Sei sulla pagina 1di 43

EVIDENCE

Rule 130 Cases

Tijing vs. CA page 1


People vs. Rulepa page 4
People vs. Ulzoron page 15
Abalos vs. CA page 18
Caballes vs. CA page 22
People vs. Balingan page 31
People vs. Johnson page 35

Page 0 of 42
EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. even more serious. As fate would have it,
TIJING, petitioners, vs. COURT OF Bienvenida and her husband reconciled and
APPEALS (Seventh Division) and together, this time, they looked for their
ANGELITA DIAMANTE, respondents. missing son in other places. Notwithstanding
their serious efforts, they saw no traces of his
DECISION whereabouts.
QUISUMBING, J.: Four years later or in October 1993,
Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of
For review is the decision of the Court of Tomas Lopez, allegedly the common-law
Appeals dated March 6, 1996, in CA-G.R. SP No. husband of Angelita, and whose remains were
39056, reversing the decision of the Regional lying in state in Hagonoy, Bulacan. Bienvenida
Trial Court in a petition for habeas corpus of lost no time in going to Hagonoy, Bulacan,
Edgardo Tijing, Jr., allegedly the child of where she allegedly saw her son Edgardo, Jr.,
petitioners. for the first time after four years. She claims
that the boy, who was pointed out to her by
Petitioners are husband and wife. They Benjamin Lopez, a brother of the late Tomas
have six children. The youngest is Edgardo Lopez, was already named John Thomas
Tijing, Jr., who was born on April 27, 1989, at Lopez.[1] She avers that Angelita refused to
the clinic of midwife and registered nurse return to her the boy despite her demand to do
Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila. Petitioner so.
Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of
private respondent Angelita Diamante, then a Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their
resident of Tondo, Manila. petition for habeas corpus with the trial court
in order to recover their son. To substantiate
According to Bienvenida in August 1989, their petition, petitioners presented two
Angelita went to her house to fetch her for an witnesses, namely, Lourdes Vasquez and
urgent laundry job. Since Bienvenida was on Benjamin Lopez. The first witness, Vasquez,
her way to do some marketing, she asked testified that she assisted in the delivery of one
Angelita to wait until she returned. She also Edgardo Tijing, Jr. on April 27, 1989 at her clinic
left her four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under in Sta. Ana, Manila. She supported her
the care of Angelita as she usually let Angelita testimony with her clinical records.[2] The
take care of the child while Bienvenida was second witness, Benjamin Lopez, declared that
doing laundry. his brother, the late Tomas Lopez, could not
When Bienvenida returned from the have possibly fathered John Thomas Lopez as
market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., were the latter was sterile. He recalled that Tomas
gone. Bienvenida forthwith proceeded to met an accident and bumped his private part
Angelitas house in Tondo, Manila, but did not against the edge of a banca causing him
find them there. Angelitas maid told excruciating pain and eventual loss of his child-
Bienvenida that her employer went out for a bearing capacity.Benjamin further declared
stroll and told Bienvenida to come back that Tomas admitted to him that John Thomas
later. She returned to Angelitas house after Lopez was only an adopted son and that he and
three days, only to discover that Angelita had Angelita were not blessed with children.[3]
moved to another place. Bienvenida then For her part, Angelita claimed that she is
complained to her barangay chairman and also the natural mother of the child. She asserts
to the police who seemed unmoved by her that at age 42, she gave birth to John Thomas
pleas for assistance. Lopez on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife
Although estranged from her husband, Zosima Panganiban in Singalong, Manila. She
Bienvenida could not imagine how her spouse added, though, that she has two other children
would react to the disappearance of their with her real husband, Angel Sanchez.[4] She
youngest child and this made her problem said the birth of John Thomas was registered
by her common-law husband, Tomas Lopez,

1
with the local civil registrar of Manila on and John Thomas Lopez are one and the same
August 4, 1989. person,[9] and disposed of the case, thus:
On March 10, 1995, the trial court
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of
concluded that since Angelita and her
the lower court dated March 10, 1995 is
common-law husband could not have children,
hereby REVERSED, and a new one entered
the alleged birth of John Thomas Lopez is an
dismissing the petition in Spec. Proc. No. 94-
impossibility.[5] The trial court also held that
71606, and directing the custody of the minor
the minor and Bienvenida showed strong facial
John Thomas Lopez to be returned to
similarity. Accordingly, it ruled that Edgardo
respondent Angelita Diamante, said minor
Tijing, Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are one and
having been under the care of said respondent
the same person who is the natural child of
at the time of the filing of the petition herein.
petitioners. The trial court decreed:
SO ORDERED.[10]
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,
judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the
petition for Habeas Corpus, as such,
abovequoted decision which was
respondent Angelita Diamante is ordered to
denied. Hence, the instant petition alleging:
immediately release from her personal
custody minor John Thomas D. Lopez, and turn I
him over and/or surrender his person to
petitioners, Spouses Edgardo A. Tijing and THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
Bienvenida R. Tijing, immediately upon receipt APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR
hereof. WHEN IT DECLARED THAT THE
PETITIONERS ACTION FOR HABEAS
Branch Sheriff of this Court, Carlos Bajar, is CORPUS IS MERELY SECONDARY TO THE
hereby commanded to implement the decision QUESTION OF FILIATION THAT THE
of this Court by assisting herein petitioners in PETITIONERS HAD LIKEWISE PROVEN.
the recovery of the person of their minor son,
Edgardo Tijing Jr., the same person as John II
Thomas D. Lopez.
THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
SO ORDERED.[6] APPEALS ERRED IN REVERSING THE
DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Angelita seasonably filed her notice of DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR HABEAS
appeal.[7] Nonetheless, on August 3, 1994, the CORPUS AND DIRECTING THAT THE
sheriff implemented the order of the trial court CUSTODY OF THE MINOR JOHN THOMAS
by taking custody of the minor. In his report, LOPEZ WHO WAS PROVEN TO THE SAME
the sheriff stated that Angelita peacefully MINOR AS EDGARDO R. TIJING, JR., BE
surrendered the minor and he turned over the RETURNED TO THE PRIVATE
custody of said child to petitioner Edgardo RESPONDENT. [11]

Tijing.[8]
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed In our view, the crucial issues for
resolution are the following:
and set aside the decision rendered by the trial
court. The appellate court expressed its doubts (1) Whether or not habeas corpus is
on the propriety of the habeas corpus. In its the proper remedy?
view, the evidence adduced by Bienvenida was
not sufficient to establish that she was the (2) Whether or not Edgardo Tijing,
mother of the minor. It ruled that the lower Jr., and John Thomas Lopez are
court erred in declaring that Edgardo Tijing, Jr., one and the same person and is
the son of petitioners?

2
We shall discuss the two issues together determine which findings should be preferred
since they are closely related. as more conformable to the evidentiary facts.
The writ of habeas corpus extends to all A close scrutiny of the records of this case
cases of illegal confinement or detention by reveals that the evidence presented by
which any person is deprived of his liberty, or Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John
by which the rightful custody of any person is Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son,
withheld from the person entitled Edgardo Tijing, Jr.
thereto.[12] Thus, it is the proper legal remedy
First, there is evidence that Angelita could
to enable parents to regain the custody of a
no longer bear children. From her very lips, she
minor child even if the latter be in the custody
admitted that after the birth of her second
of a third person of his own free will. It may
child, she underwent ligation at the Martinez
even be said that in custody cases involving
Hospital in 1970, before she lived with Tomas
minors, the question of illegal and involuntary
Lopez without the benefit of marriage in
restraint of liberty is not the underlying
1974. Assuming she had that ligation removed
rationale for the availability of the writ as a
in 1978, as she claimed, she offered no
remedy. Rather, it is prosecuted for the
evidence she gave birth to a child between
purpose of determining the right of custody
1978 to 1988 or for a period of ten years. The
over a child.[13] It must be stressed too that
midwife who allegedly delivered the child was
in habeas corpus proceedings, the question of
not presented in court.No clinical records, log
identity is relevant and material, subject to the
book or discharge order from the clinic were
usual presumptions including those as to
ever submitted.
identity of the person.
Second, there is strong evidence which
In this case, the minors identity is crucial
directly proves that Tomas Lopez is no longer
in determining the propriety of the writ
capable of siring a son. Benjamin Lopez
sought. Thus, it must be resolved first whether
declared in court that his brother, Tomas, was
the Edgardo Tijing, Jr., claimed by Bienvenida
sterile because of the accident and that Tomas
to be her son, is the same minor named John
admitted to him that John Thomas Lopez was
Thomas Lopez, whom Angelita insists to be her
only an adopted son. Moreover, Tomas Lopez
offspring. We must first determine who
and his legal wife, Maria Rapatan Lopez, had no
between Bienvenida and Angelita is the minors
children after almost fifteen years
biological mother. Evidence must necessarily
together. Though Tomas Lopez had lived with
be adduced to prove that two persons, initially
private respondent for fourteen years, they
thought of to be distinct and separate from
also bore no offspring.
each other, are indeed one and the
same.[14] Petitioners must convincingly Third, we find unusual the fact that the
establish that the minor in whose behalf the birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez was
application for the writ is made is the person filed by Tomas Lopez instead of the midwife
upon whom they have rightful custody. If there and on August 4, 1989, four months after the
is doubt on the identity of the minor in whose alleged birth of the child. Under the law, the
behalf the application for the writ is made, attending physician or midwife in attendance
petitioners cannot invoke with certainty their at birth should cause the registration of such
right of custody over the said minor. birth. Only in default of the physician or
midwife, can the parent register the birth of his
True, it is not the function of this Court to
child. The certificate must be filed with the
examine and evaluate the probative value of all
local civil registrar within thirty days after the
evidence presented to the concerned tribunal
birth.[16] Significantly, the birth certificate of
which formed the basis of its impugned
the child stated Tomas Lopez and private
decision, resolution or order.[15] But since the
respondent were legally married on October
conclusions of the Court of Appeals contradict
31, 1974, in Hagonoy, Bulacan, which is false
those of the trial court, this Court may
because even private respondent had
scrutinize the evidence on the record to

3
admitted she is a common-law wife.[17] This is to deny progress.[22] Though it is not
false entry puts to doubt the other data in said necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing,
birth certificate. in future it would be useful to all concerned in
the prompt resolution of parentage and
Fourth, the trial court observed several
identity issues.
times that when the child and Bienvenida were
both in court, the two had strong similarities in WHEREFORE, the instant petition is
their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head GRANTED. The assailed DECISION of the Court
shapes. Resemblance between a minor and his of Appeals is REVERSED and decision of the
alleged parent is competent and material Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED. Costs
evidence to establish parentage.[18] Needless against the private respondent.
to stress, the trial courts conclusion should be
SO ORDERED.
given high respect, it having had the
opportunity to observe the physical
appearances of the minor and petitioner
concerned.
Fifth, Lourdes Vasquez testified that she
assisted in Bienvenidas giving birth to Edgardo
Tijing, Jr., at her clinic. Unlike private
respondent, she presented clinical records
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
consisting of a log book, discharge order and
appellee, vs. RONNIE RULLEPA y
the signatures of petitioners.
GUINTO, accused-appellant.
All these considered, we are constrained
to rule that subject minor is indeed the son of DECISION
petitioners. The writ of habeas corpus is
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
proper to regain custody of said child.
A final note. Parentage will still be On complaint of Cyra May Francisco
resolved using conventional methods unless Buenafe, accused-appellant Ronnie
we adopt the modern and scientific ways Rullepa y Guinto was charged with Rape
available. Fortunately, we have now the facility before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
and expertise in using DNA test[19] for Quezon City allegedly committed as follows:
identification and parentage testing. The
University of the Philippines Natural Science That on or about the 17th day of November,
Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
Laboratory has now the capability to conduct accused, by means of force and intimidation,
DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) to wit: by then and there willfully, unlawfully
analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that and feloniously removing her panty, kissing her
the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, lips and vagina and thereafter rubbing his penis
one copy from the mother and the other from and inserting the same to the inner portion of
the father. The DNA from the mother, the the vagina of the undersigned complainant, 3
alleged father and child are analyzed to years of age, a minor, against her will and
establish parentage.[20] Of course, being a without her consent.[1]
novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test
as evidence is still open to Arraigned on January 15, 1996, accused-
[21]
challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate appellant pleaded not guilty.[2]
case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule
on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it From the testimonies of its witnesses,
was said, that courts should apply the results namely Cyra May,[3] her mother Gloria
of science when competently obtained in aid of Francisco Buenafe, Dr. Cristina V. Preyra, and
situations presented, since to reject said result

4
SPO4 Catherine Borda, the prosecution accused-appellant did these to her twice in his
established the following facts: bedroom.
On November 20, 1995, as Gloria was Dr. Ma. Cristina V. Preyra, the Medico-
about to set the table for dinner at her house Legal Officer and Chief of the Biological Science
in Quezon City, Cyra May, then only three and Branch of the Philippine National Police Crime
a half years old, told her, Mama, si kuya Ronnie Laboratory who examined Crya May, came up
lagay niya titi niya at sinaksak sa puwit at sa with her report dated November 21,
bibig ko. 1995,[7]containing the following findings and
conclusions:
Kuya Ronnie is accused-appellant Ronnie
Rullepa, the Buenafes house boy, who was
FINDINGS:
sometimes left with Cyra May at home.
Gloria asked Cyra May how many times GENERAL AND EXTRA GENITAL:
accused-appellant did those things to her, to
which she answered many times. Pursuing, Fairly developed, fairly nourished and
Gloria asked Cyra May what else he did to her, coherent female child subject. Breasts are
and Cyra May indicated the room where undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and soft.
accused-appellant slept and pointed at his
pillow. GENITAL:
As on the night of November 20, 1995
accused-appellant was out with Glorias There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora
husband Col. Buenafe,[4] she waited until their are full, convex and coaptated with congested
arrival at past 11:00 p.m. Gloria then sent and abraded labia minora presenting in
accused-appellant out on an errand and between. On separating the same is disclosed
informed her husband about their daughters an abraded posterior fourchette and an elastic,
plaint. Buenafe thereupon talked to Cyra May fleshy type intact hymen.External vaginal
who repeated what she had earlier told her orifice does not admit the tip of the examining
mother Gloria. index finger.

