 kilos of marijuana?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: What was the reaction of the suspect?

A: He agreed with the transaction but I advise him that I would agree with the prevailing price
provided that they should deliver the items in Baguio City because I was still here in Baguio for
vacation for 2 weeks, I pretended that I was here in Baguio City for 2 weeks vacation, ma'am.

Q: So what was the reaction of the suspect when you told him that the marijuana should be
delivered here in Baguio City?

A: He agreed, ma'am but he insisted that the 200 kilos I ordered is not available because other
stocks have been ordered by the other buyers.

xxxx

Q: While the Besta van was already approaching, what happened again?

A: I notice that they stopped in front of the car wash and there were 2 men who alighted from
the Besta van, ma' am.

Q: And who were these 2 persons?

A: I recognized that the one of the persons who alighted from that Besta van is our CI Jojo so I
walk towards and closer with them, ma'am.

Q: Who was with Jojo that time?

A: Juan Asislo, ma'am.

Q: How do you know that fact?

A: Jojo or the CI introduced me to Juan Asislo, ma'am.

Q: How were you introduced?

A: That I am the buyer of their stuff, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: When this Juan Asislo told you that he was really Asislo, what happened after that?

A: I talked with Asislo about the transaction and I asked him the whereabouts of the stuff that I
ordered from them, ma'am.

Q: So what was the response of Asislo?

A: He told me that the [stuff] were placed at the back of the Besta van, ma'am.

Q: When Asislo told you that the [stuff] were at the back of the van, what was your response?

A: I told him that before I give the money I should see first the stuff, ma'am.

Q: What was the reaction of Asislo?

A: Asislo agreed to my proposal, ma'am.

Q: So what did you do?

A: Juan advise his driver to alight from the van and he will open the back of the Besta van,
ma'am.

xxxx

Q: Who pulled one of the sacks?

A: His companion, Samuel Pal-iwen, Ma'am.

Q: He pulled out one of the white sacks with NFA markings, is it not?
A: Yes, Ma'am.

Q: When he pulled out the white sack having the NFA markings what happened after that?

A: When he pulled out one of the sacks with NFA markings from the Besta Van I requested
suspect Juan to open it and when he opened the sack I saw personally the tens of bricks of
marijuana dried in the form of bricks so upon seeing the contents of that sack subsequently I
removed my ball cap from my head as the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was
consummated, Ma'am.

xx x37

It was settled in People v. Hoble38 that "possession of prohibited drugs, coupled with the fact
that the possessor is not a user thereof, cannot indicate anything else but the intention to sell,
distribute or deliver the prohibited stuff." In an earlier case, the Court considered three plastic
bags of marijuana leaves and seeds as considerable quantity of drugs, such that possession of
similar amount of drugs and the fact that the accused is not a user of prohibited drugs clearly
demonstrates his intent to sell, distribute and deliver the same.39

In the case at bar, Asislo was found in possession of 110 kilograms of dried marijuana leaves
contained in five sacks and a plastic bag, and that his drug test yielded negative result. The
following circumstances strongly indicate that he has the intention to sell, distribute, deliver or
transport the said marijuana.

Records reveal that the prosecution has proven in the trial the purpose of the accused in the
transportation of marijuana, and the fact of transportation itself.1âwphi1 Particularly, the
following circumstances establish that the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs has
been committed:

a. There was a prior unlawful arrangement between Natividad and the accused-
appellant Asislo that the former will buy marijuana from the latter;

b. There is a designated place of delivery, which is Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio City,
near a certain "car wash," and a specified time frame, on May 13, 2008 between 7
o'clock and 8 o'clock in the morning, and limited to a particular person whom Natividad
himself has transacted with through the cell phone, such that whoever would appear
thereat would be it.

c. Asislo leased the van for P2,000.00 from Tad-o for transportation from Santol, La
Union to Baguio City.40

d. Asislo was apprehended on the street, immediately after he opened the sack loaded
with blocks of marijuana, and while he was in the act of delivering the drugs to
Natividad.

e. The agents found a substantial volume of marijuana loaded at the back of the leased
vehicle.
Asislo' s denial deserves scant consideration. His claim that it was the informant Jojo who
leased the van to transport bananas and brooms was belied by the owner himself in his motion
to recover the vehicle wherein he alleged that it was Asislo who hired the van from him.
Furthermore, when Natividad approached Asislo, was introduced by Jojo as the buyer of
marijuana, and asked where his order was, Asislo immediately understood who Natividad was
and what he meant about the order.

Based on the charges against Asislo and the evidence presented by the prosecution, accused-
appellant Asislo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery and transportation of
marijuana under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.

As to the penalty, Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes that the penalties for the
illegal delivery and transportation of dangerous drugs shall be life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos
(Pl0,000,000.00). Thus, accused-appellant Asislo, for his illegal delivery and transportation of
110 kilograms of marijuana in Criminal Case No. 28307-R, is sentenced to life imprisonment,
and ordered to pay a fine of One Million Pesos (Pl,000,000.00).

WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04081 is hereby AFFIRMED. The

accused-appellant Juan Asislo y Matio, in Criminal Case No. 28307-R, is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal delivery and transportation of 110 kilograms of marijuana penalized
under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, and is sentenced to LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, and ORDERED to PAY a FINE of One Million Pesos (Pl,000,000.00).

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION* JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Third Division
February 19, 2016

Footnotes

*
 Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per
Raffle dated October I, 2014.

1
 Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices Rosmari D.
Carandang and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring, rollo,  pp. 2-15.

2
 Penned by Presiding Judge Antonio C. Reyes, CA rollo,  pp. 34-41.

3
 Id.  at 34.

4
 Id.

5
 Id.  at 35

6
 Id.

7
 Id.

8
 Id.

9
 Id.  at 35-36.

10
 Id.  at 36.
11
 Id.

12
 Id.

13
 Id.

14
 Id.  at 37.

15
 Id.  at 41.
16
 Rollo,  p. 9.
17
 Id.  at 14-15.

18
 Emphasis supplied.

19
 People v. Amy Dasigany Oliva,  G.R. No. 206229, February 4, 2015.

20
 People v. Efren Basal Cayas,  G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015.

21
 Id

22
 Id

23
 Id

24
 Records, pp. 53A-53F.

25
 Id.

26
 Id.  at 149.

27
 Emphasis supplied.

28
 TSN, September 9, 2008, pp. 27-28.

29
 TSN, September 10, 2008, pp. 20-21; 27.

30
 People v. Efren Basal Cayas, supra  note 20.

31
 People v. Laba,  G.R. No. 199938, January 28, 2013, 689 SCRA 367, 374.

32
 635 Phil. 315 (2010).

33
 People v. Mariacos, supra,  at 333.

34
 Id.
 35
 Id.  at 333-334.

36
 TSN, February 23, 2009, p. 5.

37
 TSN, February 9, 2008, pp. 6-8; 14-15; 21-23; 50-52; TSN, February 10, 2008, pp. 4-
5.

38
 G.R. No. 96091, July 22, 1992, 211SCRA675, 682.

39
 People vs. Claudio,  243 Phil. 795, 803. (Emphasis supplied).

40
 Records, p. 58.

G.R. No. 189833               February 5, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JAVIER MORILLA Y AVELLANO, Accused-Appellant.

RESOLUTION

PEREZ, J.:

Before us is an appeal filed by accused-appellant Javier Morilla y Avellano (Morilla) from the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed his conviction and that of his co-accused
Ronnie Mitra y Tena (Mayor Mitra) by the trial court, sentencing them2 to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱10,000,000.00 each.

The Regional Trial Court Judgment

On 15 October 2001, Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang y Yao (Yang) and Ruel Dequilla y
Regodan (Dequilla) were charged in a criminal information as follows:

That on or about October 13, 2001, in Barangay Kiloloran, Municipality of Real, Province of
Quezon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, one of them an incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province,
who all belong to an organized/syndicate crime group as they all help one another, for purposes
of gain in the transport of illegal drugs, and in fact, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually aiding and abetting one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously transport by means of two (2) motor vehicles, namely a Starex van bearing plate
number RWT-888 with commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance of
Panukulan, Quezon Province, methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug which is
commonly known as shabu, and with an approximate weight of five hundred three point sixty
eight (503.68) kilos, without authority whatsoever.3

After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City4 on 1 August 2007 convicted Morilla and his
co-accused Mayor Mitra, then incumbent Mayor of Panukulan, Quezon, of illegal transport 5 of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, with an approximate weight of
five hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos. However, it absolved Dequilla and Yang due
to the prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to convict them of the offense
charged. The dispositive of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Ronnie Mitra
y Tena and Javier Morilla y Avellana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
Accordingly, both accused are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of ₱10,000,000.00 each. Accused Willie Yang y Yao and Ruel Dequilla y Regodan
are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt and are ordered immediately released from custody unless held for some other lawful
cause.

The methamphetamine hydrochloride ordered retained by the Court as representative sample

which is still in the custody of the PNP Crime Laboratory is ordered turned over to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.6

The trial court found valid the search conducted by police officers on the vehicles driven by
Mayor Mitra and Morilla, one with control number 888 and the other an ambulance with plate
number SFK-372, as the police officers have already acquired prior knowledge that the said
vehicles were suspected to be used for transportation of dangerous drugs. During the
checkpoint in Real, Quezon, the information turned out to be accurate and indeed, the two
accused had in their motor vehicles more than five hundred kilos of methamphetamine
hydrochloride.7

The trial court dismissed the arguments of Mayor Mitra that he was without any knowledge of
the contents of the sacks and that he was merely requested to transport them to Manila on
board his Starex van. He explained that he only accommodated the request of a certain Ben
Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat. It likewise dismissed the defense of ambulance
driver Morilla of lack of knowledge of the illegality of the contents. Morilla insisted that he
thought that he was just transporting wooden tiles and electronic spare parts together with
Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his defense, did not bother to inquire
about the contents of the vehicle as he was merely an accommodated passenger of the
ambulance.