When accused-appellant returned, xxx


Buenafe and Gloria verified from him whether
what Cyra May had told them was true. Ronnie CONCLUSION:
readily admitted doing those things but only
once, at 4:00 p.m. of November 17, 1995 or Subject is in virgin state physically.
three days earlier. Unable to contain her
anger, Gloria slapped accused-appellant There are no external signs of recent
several times. application of any form of trauma at the time
Since it was already midnight, the spouses of examination. (Emphasis supplied.)
waited until the following morning to bring By Dr. Preyras explanation, the abrasions
accused-appellant to Camp Karingal where he on the labia minora could have been caused by
admitted the imputations against him, on friction with an object, perhaps an erect
account of which he was detained. Glorias penis. She doubted if riding on a bicycle had
sworn statement[5] was then taken.[6] caused the injuries.[8]
Recalling what accused-appellant did to The defenses sole witness was accused-
her, Cyra May declared at the witness appellant, who was 28 and single at the time
stand: Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa he took the witness stand on June 9, 1997. He
puwit ko, at sa bunganga, thus causing her denied having anything to do with the
pain and drawing her to cry. She added that abrasions found in Cyra Mays genitalia, and
claimed that prior to the alleged incident, he

5
used to be ordered to buy medicine for Cyra The accused is ordered to pay CYRA MAE
May who had difficulty urinating. He further BUENAFE the amount of P40,000.00 as civil
alleged that after he refused to answer Glorias indemnity.
queries if her husband Buenafe, whom he
usually accompanied whenever he went out of Costs to be paid by the accused.[10] (Italics in
the house, was womanizing, Gloria would the original.)
always find fault in him. He suggested that
Gloria was behind the filing of the Hence, this automatic review, accused-
complaint. Thus: appellant assigning the following errors to the
trial court:
q- According to them you caused the
abrasions found in her genital? I
a- That is not true, sir.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONSIDERING AS
q- If that is not true, what is the ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE THE ACCUSED-
truth? APPELLANTS ADMISSION.
a- As I have mentioned earlier that
II
before I started working with
the family I was sent to Crame to
buy medicine for the daughter THE COURT A QUO ERRED ON (sic) RULING
because she had difficulty in THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS SILENCE
urinating. DURING TRIAL AMOUNTED TO AN IMPLIED
ADMISSION OF GUILT.
q- Did you know why the child has
difficulty in urinating? III
a- No, I do not know, sir.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT
q- And how about the present THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR
complaint filed against you, the THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN
complaint filed by the mother of BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
the victim?
IV
a- I did not do it, sir.
q- What is the truth, what can you THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN
say about this present IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH
complaint filed against you? UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[11] (Emphasis
supplied.)
a- As I said Mrs. Buenafe got mad at
me because after I explained to
her that I was going with her Accused-appellant assails the crediting by
gusband (sic) to the children of the trial court, as the following portion of its
the husband with a former decision shows, of his admission to Gloria of
marriage.[9] having sexually assaulted Cyra May:

Finding for the prosecution, Branch 96 of In addition, the mother asserted that Rullepa
the Quezon City RTC rendered judgment, the had admitted Cyra Ma[y]s complaint during
dispositive portion of which reads: the confrontation in the house. Indeed,
according to the mother, the admission was
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered even expressly qualified by Rullepas insistence
finding accused RONNIE RULLEPA y GUINTO that he had committed the sexual assault only
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, and once, specifying the time thereof as 4:00 pm of
he is accordingly sentenced to death. November 17, 1995. That qualification proved

6
that the admission was voluntary and true. An a- Opo.
uncoerced and truthful admission like this
q- When was that?
should be absolutely admissible and
competent. a- When my mother was asleep, he
put he removed my panty and
xxx inserted his penis inside my
vagina, my anus and my mouth,
Remarkably, the admission was not denied by sir.
the accused during trial despite his freedom to
xxx
deny it if untrue. Hence, the admission became
conclusive upon him.[12] (Emphasis supplied.) q- After your Kuya Ronnie did those
things to you what did you feel?
To accused-appellant, the statements
a- Sabi nya ganito (Witness putting
attributed to him are inadmissible since they
her finger in her lips) Nasaktan
were made out of fear, having been elicited
po ako at umiyak po ako.
only after Cyra Mays parents bullied and
questioned him. He thus submits that it was q- Did you cry because of hurt?
error for the trial court to take his failure to
deny the statements during the trial as an a- Yes.
admission of guilt. q- What part of your body hurt?
Accused-appellants submission does not a- Pepe ko po. When I went to the
persuade. The trial court considered his bathroom to urinate, I felt pain
admission merely as an additional ground to in my organ, sir.[13]
convince itself of his culpability. Even if such
admission, as well as the implication of his Cyra May reiterated her testimony during
failure to deny the same, were disregarded, cross-examination, providing more revolting
the evidence suffices to establish his guilt details of her ordeal:
beyond reasonable doubt. q- So, you said that Kuya Ronnie did
The plain, matter-of-fact manner by something to you what did he
which Cyra May described her abuse in the do to you on November 17,
hands of her Kuya Ronnie is an eloquent 1995?
testament to the truth of her accusations. Thus a- Sinaksak nga yong titi nya. He
she testified on direct examination: inserted his penis to my organ
q- Do you recall if Ronnie Rullepa did and to my mouth, sir.
anything to you? xxx
a- Yes, sir. q- When you said that your kuya
q- What did he do to you? Ronnie inserted his penis into
your organ, into your mouth,
a- Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa and into your anus, would you
puwit ko, at sa bunganga describe what his penis?
q- How many times did he do that to a- It is a round object, sir.
you?
C o u r t:
a- Twice, sir.
Is this titi of your kuya Ronnie a part
xxx of his body?
q- Do you remember when he did a- Opo.
these things to you?

7
q- Was that in the head of kuya q- After kuya Ronnie scrub his penis
Ronnie? to your vagina, what other
things did he do?
a- No, sir.
a- After that he inserted his penis to
q- Which part of his body that titi
my mouth, and to my anus, sir.
located?
q- You did not complain and you did
(Witness pointing to her groin area)
not shout?
C o u r t:
a- I cried, sir.[14]
Continue
Accused-appellant draws attention to the
xxx statement of Cyra May that he was not in the
house on November 17 (1995), as reflected in
q- Why were you in that room? the following transcript of her testimony:
a- Gusto nya po matulog ako sa q- Is it not a fact that you said a while
kuwarto niya. ago that when your father
q- When you were in that room, leaves the house, he [was]
what did Kuya Ronnie do to usually accompanied by your
you? kuya Ronnie?

a- Hinubo po niya ang panty ko. a- Opo.

q- And after he remove your panty, q- Why is it that Kuya Ronnie was in
what did Kuya Ronnie do, what the house when you father left
did he do to you? the house at that time, on
November 17?
a- He inserted his penis to my organ,
sir. a- He was with Kuya Ronnie, sir.

q- Why did kuya Ronnie, was kuya q- So, it is not correct that kuya
Ronnie already naked or he was Ronnie did something to you
already wearing any clothing? because your kuya Ronnie [was]
always with your Papa?
a- Still had his clothing on, sir.
a- Yes, sir.[15]
q- So, where did his penis, saan
lumabas ang penis ni Kuya The above-quoted testimony of Cyra May
Ronnie? does not indicate the time when her father Col.
Buenafe left their house on November 17,
a- Dito po, (Witness referring or 1995 with accused-appellant and, thus, does
pointing to her groin area) not preclude accused-appellants commission
xxx of rape on the same date. In any event, a young
child is vulnerable to suggestion, hence, her
q- So, thats the and at the time, you affirmative response to the defense counsels
did not cry and you did not above-quoted leading questions.
shout for help?
As for the variance in the claim regarding
a- Sabi nya po, not to make any noise when Gloria was informed of the rape, Gloria
because my mother might be having testified that she learned of it on
roused from sleep. November 20, 1995[16] while Cyra May said
q- How long was kuya Ronnie did that immediately after the incident, she
that to you? awakened her mother who was in the adjacent
room and reported it:[17] This is a minor matter
a- Matagal po. that does not detract from Cyra Mays

8
categorical, material testimony that accused- placing his titi in her pepe was certainly one
appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. which could not be considered as a common
childs tale. Her responses during the
Accused-appellant goes on to contend
examination of counsel and of the Court
that Cyra May was coached, citing the
established her consciousness of
following portion of her testimony:
the distinction between good and bad, which
q- Yong sinabi mong sinira nya ang rendered inconceivable for her to describe a
buhay mo, where did you get bad act of the accused unless it really
that phrase? happened to her. Needless to state, she
described the act of the accused as bad. Her
a- It was the word of my Mama, demeanor as a witness manifested during trial
sir.[18] by her unhesitant, spontaneous, and plain
On the contrary, the foregoing testimony responses to questions further enhanced her
indicates that Cyra May was really narrating claim to credit and trustworthiness.[21] (Italics
the truth, that of hearing her mother in the original.)
utter sinira niya ang buhay mo.
In a futile attempt at exculpation,
Accused-appellants suggestion that Cyra accused-appellant claims that even before the
May merely imagined the things of which he is alleged incident Cyra May was already
accused, perhaps getting the idea from suffering from pain in urinating. He surmises
television programs, is preposterous. It is true that she could have scratched herself which
that the ordinary child is a great weaver of caused the abrasions.Dr. Preyra, however, was
romances, and her imagination may induce quick to rule out this possibility. She stated
(her) to relate something she has heard or read categorically that that part of the female organ
in a story as personal experience.[19] But Cyra is very sensitive and rubbing or scratching it is
Mays account is hardly the stuff of romance or painful.[22] The abrasions could not, therefore,
fairy tales. Neither is it normal TV fare, if at all. have been self-inflicted.
This Court cannot believe that a victim of That the Medical-Legal Officer found no
Cyra Mays age could concoct a tale of external signs of recent application of any form
defloration, allow the examination of her of trauma at the time of the examination does
private parts, and undergo the expense, not preclude accused-appellants conviction
trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the since the infliction of force is immaterial in
trauma of public trial.[20] statutory rape.[23]
Besides, her testimony is corroborated by More. That Cyra May suffered pain in her
the findings of Dr. Preyra that there were vagina but not in her anus despite her
abrasions in her labia minora, which she testimony that accused-appellant inserted his
opined, could have been caused by friction penis in both orifices does not diminish her
with an erect penis. credibility. It is possible that accused-
This Court thus accords great weight to appellants penis failed to penetrate her anus
the following assessment of the trial court as deeply as it did her vagina, the former being
regarding the competency and credibility of more resistant to extreme forces than the
Cyra May as a witness: latter.
Accused-appellants imputation of ill
Her very tender age notwithstanding, Cyra motive on the part of Gloria is puerile. No
Ma(y) nonetheless appeared to possess the mother in her right mind would subject her
necessary intelligence and perceptiveness child to the humiliation, disgrace and trauma
sufficient to invest her with the competence to attendant to a prosecution for rape if she were
testify about her experience. She might have not motivated solely by the desire to
been an impressionable child as all others of incarcerate the person responsible for the
her age are but her narration of Kuya Ronnies childs defilement.[24] Courts are seldom, if at

9
all, convinced that a mother would stoop so x x x.
low as to subject her daughter to physical
hardship and shame concomitant to a rape 3. When the woman is under twelve years of
prosecution just to assuage her own hurt age x x x.
feelings.[25]
x x x.
Alternatively, accused-appellant prays
that he be held liable for acts of lasciviousness
instead of rape, apparently on the basis of the The crime of rape shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua.
following testimony of Cyra May,
quoted verbatim, that he merely scrubbed his
penis against her vagina: x x x.

q- Is it not a fact that kuya Ronnie just Furthermore, the victims age may constitute
made some scrubbed his penis a qualifying circumstance, warranting the
into your vagina? imposition of the death sentence. The same
a- Yes, sir. Article states:

q- And when he did not actually The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
penetrated your vagina? crime of rape is committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
a- Yes, sir.[26]
Dr. Preya, however, found abrasions in 1. when the victim is under eighteen (18)
the labia minora, which is directly beneath years of age and the offender is a parent,
the labia majora,[27] proving that there was ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
indeed penetration of the vagina, not just a consanguinity or affinity with the third civil
mere rubbing or scrubbing of the penis against degree, or the common-law spouse of the
its surface. parent of the victim.
In fine, the crime committed by accused-
appellant is not merely acts of lasciviousness x x x.
but statutory rape.
4. when the victim is x x x a child below seven
The two elements of statutory rape are (1) (7) years old.
that the accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman, and (2) that the woman is below x x x.
twelve years of age.[28] As shown in the
previous discussion, the first element, carnal Because of the seemingly conflicting
knowledge, had been established beyond decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence
reasonable doubt. The same is true with of the victims age in rape cases, this Court, in
respect to the second element. the recently decided case of People v.
The victims age is relevant in rape cases Pruna,[30] established a set of guidelines in
since it may constitute an element of the appreciating age as an element of the crime or
offense. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as a qualifying circumstance, to wit:
as amended by Republic Act No.
7659,[29] provides: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the
offended party is an original or certified true
Art. 335. When and how rape is copy of the certificate of live birth of such
committed. Rape is committed by having party.
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances: 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the

10
date of birth of the victim would suffice to x x x.
prove age.
However, the Medico-Legal Report relied upon
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic by the trial court does not in any way prove the
document is shown to have been lost or age of LIZETTE, for there is nothing therein
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the which even mentions her age. Only testimonial
testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims evidence was presented to establish LIZETTEs
mother or a member of the family either by age. Her mother, Jacqueline, testified (that the
affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to victim was three years old at the time of the
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as commission of the crime).
the exact age or date of birth of the offended
party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the xxx
Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following circumstances: Likewise, LIZETTE testified on 20 November
1996, or almost two years after the incident,
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of that she was 5 years old. However, when the
age and what is sought to be proved is that she defense counsel asked her how old she was on
is less than 7 years old; 3 January 1995, or at the time of the rape, she
replied that she was 5 years old. Upon further
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of question as to the date she was born, she could
age and what is sought to be proved is that she not answer.
is less than 12 years old;
For PRUNA to be convicted of rape in its
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years qualified form and meted the supreme penalty
of age and what is sought to be proved is that of death, it must be established with certainty
she is less than 18 years old. that LIZETTE was below 7 years old at the time
of the commission of the crime. It must be
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, stressed that the severity of the death penalty,
authentic document, or the testimony of the especially its irreversible and final nature once
victims mother or relatives concerning the carried out, makes the decision-making
victims age, the complainants testimony will process in capital offenses aptly subject to the
suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly most exacting rules of procedure and
admitted by the accused. evidence.

5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of In view of the uncertainty of LIZETTEs exact
proving the age of the offended party. The age, corroborative evidence such as her birth
failure of the accused to object to the certificate, baptismal certificate or any other
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be authentic document should be introduced in
taken against him. evidence in order that the qualifying
circumstance of below seven (7) years old is
6. The trial court should always make a appreciated against the appellant. The lack of
categorical finding as to the age of the victim. objection on the part of the defense as to her
age did not excuse the prosecution from
Applying the foregoing guidelines, this discharging its burden. That the defense
Court in the Pruna case held that the therein invoked LIZETTEs tender age for purposes of
accused-appellant could only be sentenced to questioning her competency to testify is not
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua since: necessarily an admission that she was below 7
years of age when PRUNA raped her on 3
x x x no birth certificate or any similar authentic January 1995. Such being the case, PRUNA
document, such as a baptismal certificate of cannot be convicted of qualified rape, and
LIZETTE, was presented to prove her age. x x x.

11
hence the death penalty cannot be imposed on partys case, as to which he will not be required
him. to offer evidence; these will be taken for true
by the tribunal without the need of
However, conformably with no. 3 (b) of the evidence.[36] Judicial notice, however, is a
foregoing guidelines, the testimony of LIZETTEs phrase sometimes used in a loose way to cover
mother that she was 3 years old at the time of some other judicial action. Certain rules of
the commission of the crime is sufficient for Evidence, usually known under other names,
purposes of holding PRUNA liable for statutory are frequently referred to in terms of judicial
rape, or rape of a girl below 12 years of notice.[37]
age. Under the second paragraph of Article
The process by which the trier of facts
335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, in relation
judges a persons age from his or her
to no. 3 of the first paragraph thereof, having
appearance cannot be categorized as judicial
carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years
notice. Judicial notice is based upon
of age is punishable by reclusion
convenience and expediency for it would
perpetua. Thus, the penalty to be imposed on
certainly be superfluous, inconvenient, and
PRUNA should be reclusion perpetua, and not
expensive both to parties and the court to
death penalty. (Italics in the original.)
require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts
which are already known to
Several cases[31] suggest that courts may
courts.[38] As Tundag puts it, it is the
take judicial notice of the appearance of the
cognizance of certain facts which judges may
victim in determining her age. For example,
properly take and act on without
the Court, in People v. Tipay,[32] qualified the
proof because they already know them. Rule
ruling in People v. Javier,[33] which required the
129 of the Rules of Court, where the provisions
presentation of the birth certificate to prove
governing judicial notice are found, is entitled
the rape victims age, with the following
What Need Not Be Proved. When the trier of
pronouncement:
facts observes the appearance of a person to
ascertain his or her age, he is not taking judicial
This does not mean, however, that the notice of such fact; rather, he is conducting
presentation of the certificate of birth is at all an examination of the evidence, the evidence
times necessary to prove minority. The being the appearance of the person. Such a
minority of a victim of tender age who may be process militates against the very concept of
below the age of ten is quite manifest and the
judicial notice, the object of which is to do
court can take judicial notice thereof. The
away with the presentation of evidence.
crucial years pertain to the ages of fifteen to
seventeen where minority may seem to be This is not to say that the process is not
dubitable due to ones physical appearance. In sanctioned by the Rules of Court; on the
this situation, the prosecution has the burden contrary, it does. A persons appearance,
of proving with certainty the fact that the where relevant, is admissible as object
victim was under 18 years of age when the evidence, the same being addressed to the
rape was committed in order to justify the senses of the court.Section 1, Rule 130
imposition of the death penalty under the provides:
above-cited provision. (Emphasis supplied.)
SECTION 1. Object as evidence. Objects as
On the other hand, a handful of evidence are those addressed to the senses of
cases[34] holds that courts, without the the court. When an object is relevant to the
requisite hearing prescribed by Section 3, Rule fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined
129 of the Rules of Court,[35] cannot take or viewed by the court.
judicial notice of the victims age.
To be sure, one author writes, this
Judicial notice signifies that there are
practice of inspection by the court of objects,
certain facta probanda, or propositions in a
things or persons relevant to the fact in

12
dispute, has its roots in ancient judicial The customs authorities may also determine
procedure.[39] The author proceeds to quote from the personal appearance of the
from another authority: immigrant what his age is. The person of a
Chinese alien seeking admission into the
Nothing is older or commoner in the Philippine Islands is evidence in an
administration of law in all countries than the investigation by the board of special inquiry to
submission to the senses of the tribunal itself, determine his right to enter; and such body
whether judge or jury, of objects which furnish may take into consideration his appearance to
evidence. The view of the land by the jury, in determine or assist in determining his age and
real actions, of a wound by the judge where a finding that the applicant is not a minor
mayhem was alleged, and of the person of one based upon such appearance is not without
alleged to be an infant, in order to fix his age, evidence to support it.
the inspection and comparison of seals, the
examination of writings, to determine whether This Court has also implicitly recognized
they are ()blemished,() the implements with the same process in a criminal case. Thus,
which a crime was committed or of a person in United States v. Agadas,[46] this Court held:
alleged, in a bastardy proceeding, to be the
child of another, are few illustrations of what Rosario Sabacahan testified that he was 17
may be found abundantly in our own legal years of age; that he had never purchased a
records and textbooks for seven centuries cedula; and that he was going to purchase a
past.[40] (Emphasis supplied.) cedula the following january. Thereupon the
court asked this defendant these questions:
A persons appearance, as evidence You are a pretty big boy for seventeen.Answer:
of age (for example, of infancy, or of being I cannot tell exactly because I do not
under the age of consent to intercourse), is remember when I was born, but 17 years is my
usually regarded as relevant; and, if so, the guess. Court: If you are going to take
tribunal may properly observe the person advantage of that excuse, you had better get
brought before it.[41] Experience teaches that some positive evidence to that effect. Answer:
corporal appearances are approximately an I do not remember, as I already stated on what
index of the age of their bearer, particularly for date and in what year I was born. The court, in
the marked extremes of old age and youth. In determining the question of the age of the
every case such evidence should be accepted defendant, Rosario Sabacahan, said:
and weighed for what it may be in each case
worth. In particular, the outward The defendant, Rosario Sabacahan, testified
physical appearance of an alleged minor may that he thought that he was about 17 years of
be considered in judging his age; a contrary age, but judging by his appearance he is a
rule would for such an inference be youth 18 or 19 years old. He has shown that he
pedantically over-cautious.[42] Consequently, has no positive information on the subject and
the jury or the court trying an issue of fact may no effort was made by the defense to prove
be allowed to judge the age of persons in court the fact that he is entitled to the mitigating
by observation of such persons.[43] The formal circumstance of article 9, paragraph 2, of the
offer of the person as evidence is not Penal code, which fact it is held to be
necessary. The examination and cross- incumbent upon the defense to establish by
examination of a party before the jury are satisfactory evidence in order to enable the
equivalent to exhibiting him before the jury court to give an accused person the benefit of
and an offer of such person as an exhibit is the mitigating circumstance.
properly refused. [44]
In United States vs. Estavillo and Perez (10 Off.
This Court itself has sanctioned the
Gaz., 1984) Estavillo testified, when the case
determination of an aliens age from his
was tried in the court below, that he then was
appearance. In Braca v. Collector of
only 16 years of age. There was no other
Customs,[45] this Court ruled that:

13
testimony in the record with reference to his 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic
age. But the trial judge said: The accused document is shown to have been lost or
Estavillo, notwithstanding his testimony giving destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
his age as 16 years, is, as a matter of fact, not testimony, if clear and credible, of the victims
less than 20. This court, in passing upon the mother or a member of the family either by
age of Estavillo, held: affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as
We presume that the trial court reached this the exact age or date of birth of the offended
conclusion with reference to the age of party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the
Estavillo from the latters personal Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
appearance. There is no proof in the record, as following circumstances:
we have said, which even tends to establish the
assertion that this appellant understated his a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of
age.* * * It is true that the trial court had an age and what is sought to be proved is that she
opportunity to note the personal appearance is less than 7 years old;
of Estavillo for the purpose of determining his
age, and by so doing reached the conclusion b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of
that he was at least 20, just two years over age and what is sought to be proved is that she
18. This appellant testified that he was only 16, is less than 12 years old;
and this testimony stands
uncontradicted. Taking into consideration the c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years
marked difference in the penalties to be of age and what is sought to be proved is that
imposed upon that age, we must, therefore, she is less than 18 years old.
conclude (resolving all doubts in favor of the
appellants) that the appellants ages were 16 Under the above guideline, the testimony
and 14 respectively. of a relative with respect to the age of the
victim is sufficient to constitute proof beyond
While it is true that in the instant case Rosario reasonable doubt in cases (a), (b) and (c)
testified that he was 17 years of age, yet the above. In such cases, the disparity between the
trial court reached the conclusion, judging allegation and the proof of age is so great that
from the personal appearance of Rosario, that the court can easily determine from the
he is a youth 18 or 19 years old. Applying the appearance of the victim the veracity of the
rule enunciated in the case just cited, we must testimony. The appearance corroborates the
conclude that there exists a reasonable doubt, relatives testimony.
at least, with reference to the question
whether Rosario was, in fact 18 years of age at As the alleged age approaches the age
the time the robbery was committed. This sought to be proved, the persons appearance,
doubt must be resolved in favor of the as object evidence of her age, loses probative
defendant, and he is, therefore, sentenced to value. Doubt as to her true age becomes
six months of arresto mayor in lieu of six years greater and, following Agadas, supra, such
ten months and one day of presidio mayor. x x doubt must be resolved in favor of the
x. accused.

There can be no question, therefore, as to This is because in the era of modernism and
the admissibility of a persons appearance in rapid growth, the victims mere physical
determining his or her age. As to the weight to appearance is not enough to gauge her exact
accord such appearance, especially in rape age. For the extreme penalty of death to be
cases, Pruna laid down guideline no. 3, which upheld, nothing but proof beyond reasonable
is again reproduced hereunder: doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the
crime must be substantiated. Verily, the
minority of the victim should be not only

14
alleged but likewise proved with equal offense, accused-appellant cannot be
certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Be it sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only
remembered that the proof of the victims age the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be
in the present case spells the difference imposed upon him.
between life and death.[47]
In line with settled jurisprudence, the civil
indemnity awarded by the trial court is
In the present case, the prosecution did
increased to P50,000.00. In addition, Cyra May
not offer the victims certificate of live birth or
is entitled to an award of moral damages in the
similar authentic documents in evidence. The
amount of P50,000.00.[50]
victim and her mother, however, testified that
she was only three years old at the time of the WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional
rape.Cyra Mays testimony goes: Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96,
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-
q- Your name is Cyra Mae is that
appellant Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto is
correct?
found GUILTY of Statutory Rape, defined and
a- Yes, sir. punished by Article 335 (3) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to
q- And you are 3 years old?
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is
a- Yes, sir.[48] ordered to pay private complainant, Cyra May
Buenafe y Francisco, the amount
That of her mother goes: of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
Q How old was your daughter when and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
there things happened? SO ORDERED.
A 3 and years old.
Q When was she born?
A In Manila, May 10, 1992.[49]
Because of the vast disparity between the
alleged age (three years old) and the age
sought to be proved (below twelve years), the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-
trial court would have had no difficulty appellee, vs. SAMUEL
ascertaining the victims age from her ULZORON, accused-appellant.
appearance. No reasonable doubt, therefore,
exists that the second element of statutory DECISION
rape, i.e., that the victim was below twelve
years of age at the time of the commission of BELLOSILLO, J.:
the offense, is present.
SAMUEL ULZORON was charged with rape
Whether the victim was below seven with the use of a deadly weapon. Complaining
years old, however, is another matter. Here, witness was Emily Gabo. On 8 March 1995 the
reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and a trial court adjudged him guilty as charged and
half-year old can easily be mistaken for an sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. [1] No
underdeveloped seven-year old. The indemnity was awarded to Emily for the sexual
appearance of the victim, as object evidence, assault.
cannot be accorded much weight and,
following Pruna, the testimony of the mother On 31 March 1987, at around 10:00 oclock
is, by itself, insufficient. in the morning, Emily was watering her plants
near a well in Brgy. Tumarbong, Roxas,
As it has not been established with moral Palawan, when Samuel suddenly appeared. He
certainty that Cyra May was below seven years was armed with a 2-foot long bolo hanging in
old at the time of the commission of the its scabbard around his waist with a long-