The court rejected the defenses presented by Morilla and Mayor Mitra as they were caught in
flagrante delicto of transporting dangerous drugs in two vehicles driven by each of them.
Absent any convincing circumstance to corroborate their explanations, the validity of their
apprehension was sustained.8

The ruling of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla was based on the testimonies of the
four accused themselves. It was found by the trial court that the two vehicles, the Starex van
driven by Mayor Mitra and the ambulance van driven by Morilla, left Infanta, Quezon en route
to Manila. The Starex van which was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint
set up by the police officers. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police
officers. Through the untinted window, one of the police officers noticed several sacks inside
the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied that the sacks contained narra wooden
tiles.
Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to open the rear door of the car for further
inspection. When it was opened, the operatives noticed that white crystalline granules were
scattered on the floor, prompting them to request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment,
Morilla told the police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to
let him pass.9 His request was rejected by the police officers and upon inspection, the contents
of the sacks turned out to be sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride.10 This discovery
prompted the operatives to chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able
to overtake the van and Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew
Morilla. On plain view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded with sacks like the
ones found in the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also requested to open the door of the
vehicle for inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter but the same
was rejected. Upon examination, the contents of the sacks were likewise found to contain sacks
of methamphetamine hydrochloride.11

The two other accused in this case, Dequilla and Yang, were acquitted by the trial court for
failure on the part of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
court ruled that Dequilla’s and Yang’s mere presence inside the vehicle as passengers was
inadequate to prove that they were also conspirators of Mayor Mitra and Morilla.12

The Court of Appeals Decision

On 13 July 2009, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It upheld the finding
of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla in their common intent to transport several
sacks containing methamphetamine hydrochloride on board their respective vehicles. The
singularity of their intent to illegally transport methamphetamine hydrochloride was readily
shown when Morilla agreed to drive the ambulance van from Infanta, Quezon to Manila
together with Mayor Mitra, who drove the lead vehicle, the Starex van.13

The appellate court likewise dismissed the argument of lack of knowledge of the illegal contents
of the sacks. The claim that the sacks were loaded with wooden tiles was implausible due to the
obvious disparity of texture and volume.14

Court’s Ruling

We affirm the ruling but modify the penalty imposed.

In his supplemental brief, Morilla raised the issues: (1) whether he may be convicted for
conspiracy to commit the offense charged sans allegation of conspiracy in the Information, and
(2) whether the prosecution was able to prove his culpability as alleged in the Information.15

We dismiss his arguments.

Morilla primarily cites the provision on Sec. 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure16 to substantiate his argument that he should have been informed first of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him. He pointed out that the Information itself failed to
state the word conspiracy but instead, the statement "the above-named accused, one of them
an incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all belong to an
organized/syndicated crime group as they all help one another, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously transport x x x." He argued that conspiracy was only inferred from
the words used in the Information.17

Even assuming that his assertion is correct, the issue of defect in the information, at this point,
is deemed to have been waived due to Morilla’s failure to assert it as a ground in a motion to
quash before entering his plea.18

Further, it must be noted that accused Morilla participated and presented his defenses to
contradict the allegation of conspiracy before the trial and appellate courts. His failure or
neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a presumption that the party entitled
to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.19

The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct.

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.20 To determine conspiracy, there must be a
common design to commit a felony.21

Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended is
not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal
transportation of dangerous drugs.

This argument is misplaced.

In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in
express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and,
from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which,
taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole.22 In this case, the totality
of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a
common desire to transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of
dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive
through the checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it was Morilla’s turn to pass
through the checkpoint, he was requested to open the rear door for a routinary check. Noticing
white granules scattered on the floor, the police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If
indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police
officers that he was with the mayor.

His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and he just
obeyed the instruction of his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in driving the said vehicle likewise
bears no merit.

Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the
dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act
means "to carry or convey from one place to another." 23 It was well established during trial that
Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex
van going to Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum
prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of
the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motive or knowledge.24

In a similar case of People v. Libnao,25 this Court upheld the conviction for illegal transportation
of marijuana of Libnao and Nunga, who were caught carrying a bag full of marijuana leaves
when they were flagged down on board a passing tricycle at a checkpoint.

However, we modify the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Originally, under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, 26 the penalty for illegal transportation of
methamphetamine hydrochloride was imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to
twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. Pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1683,27 the penalty was amended to life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from twenty to thirty thousand pesos. The penalty was further amended in
Republic Act No. 7659,28 where the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua to death and a
fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.