15
sleeved work shirt slung over his shoulder. He sexual intercourse within twenty-four (24)
asked Emily where her husband was. She hours prior to his examination. He found her
replied that Roberto was already in cervix to be parous with superficial erosions.
the kaingin so she advised him to follow her Her hymen was obliterated with
6
husband there. But Samuel opted to remain caruncles. The next day Emily lodged a
and rest on an anthill some two and a half (2 ) complaint for rape against Samuel Ulzoron as
meters from the well. [2] she turned over his belongings to the police
authorities as her evidence in support
After Emily finished watering her plants
thereof. 7
and before she could start washing clothes,
Samuel grabbed her wrists and locked them Ulzoron had his own story to tell. He said
with one hand behind her back with the other that on the day of the incident he saw Emily at
drawing his bolo and pointing it at her neck. the well. She told him that work in
She struggled to free herself from his hold but the kaingin would be in the afternoon yet so
was so intimidated with the bolo that she could she advised him to come back. Since he was
not shout for help; she lost her strength returning in the afternoon, he decided to leave
eventually. After she weakened, he dragged his bolo and work shirt near the well. However,
her some forty (40) meters away to the bushes at around 10:00 oclock that morning, as he was
and tall grasses. He forced her to lie down; about to retrieve his bolo and shirt, he saw the
then he mounted her. He laid his bolo beside Gabo spouses having sexual intercourse in a
him, pinned her arms with one hand, and with hut with a wall only on one side. As he was
the other, loosened the buttons of her dress. ashamed to be seen by them he proceeded
Emily could only struggle in vain until he ripped instead to the house of a relative. 8
off her dress and panties. He opened the zipper
On the strength of the testimony of Emily
of his pants and then inserted his penis to her
Gabo, the trial court convicted the accused. It
vagina. He copulated with her for about fifteen
found her testimony straightforward and
(15) minutes. She did everything to disengage
credible. It rationalized that she would not
herself from the sexual imbroglio but her
have filed her complaint for rape if her
efforts proved no match to his strength. [3]
accusations were not true, for to do so would
At this moment, Emily heard her only expose herself to public shame or ridicule.
husbands voice calling for her. Roberto was No improper motive on her part to file the case
now somewhere within the vicino. He saw had been shown. The findings of the examining
Emilys slippers near the well so he frantically physician also lent credence to her claim. On
hollered, Baby! She answered back. When the other hand, the trial court found the
Robertos voice was heard by Samuel, he defense of the accused too weak, anemic, for
dashed off and fled to the thickets. [4] if Ulzoron really felt embarrassed to be seen by
the Gabo spouses, he could have taken a
Roberto followed the direction of Emilys
detour or passed another way to get back his
voice until he saw her emerge from the thick
bolo and work shirt. Besides, it was never
bushes. She was in a state of shock. He asked
established that the Gabos had so much
her what happened and she told him that she
yearning for each other that they had to
was sexually abused by Samuel Ulzoron. Emily
indulge in sexual congress in a hut that was
pointed Roberto to the place where she was
open to public view and at such an unlikely
dragged and raped. Together when they went
hour. 9
there and found Ulzorons bolo and work shirt
and took them home. [5] Appellant concedes, even as he assails his
conviction, that his defense is inherently weak.
The following afternoon, Emily went to
Nevertheless, he faults the trial court for
Dr. Feliciano M. Velasco Jr. for physical
convicting him on the basis of his defense. He
examination. The doctor noted the discharge
argues that the undisputed facts and
mixed with semen in her private part. He
circumstances made it more likely that Emily
opined that it could have been caused by
was involved in an adulterous relationship with

16
him.10 He claims, for instance, that there was (sic) forty (40) meters distance,15 she said, He
absolutely nothing to support the victims claim was holding my hands and at the same time he
of struggle, and that while he allegedly dragged is (sic) pushing me forward.16 This testimony
her forty (40) meters away before assaulting adequately explains the absence of injuries in
her sexually, the examining physician could not her body. At any rate, it is not necessary for the
conclude that physical force was actually commission of rape that there be marks of
inflicted since she did not sustain any physical physical violence on the victims body.17 While
injuries.11 Another point raised by the defense Emily repeatedly mentioned her struggles to
in her testimony that while he was on top of be released from his grasp, such efforts need
her his bolo was beside him. The plain import not always result in physical injuries.18 Besides,
of such testimony, according to the accused, is they did not refer to the circumstances when
that the bolo was not a necessary instrument she was being dragged by the accused, but to
in the commission of the crime.12 He also the circumstances when he initially grabbed
invites attention to the circumstance that the her hands,19 when he was on top of
judge who wrote the decision did not her,20 when he was undressing her,21 and
personally try the case and therefore lacked when she was exerting efforts to disengage
the opportunity to observe the demeanor of herself from the sexual anchorage.22
the parties and their witnesses.13
Intimidation may be of the moral
The arguments of appellants are kind, e.g., the fear caused by threatening a
unpersuasive ; they fail to convince us. woman with a knife.23 There was sufficient
Contrary to his claim that he was convicted intimidation when appellant pointed his 2-foot
because of his weak defense, his conviction long bolo at Emilys neck while they were near
was actually founded on the overwhelming the well until they reached the spot where she
evidence of the prosecution. With regard to his was finally abused. This intimidation continued
claim that he had an adulterous relationship even after he positioned himself on top of her
with the victim, the Office of the Solicitor and placed the bolo beside him since he was at
General observed that such claim was a radical liberty to point it anew at her neck or any part
departure from the defense of denial he raised of her body. Anyway, the significant
at the trial. The OSG observed further that the consideration is that, as aforementioned, the
sweetheart defense was being raised for the intimidation was continuous as to sufficiently
first time in this appeal hence should be engender fear in her mind.24
disallowed conformably with established
The circumstance that the judge who
jurisprudence.14 Here, the Court does not
wrote the decision had not heard the
necessarily agree. Appellant could only be
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses does
emphasizing the point that the facts and
not taint or disturb his decision. After all, he
circumstances established could lead to a
had the records of the case before him
conclusion of the existence of adulterous
including the transcript of stenographic notes.
relationship between him and Emily and not of
The validity of a decision is not necessarily
rape. In other words, appellant could be
impaired by the fact that its writer only took
utilizing the sweetheart theory not necessarily
over from a colleague who had earlier presided
as a defense but as a focal point in disputing
at the trial unless there is a clear showing of
the appreciation by the trial court of the
grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of
evidence for the prosecution. Thus, this course
the facts,25 and none exists in the present case.
taken by the defense may not be totally
The records amply support the factual findings
disregarded.
of the trial court and its assessment of the
The term dragged should not indeed be credibility of the witnesses.
taken in the meaning understood by appellant
The circumstances of force and
as dragged along on the ground. When asked
intimidation attending the instant case were
on cross-examination by the defense counsel
manifested clearly not only in the victims
to describe how she and appellant travelled at
testimony but also in the physical evidence

17
presented during the trial consisting of her realize that that would be his last rendezvous
torn dress and underwear as well as the with her. He was gunned down soon after and
medico-legal report. Such pieces of evidence died slowly in her arms. His assailant
indeed are more eloquent than a hundred apparently driven by extreme jealousy
witnesses.26 The fact of carnal knowledge is hurriedly fled leaving the lovers to the mercy
not disputed. It was positively established of their fate.
through the offended partys own testimony
On 26 February 1993 an Information was
and corroborated by that of her examining
filed before the Regional Trial Court of
physician.
Lingayen, Pangasinan, charging petitioner
Moreover, the conduct of the Delfin Abalos with murder for the killing of
complaining witness immediately following Liberato Damias.[1] The Information alleged
the assault clearly established the truth of her that the accused, using an unlicensed firearm,
charge that she was raped by accused- with intent to kill, employing treachery and
appellant.27 Consequently, we agree with the taking advantage of superior strength, shot
observation of the OSG that Emilys actuations and killed Liberato Damias. It further alleged
following her misfortune, namely, her that Delfin Abalos should be considered a
revelation to her husband of her violation by recidivist having been previously convicted by
the accused and subjecting her private parts the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan.[2]
immediately to medical examination, as well as
The bereaved Veronica Bulatao testified
the filing of her complaint for rape
that she had known petitioner Delfin Abalos
immediately thereafter are consistent with her
for several years as they were neighbors, their
straightforward, logical, truthful and credible
houses being only fifty (50) meters from each
testimony thus rebutting any insinuation of
other.[3] According to her, Delfin was courting
voluntariness on her part to the sexual
her since June 1992 but she jilted him since she
confrontation; rather, they only display a
was already involved with the now deceased
moral certainty of his culpability for the crime
Liberato Damias. In fact, she said, Delfin was
charged.
enraged when she rejected him that he even
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from threatened to kill her if she decided to marry
finding accused-appellant SAMUEL ULZORON Liberato.[4] He relentlessly pursued her even
guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion when she left San Isidro to reside temporarily
perpetua is AFFIRMED. In addition, he is in San Juan and Sta. Ana, Manila.[5] She also
ordered to indemnify his victim Emily Gabo the testified that a few days before he shot
amount of P50,000.00, and to pay the costs. Liberato Delfin went to her house ostensively
to watch television. But when she learned that
SO ORDERED.
his real intention was to see her she told him
not to visit her again.[6]
Veronica further narrated that on the
night of 27 January 1993 Liberato visited her at
DELFIN ABALOS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF around 7 o'clock. As she was entertaining him
APPEALS, RTC-Br. 38, LINGAYEN, at the balcony of their house she noticed
PANGASINAN, and PEOPLE OF THE petitioner walking back and forth in front of
PHILIPPINES, respondents. their house. He was just about four (4) meters
or so away from them.[7] As she was ill at ease
DECISION with petitioners conspicuous demeanor below,
BELLOSILLO, J.: she asked Liberato to transfer to their sala
where they could continue talking. When they
moved inside, Liberato sat near the entrance of
Liberato Damias visited his girlfriend at
the house with his left side towards the door
her house in San Isidro, Rosales, Pangasinan,
with Veronica sitting in front of him. The
on the night of 27 January 1993. He did not
positions of Liberato and Veronica and their

18
proximity to one another could have and then he was brought to the police station
heightened Delfin's animosity that he suddenly for investigation.[14]
appeared at the door and in a semi-kneeling
Celestino Abalos, Delfins father, together
position shot Liberato on his left
with Ruben Fragata and Virgilio Ortiz, tried to
side.[8] Liberato could only embrace Veronica
corroborate Delfin's alibi. The three (3) all
as blood trickled from his mouth and he
claimed that they had supper near the tobacco
desperately gasped for breath. Veronica
fields from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., and that after
positively identified petitioner Delfin Abalos as
eating, they returned to the fields to finish
he scurried away since the sala of her house
their work. They also said that from the time
was adequately lit by a kerosene lamp and he
they finished dinner Delfin never left the fields
was only one (1) meter away from them when
until midnight.[15]
he pulled the trigger.[9]
Jerry Fernandez, another defense
SPO1 Melchor Bernabe recounted that on
witness, testified that after spraying insecticide
the night of 27 January 1993 the barangay
on his plants he took a bath at a well near the
captain of San Isidro went to the police station
tobacco plantation from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m.
and reported the shooting incident to
during which he saw Delfin around twenty (20)
him.[10] So he proceeded to the crime scene
meters away working at the fields,[16]and that
with the Chief of Police and SPO2 Ruben Pitok
before heading for home he noticed Delfin still
to investigate the matter. Upon reaching the
busy with his work.
house of Veronica Bulatao he saw Liberato's
body sprawled on the floor. He asked Veronica On rebuttal, Inocencio Bulatao, Veronica's
who the assailant was but she was in father, testified that Delfin, contrary to his
incoherent and in a state of shock. It was only alibi, was not in the fields but in their house
later at the police station that she was able to prior to the shooting. In fact Inocencio said
reveal the identity of the gunman. Upon that at around 7:00 p.m., Delfin was in their
learning that Delfin Abalos was positively house watching television with his family as
identified by Veronica, SPO1 Bernabe went to they customarily allowed their neighbors to do
the house of Delfin and accosted him. Then he so. When Liberato arrived Veronica took him
brought him to the station for further to the balcony where they talked. An hour
questioning.[11] later, Inocencio turned the television off, so
petitioner left their house,[17] and Inocencio
Dr. Ingrid Gancinia, Municipal Health
proceeded to their kitchen to rest. Then he
Officer of Rosales, Pangasinan, testified that
heard a shot prompting him to rush to the sala
Liberato died from a bullet wound which
to check if anything wrong happened to his
pierced the lower part of his left armpit, and
daughter.[18] But Veronica told him that Delfin
that there were powder burns on the victims
shot Liberato. Inocencio then called out to his
body indicating that he was shot at a very close
neighbors for help.[19]
range, probably around six (6) inches away.[12]
Delfin Abalos alibi failed to convince the
But Delfin denied killing Liberato. He
trial court. It found petitioner guilty of murder
claimed that on the night of 27 January 1993
and imposed upon him an indeterminate
he worked with his father in the tobacco fields
prison term of fourteen (14) years, eight (8)
from 3:00 p.m. until midnight,[13] and the only
months and one (1) day as minimum, to
time he left was from 6:00 to 6:30 in the
eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one
evening to get supper from their house. He
(1) day of reclusion temporal as
stopped working at midnight and went straight
maximum. Petitioner was also ordered to pay
home to sleep. He only woke up at 4:00 o'clock
the heirs of the victim P38,000.00 for actual
the following morning when his father told him
damages, P50,000.00 for compensatory
that there were some policemen downstairs
damages and P30,000.00 for moral
looking for him. After telling him that he was a
damages.[20] However, the aggravating
suspect in the shooting, his room was searched
circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm

19
was not appreciated as the weapon was never easily recognize Delfin as the gunman. And
recovered. such illumination produced by a kerosene lamp
has indeed been held sufficient to allow a
The Court of Appeals sustained on appeal
witness to identify a person.[24] Veronica's
the award for damages but set aside the
competency in identifying petitioner is further
conviction of petitioner for murder and found
strengthened by the fact that they were
him guilty instead of the lesser crime of
neighbors for several years and so she was very
homicide. The appellate court concluded that
familiar with him. Veronica even saw him
the aggravating circumstance of treachery was
immediately before the shooting as he paced
not indubitably established to qualify the
the barangay road only a few meters away.
killing of Liberato to murder and reduced
petitioner's sentence to an indeterminate More importantly, we have consistently
prison term of twelve (12) years of prision reiterated that the credibility of witnesses is a
mayor maximum to seventeen (17) years and matter best assessed by the trial court because
four (4) months of reclusion temporal.[21] His of its unique opportunity to observe the
motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, witnesses firsthand and to note their
petitioner comes to us on a petition for review. demeanor, conduct and attitude.[25] Thus,
unless certain facts of substance and value
Petitioner argues that the testimony of
have been overlooked, which if considered
the lone witness, Veronica Bulatao, was not
might affect the result of the case, the trial
credible; that the Court of Appeals erred in
courts appraisal of the credibility of a witness
considering his three (3) prior convictions as
should not be overturned.[26] The trial court
basis for finding him guilty of homicide; and,
ruled that Veronica testified in a clear,
his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
straightforward and flawless manner.[27] We
doubt.
see no cogent reason to deviate from that
In an apparent attempt to destroy observation.
Veronicas credibility, petitioner asserts that
Petitioner holds that the Court of Appeals
her actions prior to the shooting were highly
erred in giving weight to his three (3) prior
questionable. If indeed he had threatened her
convictions as a basis for finding him guilty. He
life, then why did she still allow him to enter
maintains that his past convictions for murder,
their house that night? If she really saw him
homicide and frustrated homicide do not
suspiciously walking back and forth near their
prove that he was capable of killing Liberato.
house, why did she not warn Liberato of the
impending danger?[22] Although it is true that the appellate court
mentioned his prior convictions in its decision,
Petitioner also cites inconsistencies in her
such was not the basis for finding him guilty of
testimony, such as her assessment of the time
homicide. The appellate court only mentioned
frame when he courted her and her
the prior convictions to show that Veronica
statements as to when she last saw him prior
took his death threats seriously.[28] The
to the commission of the crime.[23] He even
decisive factor for convicting petitioner was
went to the extent of saying that Veronicas act
still the positive identification made by
of allowing him to court her despite her
Veronica during the trial.[29] Obviously, even
existing relationship with Liberato showed her
without mentioning his earlier convictions, the
deceitful character, hence, her unreliability as
Court of Appeals would have still concluded
a witness.
that Delfin did kill Liberato.
We disagree. Veronicas actions prior to
The last issue raised by petitioner is that
the incident and the alleged inconsistencies in
the appellate court erred in finding him guilty
her testimony do not affect her credibility in
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide. He
positively identifying Liberatos killer. The fact
argues that he had a solid alibi to prove his
remains that she was only a meter away when
innocence and that the paraffin test yielded
she saw Delfin shot Liberato.Also, a kerosene
negative for powder burns on his hand, hence
lamp lighted the sala thus enabling her to

20
confirming that he never fired the shot that However, although we agree that Delfin
killed Liberato. was Liberatos assailant, we disagree with the
sentence imposed by the appellate
For alibi to prosper, petitioner must not
court. Murder, and not homicide, was
only prove that he was not at the crime scene
committed.
but that it was also physically impossible for
him to have been present there at the time the The Court of Appeals, abiding by
offense was committed.[30] He miserably failed established jurisprudence, ruled that before
to satisfy the second requisite.Delfin himself treachery could be considered, two (2)
testified that the distance between the conditions must be present. First, that the
tobacco fields to Veronicas house was only means, method or manner of execution
around 400 meters and it only took eight (8) employed would ensure the safety of the
minutes to traverse such path.[31] Evidently, it malefactor from the retaliatory or defensive
was not impossible for Delfin to be present at acts of the victim; and second, that the
the locus criminis. perpetrator deliberately or consciously
adopted such means of execution. However,
Further, it has been long established that
the appellate court ruled that the prosecution
alibi cannot prevail over the positive
failed to satisfy the second requisite there
identification of the accused by a credible
being no proof that petitioner deliberately
witness who had no ill motive to falsely
sought such manner of executing the crime to
testify.[32] The absence of ill motive on
ensure his own safety from any form of
Veronicas part was even substantiated by
retaliation that the victim might have
petitioner in his testimony. Thus -
employed.[36]
Q: Since you admitted that your family and
The records, however, prove
the family of the Bulataos have no
otherwise. Before the incident, Delfin walked
misunderstanding whatsoever, can
back and forth on the barangay road, a few
you tell the honorable court the
meters from the balcony where Veronica was
reason why Veronica Bulatao
entertaining Liberato.[37] He waited for the
pinpointed you as the one who shot
perfect opportunity to execute his fiendish
Liberato Damias.
plot. While Liberato cozily sat in Veronicas sala,
A: I dont know of any reason, sir. devoting his full attention to her, petitioner
suddenly appeared at the door from behind
Q: As far as you are concerned Veronica and without warning shot him. Surely, there is
Bulatao has no ill-motive to testify no other conclusion but that he deliberately
against you, is that what you mean. and consciously employed such means of
A: None, sir.[33] execution to ensure his own safety from any
form of defense that Liberato might have used.
Thus, contrary to petitioners assertion,
Veronica only testified against him to seek It should be remembered that the
justice for Liberatos death, and not to essence of treachery is the swift and
arbitrarily implicate anyone just to put an end unexpected attack on an unarmed victim
to her boyfriends case. without the slightest provocation on the part
of the latter.[38] This was what Delfin did. He
Anent the paraffin test, it is true that it attacked Liberato while he was deeply
produced a negative result but such fact does engrossed in conversation with Veronica,
not ipso facto merit Delfins acquittal. This oblivious of the lurking peril to his life. The trial
Court acknowledges that the absence of court was therefore correct in ruling that the
powder burns in a suspects hand is not crime committed was murder.
conclusive proof that he has not fired a
gun.[34]In fact, the traces of nitrates can easily The Court of Appeals also ruled that
be removed by the simple act of washing ones although recidivism was alleged in the
hand.[35] Information, the evidence introduced was

21
insufficient to prove it as an aggravating Persons (Title Eight), he can be properly
circumstance. According to the appellate considered as a recidivist.
court, the certification presented during the
Petitioner should therefore be convicted
trial showing that Delfin was already on parole
of murder qualified by treachery, with the
failed to state what crime he was previously
generic aggravating circumstance of
convicted of.[39] As such, there was no way to
recidivism. When he committed the crime, the
determine if the prior crime committed fell
imposition of the death penalty was still
under the same title as murder.
proscribed by the 1987 Constitution, thus he
The records however reveal that should only be sentenced to reclusion
petitioner himself openly admitted in court perpetua and not death. And since the penalty
that he was previously convicted of three (3) imposed is reclusion perpetua, an indivisible
other offenses. He said: penalty, the provisions of The Indeterminate
Sentence Law applied by both the trial court
Q: Is it not a fact Mr. Accused that you were
and the Court of Appeals cannot be invoked.[42]
previously convicted of murder,
attempted homicide and homicide? WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals finding petitioner DELFIN ABALOS
A: I was convicted of Murder, Homicide and
guilty of homicide is MODIFIED. He is instead
Attempted Homicide, sir.
adjudged GUILTY of MURDER with recidivism
Q: This conviction of the crime of Murder as a generic aggravating circumstance. He is
was under Criminal Case No. L-1691, therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty
CFI, Lingayen Pangasinan and you of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of
were sentenced on July 20, 1978, is it Liberato Damias P50,000.00 for civil
not? indemnity, P30,000.00 for moral damages
and P38,000.00 for actual damages, and to pay
A: That was Homicide, July 29, 1978, sir. the costs.
Q: Who was your victim in that homicide SO ORDERED.
case?
A: Bernardo Valdez, sir.
RUDY CABALLES y TAIO, petitioner,
Q: About this murder case conviction, who
was your victim? vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
A: Ricardo Villamin, sir.
Q: And when were you convicted in this DECISION
murder case? PUNO, J.:
A: I cannot remember already, sir. I was
convicted first of Homicide, then This is an appeal by certiorari from the
attempted homicide and then murder. decision[1] of respondent Court of Appeals
dated September 15, 1998 which affirmed the
Q: And who was your victim in this judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court
Attempted Homicide case? of Santa Cruz, Laguna, finding herein
A: Rodrigo Batucan, sir.[40] petitioner, Rudy Caballes y Taio, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of theft, and the
This candid admission by petitioner of his resolution[2] dated November 9, 1998 which
prior convictions is sufficient to establish denied petitioner's motion for
recidivism as a generic aggravating reconsideration.
circumstance.[41] And since all of his earlier
convictions fall under the same title of The In an Information[3] dated October 16,
Revised Penal Code , i.e., Crimes Against 1989, petitioner was charged with the crime of
theft committed as follows:

22
"That on or about the 28th day of June, 1989, Station. Danilo Cabale took pictures of the
in the Municipality of Pagsanjan, and/or appellant and the jeep loaded with the wires
elsewhere in the Province of Laguna, and which were turned over to the Police Station
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. Appellant
the above-named accused, with intent of gain, was incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal
and without the knowledge and consent of the jail.
owner thereof, the NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION, did then and there wilfully, In defense, appellant interposed denial and
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry alibi. He testified that he is a driver and
away about 630-kg of Aluminum Cable resident of Pagsanjan, Laguna; a NARCOM
Conductors, valued at P27, 450.00, belonging civilian agent since January, 1988 although his
to and to the damage and prejudice of said identification card (ID) has already expired. In
owner National Power Corp., in the aforesaid the afternoon of June 28, 1989, while he was
amount. driving a passenger jeepney, he was stopped
by one Resty Fernandez who requested him to
CONTRARY TO LAW." transport in his jeepney conductor wires which
were in Cavinti, Laguna. He told Resty to wait
During the arraignment, petitioner until he had finished his last trip for the day
pleaded not guilty and hence, trial on the from Santa Cruz, Laguna. On his way to Santa
merits ensued. Cruz, Laguna, he dropped by the NARCOM
headquarters and informed his superior,
The facts are summarized by the appellate
Sgt. Callos, that something unlawful was going
court as follows:
to happen. Sgt. Callos advised him to proceed
with the loading of the wires and that the
"[At] about 9:15 p.m. of June 28, 1989, former would act as back-up and intercept the
Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Pat. Alex de Castro, vehicle at the Sambat Patrol Base
while on a routine patrol in Pagsanjan.
in Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna,
spotted a passenger jeep unusually covered
After receiving those instructions, he went
with "kakawati" leaves.
back to see Resty. Although Resty had his own
vehicle, its tires were old so the cable wires
Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with were loaded in appellant's jeep and covered
smuggled goods, the two police officers with kakawati leaves. The loading was done by
flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was driven about five (5) masked men. He was
by appellant. When asked what was loaded on promised P1,000.00 for the job. Upon crossing
the jeep, he did not answer; he appeared pale a bridge, the two vehicles separated but in his
and nervous. case, he was intercepted by Sgt. Noceja and
Pat. De Castro. When they discovered the
With appellant's consent, the police officers cables, he told the police officers that the
checked the cargo and they discovered cables were loaded in his jeep by the
bundles of 3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized owner, Resty Fernandez. But despite his
conductor wires exclusively owned by National explanation, he was ordered to proceed to
Power Corporation (NPC). The conductor wires police headquarters where he was
weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55, interrogated. The police officers did not
244.45. Noceja asked appellant where the believe him and instead locked him up in jail for
wires came from and appellant answered that a week."[4]
they came from Cavinti, a town approximately
8 kilometers away On April 27, 1993, the court a
from Sampalucan. Thereafter, appellant and quo rendered
the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were judgment[5] the dispositive portion of which
brought to the Pagsanjan Police reads:

23
"WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty failed to overcome the constitutional right of
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft petitioner to presumption of innocence."
of property worth P55,244.45, the Court
hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment The conviction or acquittal of petitioner
from TWO (2) [YEARS], FOUR (4) MONTHS, and hinges primarily on the validity of
ONE (1) DAY of PrisionCorreccional, as the warrantless search and seizure made by
minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor, the police officers, and the admissibility of the
as maximum, to indemnify the complainant evidence obtained by virtue thereof.
National Power Corporation in the amount
In holding that the warrantless search and
of P55, 244.45, and to pay the costs."
seizure is valid, the trial court ruled that:
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed
"As his last straw of argument, the accused
the judgment of conviction but deleted the
questions the constitutionality of the search
award for damages on the ground that the
and validity of his arrest on the ground that no
stolen materials were recovered and modified
warrant was issued to that effect. The Court
the penalty imposed, to wit:
cannot again sustain such view. In the case of
People v. Lo Ho [Wing], G.R. No. 88017,
"WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby
January 21, 1991, it has been held that
AFFIRMED with the modification that appellant
considering that before a warrant can be
RUDY CABALLES is found guilty beyond
obtained, the place, things and persons to be
reasonable doubt as principal in theft, defined
searched must be described to the satisfaction
and penalized under Articles 308 and 309, par.
of the issuing judge - a requirement which
1, Revised Penal Code, and there being no
borders on the impossible in the case of
modifying circumstances, he is hereby meted
smuggling effected by the use of a moving
an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) years,
vehicle that can transport contraband from
Nine (9) months and Eleven (11) days
one place to another with impunity,
of prision correccional, as minimum term, to
a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
Eight (8) years, Eight (8) months and one (1)
justified on grounds of practicability. The
day of prision mayor, as maximum term. No
doctrine is not of recent vintage. In the case
civil indemnity and no costs."[6]
of Valmonte vs. de Villa, G.R. No. 83988, May
24, 1990 (Resolution on Motion for
Petitioner comes before us and raises the
Reconsideration, September 29, 1989), it was
following issues:
ruled that automobiles because of their
mobility may be searched without a warrant
"(a) Whether or not the constitutional right of
upon facts not justifying warrantless search of
petitioner was violated when the police
a resident or office. x x x To hold that no
officers searched his vehicle and seized the
criminal can, in any case, be arrested and
wires found therein without a search warrant
searched for the evidence and tokens of his
and when samples of the wires and references
crime without a warrant, would be to leave
to them were admitted in evidence as basis for
society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the
his conviction;
shrewdest, the most expert, and the most
depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape
(b) Whether or not respondent Court erred in in many instances (Ibid.). In Umil v. Ramos, 187
rejecting petitioner's defense that he was SCRA 311, and People vs. Ortiz, 191 SCRA 836,
engaged in an entrapment operation and in the Supreme Court held that a search may be
indulging in speculation and conjecture in
made even without a warrant where the
rejecting said defense; and accused is caught in flagrante. Under the
circumstances, the police officers are not only
(c) Whether or not the evidence of the authorized but are also under obligation to
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of arrest the accused even without a warrant."[7]
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and thus