From the foregoing, we sustain the imposed penalty of fine of ₱10,000,00.00 to be paid by each
of the accused but amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua following the provisions of Republic
Act No. 7659 and the principle of retroactive application of lighter penalty. Reclusion perpetua
entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes eligible for
pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification,
etc. Life imprisonment, on the other hand, does not appear to have any definite extent or
duration and carries no accessory penalties.29

The full particulars are in Ho Wai Pang v. People,30 thus:

As to the penalties imposed by the trial court and as affirmed by the appellate court, we find
the same in accord with law and jurisprudence. It should be recalled that at the time of the
commission of the crime on September 6, 1991, Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425 was already
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1683. The decree provided that for violation of said
Section 15, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱20,000.00 to
₱30,000.00 shall be imposed. Subsequently, however, R.A. No. 7659 further introduced new
amendments to Section 15, Article III and Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
Under the new amendments, the penalty prescribed in Section 15 was changed from "life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱20,000.00 to ₱30,000.00" to "reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10 million." On the other hand,
Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 amended Section 20, Article IV of R.A. No. 6425 in that the new
penalty provided by the amendatory law shall be applied depending on the quantity of the
dangerous drugs involved.

The trial court, in this case, imposed on petitioner the penalty of reclusion perpetua under R.A.
No. 7659 rather than life imprisonment ratiocinating that R.A. No. 7659 could be given
retroactive application, it being more favorable to the petitioner in view of its having a less
stricter punishment.1âwphi1

We agree. In People v. Doroja, we held:

"In People v. Martin Simon (G.R. No. 93028, 29 July 1994) this Court ruled (a) that the
amendatory law, being more lenient and favorable to the accused than the original provisions of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, should be accorded retroactive application, x x x."

And, since "reclusion perpetua is a lighter penalty than life imprisonment, and considering the
rule that criminal statutes with a favorable effect to the accused, have, as to him, a retroactive
effect," the penalty imposed by the trial court upon petitioner is proper. Consequently, the
Court sustains the penalty of imprisonment, which is reclusion perpetua, as well as the amount
of fine imposed by the trial court upon petitioner, the same being more favorable to him.31

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED and the assailed 13 July 2009
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02967 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION
with respect to the penalty to be imposed as Reclusion Perpetua instead of Life Imprisonment
and payment of fine of ₱10,000,000.00 by each of the accused.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Second Division Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

1
 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices
Rosmari D. Carandang and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-24.

2
 From the Records of the case, no appeal was timely made by the other accused, Mayor
Mitra.

3
 Records, Vol. I, p. 2.

4
 In a Letter dated 23 October 2001, Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño of the
Department of Justice requested then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, through Court
Administrator (now Associate Justice of this Court) Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. for a
transfer of venue of the case from Real, Quezon to any Regional Trial Court in Metro
Manila, preferably in Quezon City, due to the large quantity of the confiscated drugs and
difficulty on the part of the Government to prosecute the case in Quezon from Metro
Manila. (Records, pp. 49-50). The said request was granted by this Court in a Resolution
dated 6 March 2002. (Id. at 97).

5
 Republic Act No. 6425 or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. − Art. III, Section 15. Sale,
Administration, Dispension, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging
from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. In case
of a practitioner, the maximum of the penalty herein prescribed and the additional penalty of the
revocation of his license to practice his profession shall be imposed.

6
 CA rollo, pp. 66-67.

7
 Id. at 57.

8
 Id. at 61-62.

9
 Id. at 63-65.

10
 Id. at 46-47.

11
 Id. at 44-45.

12
 Id. at 65.

13
 Rollo, pp. 21-22.
14
 Id. at 22-23.

15
 Supplemental Brief. Id. at 52-53.

16
 Rule 115, Section 1(b). − To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

17
 Supplemental Brief. Rollo, pp. 53-54.

18
 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, Section 9 stating that:

Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The failure of the
accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or
failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any
objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a),
(b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.

19
 Figueroa v. People, 580 Phil. 58, 73-74 (2008).

20
 Revised Penal Code, Article 8.

21
 Ho Wai Pang v. People, G.R. No. 176229, 19 October 2011, 659 SCRA 624, 637 citing
People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 92369, 10 August 1994, 235 SCRA 202, 214.

22
 Id. citing People v. Ponce, 395 Phil. 563, 572 (2000); People v. Mateo, Jr., 258-A Phil.
886, 904 (1989).

23
 People v. Baludda, 376 Phil. 614, 626 (1999).

24
 People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740, 754-755 (2001).

25
 443 Phil. 506 (2003).

26
 Supra note 5.

27
 Presidential Decree No. 1683. − Amending Certain Sections of Republic Act No. 6425, As
Amended, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and for Other Purposes.

SECTION 5. Section 15 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and

Distribution of Regulated Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and
a fine ranging from twenty to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any
persons who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute any regulated drug. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a
regulated drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause
 of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed.

28
 An Act To Impose The Death Penalty On Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending For That
Purpose The Revised Penal Laws, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, And For Other
Purposes.

Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to
read as follows:

xxxx

Section 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and

Distribution of Regulated 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, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary, if the

victim of the offense is a minor, or should a regulated drug involved in any
offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim
thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed.

29
 Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 6-A-92, 21 June 1993 Re: The Correct
Application of the Penalties of Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment; Potenciano v.
Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 409 (2003).

30
 Supra note 21.

31
 Id. at 640-641.

G.R. No. 188611               June 16, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
BELEN MARIACOS, Appellant.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 02718, which affirmed the decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 29, San Fernando
City, La Union, in Criminal Case No. 7144, finding appellant Belen Mariacos guilty of violating Article
II, Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The facts of the case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:

Accused-appellant Belen Mariacos was charged in an Information, dated November 7, 2005 of
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165, allegedly committed as follows:

"That on or about the 27th day of October, 2005, in the Municipality of San Gabriel, Province of La
Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport, deliver 7,030.3, (sic) grams of dried
marijuana fruiting tops without the necessary permit or authority from the proper government agency
or office.

CONTRARY TO LAW."

When arraigned on December 13, 2005, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial,
the following were stipulated upon:

"1. Accused admits that she is the same person identified in the information as Belen
Mariacos;

2. That accused is a resident of Brgy. Lunoy, San Gabriel, La Union;

3. That at the time of the arrest of the accused, accused had just alighted from a passenger
jeepney;

4. That the marijuana allegedly taken from the possession of the accused contained in two
(2) bags were submitted for examination to the Crime Lab;

5. That per Chemistry Report No. D-109-2005, the alleged drug submitted for examination
gave positive result for the presence of marijuana;

6. That the drugs allegedly obtained from the accused contained (sic) and submitted for
examination weighed 7,030.3 grams;

7. The Prosecutor admits the existence of a counter-affidavit executed by the accused; and

8. The existence of the affidavits executed by the witnesses of the accused family (sic): Lyn
Punasen, Mercedes Tila and Magdalena Carino."

During the trial, the prosecution established the following evidence:

On October 26, 2005, in the evening, the San Gabriel Police Station of San Gabriel, La Union,
conducted a checkpoint near the police station at the poblacion to intercept a suspected
transportation of marijuana from Barangay Balbalayang, San Gabriel, La Union. The group at the
checkpoint was composed of PO2 Lunes B. Pallayoc ("PO2 Pallayoc"), the Chief of Police, and
other policemen. When the checkpoint did not yield any suspect or marijuana, the Chief of Police
instructed PO2 Pallayoc to proceed to Barangay Balbalayang to conduct surveillance operation (sic).

At dawn on October 27, 2005, in Barangay Balbalayang, PO2 Pallayoc met with a secret agent of
the Barangay Intelligence Network who informed him that a baggage of marijuana had been loaded
on a passenger jeepney that was about to leave for the poblacion. The agent mentioned three (3)
bags and one (1) blue plastic bag. Further, the agent described a backpack bag with an "O.K."
marking. PO2 Pallayoc then boarded the said jeepney and positioned himself on top thereof. While
the vehicle was in motion, he found the black backpack with an "O.K." marking and peeked inside its
contents. PO2 Pallayoc found bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He then asked the other
passengers on top of the jeepney about the owner of the bag, but no one knew.

When the jeepney reached the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with the other passengers.
Unfortunately, he did not notice who took the black backpack from atop the jeepney. He only
realized a few moments later that the said bag and three (3) other bags, including a blue plastic bag,
were already being carried away by two (2) women. He caught up with the women and introduced
himself as a policeman. He told them that they were under arrest, but one of the women got away.

PO2 Pallayoc brought the woman, who was later identified as herein accused-appellant Belen
Mariacos, and the bags to the police station. At the police station, the investigators contacted the
Mayor of San Gabriel to witness the opening of the bags. When the Mayor arrived about fifteen (15)
minutes later, the bags were opened and three (3) bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper, two
(2) round bundles of marijuana, and two (2) bricks of marijuana fruiting tops, all wrapped in a
newspaper, were recovered.

Thereafter, the investigators marked, inventoried and forwarded the confiscated marijuana to the
crime laboratory for examination. The laboratory examination showed that the stuff found in the bags
all tested positive for marijuana, a dangerous drug.