24
Petitioner contends that the flagging In cases where warrant is necessary, the
down of his vehicle by police officers who were steps prescribed by the Constitution and
on routine patrol, merely on "suspicion" that reiterated in the Rules of Court must be
"it might contain smuggled goods," does not complied with. In the exceptional events
constitute probable cause that will justify where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid
a warrantlesssearch and seizure. He insists search or seizure, or when the latter cannot be
that, contrary to the findings of the trial court performed except without a warrant, what
as adopted by the appellate court, he did not constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable
give any consent, express or implied, to the search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
search of the vehicle. Perforce, any evidence determinable from the uniqueness of the
obtained in violation of his right against circumstances involved, including the purpose
unreasonable search and seizure shall be of the search or seizure, the presence or
deemed inadmissible. absence of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the
Enshrined in our Constitution is the
place or thing searched and the character of
inviolable right of the people to be secure in
the articles procured.[14]
their persons and properties against
unreasonable searches and seizures, as It is not controverted that the search and
defined under Section 2, Article III thereof, seizure conducted by the police officers in the
which reads: case at bar was not authorized by a search
warrant. The main issue is whether the
"Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in evidence taken from the warrantless search is
their persons, houses, papers, and effects admissible against the appellant. Without said
against unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence, the prosecution cannot prove the
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of doubt.
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the I. Search of moving vehicle
complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be Highly regulated by the government, the
seized." vehicle's inherent mobility
reduces expectation of privacy especially when
The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a
Article III of the Constitution bars the highly reasonable suspicion amounting to
admission of evidence obtained in violation of probable cause that the occupant committed a
such right. criminal activity.[15] Thus, the rules governing
search and seizure have over the years been
The constitutional proscription steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle
against warrantless searches and seizures is is the object of the search on the basis of
not absolute but admits of certain exceptions, practicality. This is so considering that before a
namely: (1) warrantless search incidental to a warrant could be obtained, the place, things
lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule and persons to be searched must be described
126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a
jurisprudence;[8] (2) seizure of evidence in plain requirement which borders on the impossible
view;[9] (3) search of moving vehicles;[10] (4) in the case of smuggling effected by the use of
consented warrantless search;[11] (5) customs a moving vehicle that can transport
search; (6) stop and frisk situations contraband from one place to another with
(Terry search);[12] and (7) exigent and impunity. We might add that
emergency circumstances.[13] a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
justified on the ground that it is not practicable

25
to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be normally permissible in this instance is limited
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction to the following instances: (1) where the
in which the warrant must be officer merely draws aside the curtain of a
sought.[16] Searches without warrant of vacant vehicle which is parked on the public
automobiles is also allowed for the purpose of fair grounds;[24] (2) simply looks into a
preventing violations of smuggling or vehicle;[25] (3) flashes a light therein without
immigration laws, provided such searches are opening the car's doors;[26] (4) where the
made at borders or 'constructive borders' like occupants are not subjected to a physical or
checkpoints near the boundary lines of the body search;[27] (5) where the inspection of the
State.[17] vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual
inspection;[28] and (6) where the routine check
The mere mobility of these vehicles,
is conducted in a fixed area.[29]
however, does not give the police officers
unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate None of the foregoing circumstances is
searches without warrants if made within the obtaining in the case at bar. The police officers
interior of the territory and in the absence of did not merely conduct a visual search or visual
probable cause.[18] Still and all, the important inspection of herein petitioner's vehicle. They
thing is that there was probable cause to had to reach inside the vehicle, lift
conduct the warrantless search, which must the kakawatileaves and look inside the sacks
still be present in such a case. before they were able to see the cable wires. It
cannot be considered a simple routine check.
Although the term eludes exact definition,
probable cause signifies a reasonable ground In the case of United States vs.
of suspicion supported by circumstances Pierre,[30] the Court held that the physical
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a intrusion of a part of the body of an agent into
cautious man's belief that the person accused the vehicle goes beyond the area protected by
is guilty of the offense with which he is the Fourth Amendment, to wit:
charged; or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably "The Agent . . . stuck his head through the
discreet and prudent man to believe that an driver's side window. The agent thus effected
offense has been committed and that the a physical intrusion into the vehicle. . . [W]e are
items, articles or objects sought in connection aware of no case holding that an officer did not
with said offense or subject to seizure and conduct a search when he physically intruded
destruction by law is in the place to be part of his body into a space in which the
searched.[19] The required probable cause that suspect had a reasonable expectation of
will justify a warrantless search and seizure is privacy. [The] Agent['s] . . . physical intrusion
not determined by a fixed formula but is allowed him to see and to smell things he could
resolved according to the facts of each case.[20] not see or smell from outside the vehicle. . . In
doing so, his inspection went beyond that
One such form of search of moving
portion of the vehicle which may be viewed
vehicles is the "stop-and-search" without
from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive
warrant at military or police checkpoints which
passersby or diligent police officers, and into
has been declared to be not illegal per
the area protected by the Fourth amendment,
se,[21] for as long as it is warranted by the
just as much as if he had stuck his head inside
exigencies of public order[22] and conducted in
the open window of a home."
a way least intrusive to motorists.[23] A
checkpoint may either be a mere routine
On the other hand, when a vehicle is
inspection or it may involve an extensive
stopped and subjected to an extensive search,
search.
such a warrantless search would be
Routine inspections are not regarded constitutionally permissible only if the officers
as violative of an individual's right against conducting the search have reasonable or
unreasonable search. The search which is probable cause to believe, before the search,

26
that either the motorist is a law-offender or "ATTY. SANTOS
they will find the instrumentality or evidence
Q Now on said date and time do you
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be
remember of any unusual
searched.[31]
incident while you were
This Court has in the past found probable performing your duty?
cause to conduct without a judicial warrant an
A Yes, sir, at that time and date
extensive search of moving vehicles in
myself and Police
situations where (1) there had emanated from
Sgt. Noceja were conducting
a package the distinctive smell of
patrol in the said place when we
marijuana; (2) agents of the Narcotics
spotted a suspicious jeepney so
Command ("Narcom") of the Philippine
we stopped the jeepney and
National Police ("PNP") had received a
searched the load of
confidential report from informers that a
the jeepney and we found out
sizeable volume of marijuana would be
(sic) these conductor wires.
transported along the route where the search
was conducted;(3) Narcom agents had Q You mentioned about the fact that
received information that a Caucasian coming when you saw the jeepney you
from Sagada, Mountain Province, had in his became suspicious, why did you
possession prohibited drugs and when become suspicious?
the Narcom agents confronted the accused
Caucasian, because of a conspicuous bulge in A Because the cargo was covered
his waistline, he failed to present his passport with leaves and branches, sir.
and other identification papers when Q When you became suspicious
requested to do so; (4) Narcom agents had upon seeing those leaves on top
received confidential information that a of the load what did you do
woman having the same physical appearance next, if any?
as that of the accused would be transporting
marijuana;[32] (5) the accused who were riding A We stopped the jeepney and
a jeepney were stopped and searched by searched the contents thereof,
policemen who had earlier received sir."[34]
confidential reports that said accused would The testimony
transport a large quantity of marijuana; and (6) of Victorino Noceja did not fare
where the moving vehicle was stopped and any better:
searched on the basis of intelligence
information and clandestine reports by a deep "ATTY SANTOS
penetration agent or spy - one who Q When you saw the accused driving
participated in the drug smuggling activities of the said vehicle, what did you
the syndicate to which the accused belonged - do?
that said accused were bringing prohibited
drugs into the country.[33] A Because I saw that the vehicle
being drawn by Caballes was
In the case at bar, the vehicle of the covered by kakawati leaves, I
petitioner was flagged down because the became suspicious since such
police officers who were on routine patrol vehicle should not be covered
became suspicious when they saw that the by those and I flagged him,
back of the vehicle was covered sir."[35]
with kakawati leaves which, according to
them, was unusual and uncommon. We hold that the fact that the vehicle
looked suspicious simply because it is not
Pat. Alex de Castro recounted the incident common for such to be covered
as follows: with kakawati leaves does not constitute

27
"probable cause" as would justify the conduct In addition, the police authorities do not
of a search without a warrant. claim to have received any confidential report
or tipped information that petitioner was
In People vs. Chua Ho San,[36] we held
carrying stolen cable wires in his vehicle which
that the fact that the watercraft used by the
could otherwise have sustained their
accused was different in appearance from the
suspicion. Our jurisprudence is replete with
usual fishing boats that commonly cruise over
cases where tipped information has become a
the Bacnotan seas coupled with the suspicious
sufficient probable cause to effect
behavior of the accused when he attempted to
a warrantless search and
flee from the police authorities do not
seizure.[37] Unfortunately, none exists in this
sufficiently establish probable cause. Thus:
case.
"In the case at bar, the Solicitor General
proposes that the following details are
II. Plain view doctrine
suggestive of probable cause - persistent
reports of rampant smuggling of firearm and
other contraband articles, CHUA's watercraft It cannot likewise be said that the cable
differing in appearance from the usual fishing wires found in petitioner's vehicle were in plain
boats that commonly cruise over view, making its warrantless seizure valid.
the Bacnotan seas, CHUA's illegal entry into
the Philippines x x x, CHUA's suspicious Jurisprudence is to the effect that an
behavior, i.e., he attempted to flee when he object is in plain view if the object itself is
saw the police authorities, and the apparent plainly exposed to sight. Where the object
ease by which CHUA can return to and navigate seized was inside a closed package, the object
his speedboat with immediate dispatch itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot
towards the high seas, beyond the reach of be seized without a warrant. However, if the
Philippine laws. package proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if
This Court, however, finds that these do not its contents are obvious to an observer, then
constitute "probable cause." None of the the contents are in plain view and may be
telltale clues, e.g., bag or package emanating seized. In other words, if the package is such
the pungent odor of marijuana or other that an experienced observer could infer from
prohibited drug, confidential report and/or its appearance that it contains the prohibited
positive identification by informers of courier article, then the article is deemed in plain
of prohibited drug and/or the time and place view. It must be immediately apparent to the
where they will transport/deliver the same, police that the items that they observe may be
suspicious demeanor or behavior, and evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise
suspicious bulge in the waist - accepted by this subject to seizure.[38]
Court as sufficient to justify It is clear from the records of this case that
a warrantless arrest exists in this case. There the cable wires were not exposed to sight
was no classified information that a foreigner because they were placed in sacks[39] and
would disembark at Tammocalao beach covered with leaves. The articles were neither
bearing prohibited drug on the date in transparent nor immediately apparent to the
question. CHUA was not identified as a drug police authorities. They had no clue as to what
courier by a police informer or agent. The fact was hidden underneath the leaves and
that the vessel that ferried him to shore bore branches. As a matter of fact, they had to ask
no resemblance to the fishing boats of the petitioner what was loaded in his vehicle. In
area did not automatically mark him as in the such a case, it has been held that the object is
process of perpetrating an offense. x x x." not in plain view which could have justified
(emphasis supplied) mere seizure of the articles without further
search.[40]

28
III. Consented search "WITNESS
Q On June 28, 1989, where were
Petitioner contends that the statement of you?
Sgt. Victorino Noceja that he checked the
A We were conducting patrol at
vehicle "with the consent of the accused" is too
the poblacion and
vague to prove that petitioner consented to
some barangays, sir.
the search. He claims that there is no specific
statement as to how the consent was asked xxxxxxxxx
and how it was given, nor the specific words
Q After conducting the patrol
spoken by petitioner indicating his alleged
operation, do you remember of
"consent." At most, there was only an implied
any unusual incident on said
acquiescence, a mere passive conformity,
date and time?
which is no "consent" at all within the purview
of the constitutional guarantee. A Yes, sir.
Doubtless, the constitutional immunity Q What is that incident?
against unreasonable searches and seizures is
a personal right which may be waived. The A While I was conducting my patrol
consent must be voluntary in order to validate at barangay Sampalucan, I saw
an otherwise illegal detention and search, i.e., Rudy Caballes driving a vehicle
the consent is unequivocal, specific, and and the vehicle contained
intelligently given, uncontaminated by any aluminum wires, sir.
duress or coercion.[41] Hence, consent to a xxxxxxxxx
search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be
shown by clear and convincing Q When you saw the accused driving
[42]
evidence. The question whether a consent the said vehicle, what did you
to a search was in fact voluntary is a question do?
of fact to be determined from the totality of all A Because I saw that the vehicle
the circumstances.[43] Relevant to this being driven by Caballes was
determination are the following characteristics covered by kakawati leaves, I
of the person giving consent and the became suspicious since such
environment in which consent is given: (1) the vehicle should not be covered
age of the defendant; (2) whether he was in a by those and I flagged him, sir.
public or secluded location; (3) whether he
objected to the search or passively looked Q Did the vehicle stop?
on;[44] (4) the education and intelligence of the A Yes, sir, and after said vehicle
defendant;(5) the presence of coercive stop[ped], I removed the cover
police procedures; (6) the defendant's belief of said vehicle and by so doing,
that no incriminating evidence will be I saw the aluminum wires.
found;[45] (7) the nature of the police
questioning; (8) the environment in which the Q Before you saw the aluminum
questioning took place; and (9) the possibly wires, did you talk to the
vulnerable subjective state of the person accused?
consenting.[46] It is the State which has the A Yes, sir, I asked him what his load
burden of proving, by clear and positive was.
testimony, that the necessary consent was
obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily Q What was the answer of Caballes?
given.[47]
A He did not answer and I observed
In the case at bar, him to be pale,
Sgt. Victorino Noceja testified on the manner "nagpapamutla" (sic), so I told
in which the search was conducted in this wise: him I will look at the contents