When it was accused-appellant’s turn to present evidence, she testified that:

On October 27, 2005, at around 7:00 in the morning, accused-appellant, together with Lani
Herbacio, was inside a passenger jeepney bound for the poblacion. While the jeepney was still at
the terminal waiting for passengers, one Bennie Lao-ang ("Lao-ang"), her neighbor, requested her to
carry a few bags which had been loaded on top of the jeepney. At first, accused-appellant refused,
but she was persuaded later when she was told that she would only be carrying the bags. When
they reached the poblacion, Lao-ang handed accused-appellant and her companion, Lani Herbacio,
the bags, and then Lao-ang suddenly ran away. A few moments later, PO2 Pallayoc was upon them,
arresting them. Without explanation, they were brought to the police station. When they were at the
police station, Lani Herbacio disappeared. It was also at the police station that accused-appellant
discovered the true contents of the bags which she was asked to carry. She maintained that she was
not the owner of the bags and that she did not know what were contained in the bags. At the police
station (sic) she executed a Counter-Affidavit.3

On January 31, 2007, the RTC promulgated a decision, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Belen Mariacos GUILTY as charged and sentences
here (sic) to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00.

The 7,030.3 grams of marijuana are ordered confiscated and turned over to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency for destruction in the presence of the Court personnel and media.

SO ORDERED.4

Appellant appealed her conviction to the CA. She argued that the trial court erred in considering the
evidence of the prosecution despite its inadmissibility.5 She claimed that her right against an
unreasonable search was flagrantly violated by Police Officer (PO)2 Pallayoc when the latter
searched the bag, assuming it was hers, without a search warrant and with no permission from her.
She averred that PO2 Pallayoc’s purpose for apprehending her was to verify if the bag she was
carrying was the same one he had illegally searched earlier. Moreover, appellant contended that
there was no probable cause for her arrest.6

Further, appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime.7 She
alleged that the apprehending police officers violated Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3,
Series of 1979, as amended by Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990, which prescribes the
procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and
articles. The said regulation directs the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs and/or paraphernalia, immediately after seizure or confiscation, to have the same physically
inventoried and photographed in the presence of appellant or her representative, who shall be
required to sign copies of the inventory. The failure to comply with this directive, appellant claimed,
casts a serious doubt on the identity of the items allegedly confiscated from her. She, likewise,
averred that the prosecution failed to prove that the items allegedly confiscated were indeed
prohibited drugs, and to establish the chain of custody over the same.

On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that the
warrantless arrest of appellant and the warrantless seizure of marijuana were valid and
legal,8 justified as a search of a moving vehicle. It averred that PO2 Pallayoc had reasonable ground
to believe that appellant had committed the crime of delivering dangerous drugs based on reliable
information from their agent, which was confirmed when he peeked into the bags and smelled the
distinctive odor of marijuana.9 The OSG also argued that appellant was now estopped from
questioning the illegality of her arrest since she voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" upon
arraignment and participated in the trial and presented her evidence.10 The OSG brushed aside
appellant’s argument that the bricks of marijuana were not photographed and inventoried in her
presence or that of her counsel immediately after confiscation, positing that physical inventory may
be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever
was practicable.11

In a Decision dated January 19, 2009, the CA dismissed appellant’s appeal and affirmed the RTC
decision in toto.12 It held that the prosecution had successfully proven that appellant carried away
from the jeepney a number of bags which, when inspected by the police, contained dangerous
drugs. The CA ruled that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of "carrying and conveying" the
bag that contained the illegal drugs, and thus held that appellant’s warrantless arrest was valid. The
appellate court ratiocinated:

It must be stressed that PO2 Pallayoc had earlier ascertained the contents of the bags when he was
aboard the jeep. He saw the bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper. That said marijuana was on
board the jeepney to be delivered to a specified destination was already unlawful. PO2 Pallayoc
needed only to see for himself to whom those bags belonged. So, when he saw accused-appellant
carrying the bags, PO2 Pallayoc was within his lawful duty to make a warrantless arrest of accused-
appellant.

xxxx

Firstly, this Court opines that the invocation of Section 2, Article III of the Constitution is misplaced.
At the time, when PO2 Pallayoc looked into the contents of the suspicious bags, there was no
identified owner. He asked the other passengers atop the jeepney but no one knew who owned the
bags. Thus, there could be no violation of the right when no one was entitled thereto at that time.

Secondly, the facts of the case show the urgency of the situation. The local police has been trying to
intercept the transport of the illegal drugs for more than a day, to no avail. Thus, when PO2 Pallayoc
was tipped by the secret agent of the Barangay Intelligence Network, PO2 Pallayoc had no other
recourse than to verify as promptly as possible the tip and check the contents of the bags.

Thirdly, x x x the search was conducted in a moving vehicle. Time and again, a search of a moving
vehicle has been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for the
vehicle to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Thus, under
the facts, PO2 Pallayoc could not be expected to secure a search warrant in order to check the
contents of the bags which were loaded on top of the moving jeepney. Otherwise, a search warrant
would have been of no use because the motor vehicle had already left the locality.13

Appellant is now before this Court, appealing her conviction.