29
of his vehicle and he answered "you can see the contents but those are
in the positive. only clothings." Then the policemen asked if
they could open and see it, and accused
Q And after you saw for yourself the
answered "you can see it." The Court said there
aluminum wires loaded on the
was a valid consented search.
jeep, what did you do?
In case of consented searches or waiver of
A I asked him where those wires
the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive
came from and he answered
searches, it is fundamental that to constitute a
those came from
[48] waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right
the Cavinti area, sir."
exists; (2) that the person involved had
This Court is not unmindful of cases knowledge, either actual or constructive, of
upholding the validity of the existence of such right; and (3) the said
consented warrantless searches and person had an actual intention to relinquish
seizure. But in these cases, the police officers' the right.[55]
request to search personnel effects was orally
In the case at bar, the evidence is lacking
articulated to the accused and in such
that the petitioner intentionally surrendered
language that left no room for doubt that the
his right against unreasonable searches. The
latter fully understood what was requested. In
manner by which the two police officers
some instance, the accused even verbally
allegedly obtained the consent of petitioner
replied to the request demonstrating that he
for them to conduct the search leaves much to
also understood the nature and consequences
be desired. When petitioner's vehicle was
of such request.[49]
flagged down, Sgt. Noceja approached
In Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals,[50] the petitioner and "told him I will look at the
apprehending officers sought the permission contents of his vehicle and he answered in the
of petitioner to search the car, to which the positive." We are hard put to believe that by
latter agreed. Petitioner therein himself freely uttering those words, the police officers were
gave his consent to said search. In People asking or requesting for permission that they
vs. Lacerna,[51] the appellants who were riding be allowed to search the vehicle of
in a taxi were stopped by two policemen who petitioner. For all intents and purposes, they
asked permission to search the vehicle and the were informing, nay, imposing upon herein
appellants readily agreed. In upholding the petitioner that they will search his vehicle. The
validity of the consented search, the Court held "consent" given under intimidating or coercive
that appellant himself who was "urbanized in circumstances is no consent within the
mannerism and speech" expressly said that he purview of the constitutional guaranty. In
was consenting to the search as he allegedly addition, in cases where this Court upheld the
had nothing to hide and had done nothing validity of consented search, it will be noted
wrong. In People vs. Cuizon,[52] the accused that the police authorities expressly asked, in
admitted that they signed a written no uncertain terms, for the consent of the
permission stating that they freely consented accused to be searched. And the consent of
to the search of their luggage by the NBI agents the accused was established by clear and
to determine if they were positive proof. In the case of herein petitioner,
carrying shabu. In People vs. Montilla,[53] it the statements of the police officers were not
was held that the accused spontaneously asking for his consent; they were declaring to
performed affirmative acts of volition by him that they will look inside his
himself opening the bag without being forced vehicle. Besides, it is doubtful whether
or intimidated to do so, which acts should permission was actually requested and
properly be construed as a clear waiver of his granted because when Sgt. Noceja was asked
right. In People vs. Omaweng,[54] the police during his direct examination what he did
officers asked the accused if they could see the when the vehicle of petitioner stopped, he
contents of his bag to which the accused said answered that he removed the cover of the

30
vehicle and saw the aluminum wires. It was Rudy Caballes is hereby ACQUITTED of the
only after he was asked a clarificatory question crime charged. Cost de oficio.
that he added that he told petitioner he will
SO ORDERED.
inspect the vehicle. To our mind, this was more
of an afterthought. Likewise, when Pat. de
Castro was asked twice in his direct
examination what they did when they stopped
the jeepney, his consistent answer was that
they searched the vehicle. He never testified
that he asked petitioner for permission to
conduct the search.[56] G.R. No. 105834 February 13, 1995

Neither can petitioner's passive PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-


submission be construed as an implied appellee,
acquiescence to vs.
the warrantless search. In People JEAN BALINGAN Y BOBBONAN alias "SUSAN",
vs. Barros,[57] appellant Barros, who was "JANE" and "JUANA", accused-appellant.
carrying a carton box, boarded a bus where
two policemen were riding. The policemen
inspected the carton and found marijuana
inside. When asked who owned the box, PUNO, J.:
appellant denied ownership of the box and
failed to object to the search. The Court there On April 4, l989, appellant Jean Bobbonan
struck down the warrantless search as illegal Balingan was arraigned and pleaded not
and held that the accused is not to be guilty 1 to the charge of Violation of Sec. 4, Art.
presumed to have waived the unlawful search II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known
conducted simply because he failed to object, as "The Dangerous Drugs Act," under an
citing the ruling in the case of People vs. Information, dated October 24, 1988, which
Burgos,[58] to wit: alleges:

"As the constitutional guaranty is not That on or about the 31st day of August, 1988,
dependent upon any affirmative act of the in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within
citizen, the courts do not place the citizens in the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
the position of either contesting an officer's above-named accused, without any authority
authority by force, or waiving his constitutional of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful and feloniously and knowingly transport and
submission to a search or seizure is not a deliver prohibited drugs consisting of
consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely marijuana leaves weighing, more or less, three
a demonstration of regard for the supremacy (3) kilos and 500 grams from Baguio City to
of the law." Metro Manila, in violation of the above-
mentioned provisions of law.
Casting aside the cable wires as evidence,
the remaining evidence on record are CONTRARY TO LAW.
insufficient to sustain petitioners
conviction. His guilt can only be established At the trial that ensued, the prosecution and
without violating the constitutional right of the the accused presented divergent versions of
accused against unreasonable search and what occurred on August 31, 1988.
seizure.
WHEREFORE, the impugned decision is The prosecution evidence established that on
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accused August 31, 1988, the Narcotics Intelligence
Division of the Baguio City Police Station

31
received a telephone call from an unnamed At about 11:00 o'clock of the same morning,
male informant. He passed the information the bus moved out (on its way) to Manila via
that appellant was going to Manila with a bag Kennon Road. Lt. Obrera instructed Pat. Kimay,
filled with marijuana. Acting on the who was at the Kennon Road Checkpoint, to
information, then P/Lt. Manuel stop the bus when it reaches the place.
Obrera 2 formed a surveillance team monitor Meanwhile, Lt. Obrera and Lt. Ong tailed the
appellant's movements. 3 The team was bus at about fifteen to twenty meters behind.
deployed at different places in Baguio City, As instructed, Pat. Kimay stopped the bus at
including appellant's house on Brookside and the Kennon Road Checkpoint. That was already
bus stations. 4 at 11:30 o'clock in the morning. Lt. Obrera and
Pat. Ong arrived at the checkpoint less than a
The surveillance yielded positive results. The minute after the bus (did) and immediately
conduct of the operations which led to the boarded it. Lt. Obrera announced a routinary
apprehesion of appellant was accurately check-up identified himself as a policeman to
narrated by the trial court in its Decision, viz.: Balingan and asked her permission to check
her luggage . . . (S)he did not respond and just
. . . Cpl. Garcia soon reported seeing Balingan looked outside the window. He opened the
move out from her residence at Brookside and luggage in the luggage carrier overhead and
board a taxicab which proceeded to the above Balingan and found suspected
direction of Bonifacio Street. Balingan was marijuana in it. He pulled out the luggage and
wearing a pink dress and carrying a gray turned it over to Lt. Obrera.
luggage (like a "maleta") with orange or yellow
belts. She also reported the make and place Thereupon, Lt. Obrera tries to arrest Balingan
number of the taxicab which Balingan but the latter resisted and tried to bite his hand
boarded. Upon receiving the report, Lt. Obrera and furthermore held tightly (onto) the
ordered Cpl. Garcia to proceed to the window pane. Lt. Obrera asked Pat. Ong to
Philippine Rabbit Terminal in case Balingan fetch Cpl. Garcia from the Philippine Rabbit
would go there. Terminal in the City proper, so that she would
be the one to bring out Balingan from the bus.
Pat. Kimay, who must have intercepted Cpl. In the meantime, he remained inside the bus
Garcia's message, also reported that the holding the confiscated luggage while the
taxicab described by the latter passed along other passengers alighted from the bus.
Bonifacio Rotunda. Lt. Obrera instructed him
to move out and proceed to the Police After some thirty minutes, Garcia arrived and
Checkpoint at Kennon Road going to the pulled Balingan out of the bus and brought her
Philippine Military Academy. to the Baguio City Police Station and there
locked her up in jail. 5
From his post at the Dangwa Bus Station, Pat.
Bueno informed The gray bag confiscated from appellant
Lt. Obrera that Balingan boarded a Dangwa Bus contained suspected marijuana flowering tops
with plate number NTU-153 bound for Manila. divided into four bundles separately wrapped
Lt. Obrera promptly proceeded to the bus in plastic bags. 6 Samples were taken from the
station to verify the report. There, he went up bundles and preliminary tests were conducted
the bus described by Pat. Bueno, and he saw on them by Pat. Juanito G. Kimay Jr. 7 Using the
Balingan on the third or fourth seat behind the Duquonois levine reagent test, he found traces
driver's seat. (I)n the luggage carrier above her of THC, an active component of marijuana, in
head was the gray luggage earlier described by the samples. 8 Further laboratory examinations
Cpl. Garcia. He then left and positioned himself concluded on the contents of the bag by
with Ong at the Lakandula burned area to wait P/Capt. Carlos V. Figueroa, 9 forensic chemist
for the bus to depart. and chief of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory at

32
Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet yielded beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
the following: transportation of prohibited drugs as charged,
and hereby sentences her to suffer the penalty
Qualitative examination of life imprisonment; to pay a fine of
conducted on the above- P20,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment
mentioned specimen gave in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
POSITIVE result to the test of
marijuana, a prohibited In the service of her sentence, the accused
drug. 10 shall be certified with her preventive
imprisonment under the terms and conditions
Appellant, as lone witness, denied the prescribed in Article 29 of the Revised Penal
prosecution's version. She claimed that prior to Code, as amended.
her arrest, she was living at Asin Road, Baguio
City, in the house of her employer, Esper The confiscated marijuana flowering tops are
Chinonchon. Part of her duties was to go to hereby declared forfeited in favor of the
Manila to pick up orders for Chinonchon's Government; and upon the finality of this
woodcarving enterprise. She was allegedly on decisions, the Branch Clerk of the Court is
such an errand when she was arrested by directed to turn them over to the Dangerous
narcotics agents on August 31, 1988. 11 Drugs Custodian (NBI) for disposition in
accordance with law.
Appellant testified that she left Asin Road early
in the morning of that fateful August day; SO ORDERED.
carrying nothing but her purse and
handkerchief. 12 Instead of going directly to the In this appeal, appellant submits that the trial
bus station, she passed by her daughter's court erred in: (1) not acquitting her on the
boarding house at Brookside to drop off some ground that her guilt had not been proved
money. From there, she went by jeep to the beyond reasonable doubt; (2) not considering
Dangwa bus terminal where she boarded a bus material evidence on record, which if
going to Manila. 13 considered will lead to her acquittal; (3)
convicting her based entirely on conclusions
It was around eleven o'clock in the morning based on hearsay and conducted evidence; (4)
(11:00 a.m.) when the Dangwa bus she was holding that she was caught in the act of
riding left the terminal. 14Shortly after, the transporting the subject prohibited drugs
vehicle was flagged down by policemen at a based on hearsay evidence; (5) holding that
checkpoint at Kennon Road. Several officers there was sufficient probable cause for the
boarded the bus, and one of them took a gray police officers to believe that she was then and
bag from somewhere. Despite her there committing a crime so as to justify the
protestations, the officer insisted that she was warrantless search and seizure of the bag; and
"Susan" and that she owns the gray bag. (6) not including the subject prohibited drugs
Appellant was arrested and brought to the which are clearly products of an illegal
Baguio City Police Station, where she was search. 17
investigated and consequently incarcerated.
During he interrogation, appellant insisted on We are not persuaded by appellant's
her innocence. 15 arguments. We affirm the trial court's
Decision.
After trial, appellant was convicted by the
Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch Appellant raises two (2) basic issues. The first
4, 16 and sentenced as follows: issue is whether the required quantum of
proof to support her guilt was established by
WHEREFORE, the Court finds and declares the the prosecution; the second is whether the
accused JEAN BALINGAN Y BOBBONAN guilty search done inside the Dangwa bus and the