Once again, we are asked to determine the limits of the powers of the State’s agents to conduct
searches and seizures. Over the years, this Court had laid down the rules on searches and seizures,
providing, more or less, clear parameters in determining which are proper and which are not. 1avvphi1

Appellant’s main argument before the CA centered on the inadmissibility of the evidence used
against her. She claims that her constitutional right against unreasonable searches was flagrantly
violated by the apprehending officer.

Thus, we must determine if the search was lawful. If it was, then there would have been probable
cause for the warrantless arrest of appellant.

Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution provides:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.

Law and jurisprudence have laid down the instances when a warrantless search is valid. These are:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12 [now Section

13], Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are:

(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;

(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;

(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent[;] and;

(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent
mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
 furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk; and

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.14

Both the trial court and the CA anchored their respective decisions on the fact that the search was
conducted on a moving vehicle to justify the validity of the search.

Indeed, the search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the
Constitutional mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued
by a judge after personally determining the existence of probable cause.15

In People v. Bagista,16 the Court said:

The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain
exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in
cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view.

With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had been justified on the ground that the mobility
of motor vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.

This in no way, however, gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless
searches of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and
subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long
as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the
search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched.

It is well to remember that in the instances we have recognized as exceptions to the requirement of
a judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must have been
impelled to do so because of probable cause. The essential requisite of probable cause must be
satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.17 Without probable
cause, the articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against the person arrested.18

Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances

sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is
guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the
items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction
by law are in the place to be searched.19

The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting
officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is
based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create
the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be
founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the
arrest.20

Over the years, the rules governing search and seizure have been steadily liberalized whenever a
moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that
before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described
to the satisfaction of the issuing judge – a requirement which borders on the impossible in instances
where moving vehicle is used to transport contraband from one place to another with impunity.21

This exception is easy to understand. A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is
made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a
warrant when the search is conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles
since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be
sought.22

Given the discussion above, it is readily apparent that the search in this case is valid. The vehicle
that carried the contraband or prohibited drugs was about to leave. PO2 Pallayoc had to make a
quick decision and act fast. It would be unreasonable to require him to procure a warrant before
conducting the search under the circumstances. Time was of the essence in this case. The
searching officer had no time to obtain a warrant. Indeed, he only had enough time to board the
vehicle before the same left for its destination.

It is well to remember that on October 26, 2005, the night before appellant’s arrest, the police
received information that marijuana was to be transported from Barangay Balbalayang, and had set
up a checkpoint around the area to intercept the suspects. At dawn of October 27, 2005, PO2
Pallayoc met the secret agent from the Barangay Intelligence Network, who informed him that a
baggage of marijuana was loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave for the poblacion. Thus,
PO2 Pallayoc had probable cause to search the packages allegedly containing illegal drugs.

This Court has also, time and again, upheld as valid a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
Thus, Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.—A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of
an offense without a search warrant.23

For this rule to apply, it is imperative that there be a prior valid arrest. Although, generally, a warrant
is necessary for a valid arrest, the Rules of Court provides the exceptions therefor, to wit:

SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

(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.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be
forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance
with section 7 of Rule 112.24

Be that as it may, we have held that a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can
precede the arrest if the police has probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.25

Given that the search was valid, appellant’s arrest based on that search is also valid.

Article II, Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 states:

SEC. 5 Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of

Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand
pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport
any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.

In her defense, appellant averred that the packages she was carrying did not belong to her but to a
neighbor who had asked her to carry the same for him. This contention, however, is of no
consequence.

When an accused is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited drugs, the
ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of ownership of the confiscated marijuana is
not necessary.26

Appellant’s alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a valid defense. Lack of criminal intent and
good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum, as in this
case.27 Mere possession and/or delivery of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable
under the Dangerous Drugs Act.28

Anti-narcotics laws, like anti-gambling laws, are regulatory statutes. They are rules of convenience
designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society, and their violation gives rise to
crimes mala prohibita. Laws defining crimes mala prohibita condemn behavior directed not against
particular individuals, but against public order.29

Jurisprudence defines "transport" as "to carry or convey from one place to another."30 There is no
definitive moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug. When the circumstances
establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transportation itself, there should be
no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act.31 The fact that there is actual conveyance
suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed and it is immaterial whether
or not the place of destination is reached.32

Moreover, appellant’s possession of the packages containing illegal drugs gave rise to the
disputable presumption33 that she is the owner of the packages and their contents.34 Appellant failed
to rebut this presumption. Her uncorroborated claim of lack of knowledge that she had prohibited
drug in her possession is insufficient.

Appellant’s narration of facts deserves little credence. If it is true that Bennie Lao-ang merely asked
her and her companion to carry some baggages, it is but logical to first ask what the packages
contained and where these would be taken. Likewise, if, as appellant said, Lao-ang ran away after
they disembarked from the jeepney, appellant and her companion should have ran after him to give
him the bags he had left with them, and not to continue on their journey without knowing where they
were taking the bags.

Next, appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. In
particular, she alleged that the apprehending police officers failed to follow the procedure in the
custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles.

In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a
sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of that crime.35

Thus, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes the procedure for custody and disposition of seized
dangerous drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further provides:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and
have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

PO2 Pallayoc testified that after apprehending appellant, he immediately brought her to the police
station. At the station, the police requested the Mayor to witness the opening of the bags seized from
appellant. When the Mayor arrived, he opened the bag in front of appellant and the other police
officers. The black bag yielded three bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspaper, while the plastic
bag yielded two bundles of marijuana and two bricks of marijuana fruiting tops.36 PO2 Pallayoc
identified the bricks. He and PO3 Stanley Campit then marked the same. Then the seized items
were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.

It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the drugs seized, that appellant was not
accompanied by counsel, and that no representative from the media and the DOJ were present.
However, this Court has already previously held that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and
will not render an accused’s arrest illegal, or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.37

Based on the testimony of PO2 Pallayoc, after appellant’s arrest, she was immediately brought to
the police station where she stayed while waiting for the Mayor. It was the Mayor who opened the
packages, revealing the illegal drugs, which were thereafter marked and sent to the police crime
laboratory the following day. Contrary to appellant’s claim, the prosecution’s evidence establishes
the chain of custody from the time of appellant’s arrest until the prohibited drugs were tested at the
police crime laboratory.

While it is true that the arresting officer failed to state explicitly the justifiable ground for non-
compliance with Section 21, this does not necessarily mean that appellant’s arrest was illegal or that
the items seized are inadmissible. The justifiable ground will remain unknown because appellant did
not question the custody and disposition of the items taken from her during the trial.38 Even assuming
that the police officers failed to abide by Section 21, appellant should have raised this issue before
the trial court. She could have moved for the quashal of the information at the first instance. But she
did not. Hence, she is deemed to have waived any objection on the matter.

Further, the actions of the police officers, in relation to the procedural rules on the chain of custody,
enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Courts accord
credence and full faith to the testimonies of police authorities, as they are presumed to be
performing their duties regularly, absent any convincing proof to the contrary.39

In sum, the prosecution successfully established appellant’s guilt. Thus, her conviction must be
affirmed.

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02718 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ*

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

Footnotes

* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza per Raffle dated
February 22, 2010.

1
 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., with Associate Justices Martin S.
Villarama, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring; rollo,
pp. 2-13.

2
 CA rollo, pp. 13-29.

3
 Rollo, pp. 2-5.

4
 CA rollo, p. 29.
5
 Id. at 45.

6
 Id. at 48.

7
 Id. at 50.

8
 Id. at 108.

9
 Id. at 112.

10
 Id. at 113.

11
 Id. at 114-115.

12
 Rollo, p. 13.

13
 Id. at 8-9.

14
 People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 879-880 (1998). (Citations omitted.)

 Asuncion v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 118, 126 (1999), citing Mustang Lumber, Inc. v.
15

Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 430 (1996); and People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1991).

16
 G.R. No. 86218, September 18, 1992, 214 SCRA 63, 68-69. (Citations omitted.)

17
 People v. Aruta, supra note 14, at 880.

18
 Except when the prohibited items are in plain view.

19
 People v. Aruta, supra note 14, at 880, citing People v. Encinada, 345 Phil. 301 (1997).

20
 People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 632 (1999).

 People v. Lo Ho Wing, supra note 15, at 128-129, citing Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S.
21

132, 153 (1925); People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740 (2001).

22
 Salvador v. People, 502 Phil. 60, 72 (2005).

23
 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 126.

24
 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113.

 People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463, citing People v.
25

Tudtud, 458 Phil. 752 (2003).

26
 People v. Del Mundo, supra note 21, at 751. (Citations omitted.)

27
 Id., citing People v. Sy Bing Yok, 309 SCRA 28, 38 (1999).
28
 People v. Beriarmente, 418 Phil. 229, 239 (2001).

29
 People v. Doria, supra note 20, at 618. (Citations omitted.)

30
 People v. Peñaflorida, G.R. No. 175604, April 10, 2008, 551 SCRA 111, 125.

31
 People v. Jones, 343 Phil. 865, 877 (1997).

32
 People v. Correa, G.R. No. 119246, January 30, 1998, 285 SCRA 679, 700.

33
 Section 3 (j) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court states:

Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions.—The following presumptions are satisfactory if

uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

xxxx

(j) That a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent
wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that things which a
person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him.

34
 See People v. Del Mundo, supra note 21.

 People v. Kimura, 471 Phil. 895, 909 (2004), citing People v. Mendiola, 235 SCRA 116,
35

120 (1994).

36
 CA rollo, p. 16.

 People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436-437, citing
37

People v. Del Monte, 552 SCRA 627 (2008).

 See People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828; People v. Sta.
38

Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633.

39
 People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 198, 223.