33
consequent seizure of the marijuana flowering presentation of Ong were
tops were some in violation of the dispensed with. 19
Constitution.
The prosecution clinched its evidence against
We hold that the prosecution was able to appellant with the uncontested finding of
adduce evidence to prove appellant's guilt P/Capt. Carlos V. Figueroa that the bundles
beyond reasonable doubt. Witness Obrera found inside the gray luggage bag seized from
clearly set forth in his three-day appellant contained marijuana.
testimony 18 the events that led to appellant's
arrest, starting from the receipt by him of an We also find no merit in appellant's argument
informant's tip. He was able to establish that: that the marijuana flowering tops should be
appellant had physical possession of the excluded as evidence, they being the products
subject gray luggage bag from the time she left of an alleged illegal warrantless search. The
her house at Brookside until she boarded and search and seizure in the case at bench
sat on the third row behind the driver of happened in a moving, public vehicle. In the
Dangwa bus with plate number NTU-153 recent case of People vs. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA
bound for Manila; conducted a search of the 122 (1991), this Court gave its approval to a
same bus at the Kennon Road checkpoint, they warrantless search done on a taxicab which
found the subject gray bag on the overhead yielded the illegal drug commonly known
luggage compartment corresponding to as shabu. In that case, we raciocinated:
appellant's seat; upon inspection, the bag was
found to contain suspected marijuana Anent the first assignment of error, appellant
flowering tops which even during preliminary contends that the warrantless search and
tests yielded positive for the presence of THC, seizure made against the accused is illegal for
an active component of marijuana. being violative of Section 2, Article III of the
Constitution. He reasons that the FC-CIS
After a painstaking analysis the trial court officers concerned could very well have
found Obrera's testimony credible, and we find procured a search warrant since they had been
no cogent reason to set aside its informed of the date and time of arrival of the
characterization. Contrary to the contention of accused at the NAIA well ahead of time,
appellant, there were no major discrepancies specifically two (2) days in advance. The fact
in Obrera's testimony that would compromise that the search and seizure in question were
his credibility as a witness. Furthermore, that made an a moving vehicle, appellant argues,
he alone testified on the whole surveillance, does not automatically make the warrantless
search, seizure, and arrest proceedings does search herein fall within the coverage of the
not detract at all from the prosecution's case, well-known exception to the rule of the
since as the trial court stated in the impugned necessity of a valid warrant to effect a search
Decision: because, as aforementioned, the anti-
narcotics agents had both time and
The prosecution also offered opportunity to secure a search warrant.
the testimonies of Cpl. Garcia
and Pat. Ong but after the The contentions are without writ. As correctly
direct testimony of Garcia and averred by appellee, that search and seizure
even before Ong could take must be supported by a valid warrant is not an
the stand, the defense absolute rule. There are at least three (3) well-
admitted that their recognized exceptions thereto. As set forth in
testimonies would the case of Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan,
be corroborative to Lt. these are: [1] a search incidental to an arrest,
Obrera's; and, hence, the cross [2] a search of a moving vehicle, and [3] seizure
examination of Garcia and the of evidence in plain view (emphasis supplied).
The circumstances of the case clearly show

34
that the search in question was made as that appellant, whose movements had been
regards a moving vehicle. Therefore, a valid previously monitored by the Narcotics Division
warrant was not necessary to effect the search boarded a Dangwa bus bound for Manila
on appellant and his co-accused. carrying a suspicious looking gray luggage bag.
When the moving, public bus was stopped, her
In this connection, We cite with approval the bag, upon inspection, yielded marijuana.
averment of the Solicitor General, as contained Under those circumstances, the warrantless
in the appellee's brief, that the rules governing search of appellant's bag was not illegal.
search and seizure have over the years been
steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle IN VIEW WHEREOF, the conviction of appellant
is the object of the search on the basis of JEAN BOBBONAN BALINGAN is affirmed in
practicality. This is so considering that before a toto. Cost against appellant.
warrant could be obtained, the place, things
and persons to be searched must be described SO ORDERED.
to the satisfaction of the issuing judge a
requirement which boarders on the impossible
in the case of smuggling effected by the use of
a moving vehicle that can transport
contraband from one place to another with
impunity. We might add that a warrantless THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEILA
search of a moving vehicle is justified on the JOHNSON Y REYES
ground that "it is not practicable to secure a
warrant because the vehicle can be quickly
DECISION
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in
which the warrant must be sought." MENDOZA, J.:

In the instant case, it was firmly established This is an appeal from the
from the factual findings of the trial court that decision,[1] dated May 14, 1999, of the
the authorities had reasonable ground to Regional Trial Court, Branch 110, Pasay City,
believe that appellant would attempt to bring finding accused-appellant Leila Johnson y
in contraband and transport it within the Reyes guilty of violation of 16 of R.A. No. 6425
country. The belief was based on intelligence (Dangerous Drugs Act), as amended by R.A. No.
reports gathered from surveillance activities 7659, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty
on the suspected syndicate, of which appellant of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine
was touted to be a member. Aside from this, of P500,000.00 and the costs of the suit.
they were also certain as to the expected date
The information against accused-
and time of arrival of the accused from China.
appellant alleged:
But such knowledge was clearly insufficient to
enable them to fulfill the requirements for the
That on June 26, 1998 inside the Ninoy Aquino
issuance of a search warrant. Still and all, the
International Airport, and within the
important thing is that there was probable
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
cause to conduct the warrantless search,
named Accused did then and there willfully,
which must still be present in such a case.
unlawfully and feloniously possess three
(Citations omitted.)
plastic bags of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug, each bag
Unquestionably, the warrantless search in the
weighing:
case at bench is not bereft of a probable cause.
The Baguio INP Narcotics Intelligence Division
#1 ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN POINT FIVE
received an information that appellant was
(187.5) grams;
going to transport marijuana in a bag to
Manila. Their surveillance operations revealed

35
#2 ONE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT POINT ZERO crew and check for weapons, bombs,
(198.0) grams; and prohibited drugs, contraband goods, and
explosives.[6]
#3 ONE HUNDRED NINETY FOUR POINT SEVEN
When she frisked accused-appellant Leila
(194.7) grams, respectively,
Johnson, a departing passenger bound for the
United States via Continental Airlines CS-912,
or a total of FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY POINT
she felt something hard on the latters
TWO (580.2) grams of methamphetamine
abdominal area. Upon inquiry, Mrs. Johnson
hydrochloride.
explained she needed to wear two panty
girdles as she had just undergone an operation
That the above-named accused does not have as a result of an ectopic pregnancy.[7]
the corresponding
Not satisfied with the explanation,
license or prescription to possess or use said Ramirez reported the matter to her superior,
regulated drug. SPO4 Reynaldo Embile, saying Sir, hindi po ako
naniniwalang panty lang po iyon. (Sir, I do not
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2] believe that it is just a panty.) She was directed
to take accused-appellant to the nearest
Upon being arraigned, accused-appellant womens room for inspection. Ramirez took
pleaded not guilty,[3] whereupon trial was held. accused-appellant to the rest room,
accompanied by SPO1 Rizalina Bernal. Embile
The prosecution presented four stayed outside.[8]
witnesses, namely, NBI Forensic Chemist
George de Lara, SPO4 Reynaldo Embile, duty Inside the womens room, accused-
frisker Olivia Ramirez, and SPO1 Rizalina appellant was asked again by Ramirez what the
Bernal. The defense presented accused- hard object on her stomach was and accused-
appellant who testified in her own behalf. appellant gave the same answer she had
previously given. Ramirez then asked her to
The facts are as follows: bring out the thing under her girdle. Accused-
Accused-appellant Leila Reyes Johnson appellant brought out three plastic packs,
was, at the time of the incident, 58 years old, a which Ramirez then turned over to Embile,
widow, and a resident of Ocean Side, outside the womens room.[9]
California, U.S.A. She is a former Filipino citizen The confiscated packs, marked as Exhibits
who was naturalized as an American on June C-1, C-2 and C-3, contained a total of 580.2
16, 1968 and had since been working as a grams of a substance which was found by NBI
registered nurse, taking care of geriatric Chemist George de Lara to be
patients and those with Alzheimers disease, in methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[10]
convalescent homes in the United States.[4]
Embile took accused-appellant and the
On June 16, 1998, she arrived in the plastic packs to the 1st Regional Aviation and
Philippines to visit her sons family in Calamba, Security Office (1st RASO) at the arrival area of
Laguna. She was due to fly back to the United the NAIA, where accused-appellants passport
States on July 26. On July 25, she checked in at and ticket were taken and her luggage
the Philippine Village Hotel to avoid the traffic opened.Pictures were taken and her personal
on the way to the Ninoy Aquino International belongings were itemized.[11]
Airport (NAIA) and checked out at 5:30 p.m.
the next day, June 26, 1998.[5] In her defense, accused-appellant alleged
that she was standing in line at the last
At around 7:30 p.m. of that day, Olivia boarding gate when she was approached by
Ramirez was on duty as a lady frisker at Gate Embile and two female officers. She claimed
16 of the NAIA departure area. Her duty was to she was handcuffed and taken to the womens
frisk departing passengers, employees, and room. There, she was asked to undress and

36
was then subjected to a body search. She comply strictly with the rules and regulations
insisted that nothing was found on her of the City Jail.
person. She was later taken to a room filled
with boxes, garbage, and a chair. Her passport SO ORDERED.
and her purse containing $850.00 and some
change were taken from her, for which no Accused-appellant contends that the trial
receipt was issued to her. After two hours, she court convicted her: (1) despite failure of the
said, she was transferred to the office of a prosecution in proving the negative allegation
certain Col. Castillo.[12] in the information; (2) despite failure of the
prosecution in proving the quantity of
After another two hours, Col. Castillo and
methamphetamine hydrochloride; (3) despite
about eight security guards came in and threw
violation of her constitutional rights; and (4)
two white packages on the table. They told her
when guilt was not proven beyond reasonable
to admit that the packages were hers. But she
doubt.[16]
denied knowledge and ownership of the
packages. She was detained at the 1st RASO First. Accused-appellant claims that she
office until noon of June 28, 1999 when she was arrested and detained in gross violation of
was taken before a fiscal for inquest.[13] She her constitutional rights. She argues that the
claimed that throughout the period of her shabu confiscated from her is inadmissible
detention, from the night of June 26 until June against her because she was forced to affix her
28, she was never allowed to talk to counsel signature on the plastic bags while she was
nor was she allowed to call the U.S. Embassy or detained at the 1st RASO office, without the
any of her relatives in the Philippines.[14] assistance of counsel and without having been
informed of her constitutional rights. Hence,
On May 14, 1999, the trial court rendered
she argues, the methamphetamine
a decision, the dispositive portion of which
hydrochloride, or shabu, should have been
reads:[15]
excluded from the evidence.[17]
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered The contention has no merit. No
finding the accused LEILA JOHNSON Y REYES, statement, if any, was taken from accused-
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant during her detention and used in
offense of Violation of Section 16 of Republic evidence against her. There is, therefore, no
Act 6425 as amended and hereby imposes on basis for accused-appellants invocation of Art.
her the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA and III, 12(1) and (3). On the other hand, what is
condemns said accused to pay a fine of FIVE involved in this case is an arrest in flagrante
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) delicto pursuant to a valid search made on her
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of person.
insolvency and to pay the costs of suit.
The trial court held:
The Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu)
The constitutional right of the accused was not
having a total net weight of 580.2 grams
violated as she was never placed under
(Exhibits G, C-2 and C-3) are hereby confiscated
custodial investigation but was validly arrested
in favor of the government and the Branch
without warrant pursuant to the provisions of
Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to cause the
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of
transportation thereof to the Dangerous Drugs
Criminal Procedure which provides:
Board for disposition in accordance with law.
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
The accused shall be credited in full for the
lawful. A peace officer or a
period of her detention at the City Jail of Pasay
private person may, without a
City during the pendency of this case provided
warrant, arrest a person:
that she agreed in writing to abide by and

37
(a) when in his presence, the person presence of suspicious objects, physical
to be arrested has committed, is searches are conducted to determine what the
actually committing, or is objects are. There is little question that such
attempting to commit an offense; searches are reasonable, given their minimal
intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety
(b) when an offense has in fact just
interests involved, and the reduced privacy
been committed, and he has
expectations associated with airline
personal knowledge of facts [20]
travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified
indicating that the person to be
through airport public address systems, signs,
arrested has committed it; and
and notices in their airline tickets that they are
subject to search and, if any prohibited
(Underscoring supplied)
materials or substances are found, such would
be subject to seizure. These announcements
xxxx place passengers on notice that ordinary
constitutional protections against warrantless
A custodial investigation has been defined in searches and seizures do not apply to routine
People. v. Ayson 175 SCRA 230 as the airport procedures.
questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken [in] The packs of methamphetamine
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom hydrochloride having thus been obtained
in any significant way.This presupposes that he through a valid warrantless search, they are
is suspected of having committed an offense admissible in evidence against the accused-
and that the investigator is trying to elicit appellant herein. Corollarily, her subsequent
information or [a] confession from him." arrest, although likewise without warrant, was
justified since it was effected upon the
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of discovery and recovery of shabu in her
the accused above falls in either paragraph (a) person in flagrante delicto.
or (b) of the Rule above cited, hence the Anent her allegation that her signature on
allegation that she has been subjected to the said packs (Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-3 herein)
custodial investigation is far from being had been obtained while she was in the
accurate.[18] custody of the airport authorities without the
assistance of counsel, the Solicitor General
The methamphetamine hydrochloride correctly points out that nowhere in the
seized from her during the routine frisk at the records is it indicated that accused-appellant
airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to was required to affix her signature to the
airport security procedures. packs. In fact, only the signatures of Embile
Persons may lose the protection of the and Ramirez thereon, along with their
search and seizure clause by exposure of their testimony to that effect, were presented by
persons or property to the public in a manner the prosecution in proving its case.
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of There is, however, no justification for the
privacy, which expectation society is prepared confiscation of accused-appellants passport,
to recognize as reasonable.[19] Such airline ticket, luggage, and other personal
recognition is implicit in airport security effects. The pictures taken during that time are
procedures. With increased concern over also inadmissible, as are the girdle taken from
airplane hijacking and terrorism has come her, and her signature thereon. Rule 126, 2 of
increased security at the nations the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
airports. Passengers attempting to board an authorizes the search and seizure only of the
aircraft routinely pass through metal following:
detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-
ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the

38
Personal property to be seized. A search 8. In case of other dangerous drugs, the
warrant may be issued for the search and quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic
seizure of personal property: requirements as determined and promulgated
by the Dangerous Drugs Board, after public
(a) Subject of the offense; consultation/hearings conducted for the
purpose.
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or
fruits of the offense; and Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than
the foregoing quantities, the penalty shall
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means range from prision correccional to reclusion
of committing an offense. perpetua depending upon the quantity.

Accordingly, the above items seized from Under this provision, accused-appellant
accused-appellant should be returned to her. therefore stands to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death for her
Second. Accused-appellant argues that possession of 580.2 grams of shabu.
the prosecution failed to fully ascertain the
quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride Accused-appellant attempts to
to justify the imposition of the penalty distinguish between a quantitative and a
of reclusion perpetua. qualitative examination of the substance
contained in Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-3. She
Section 20 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended argues that the examination conducted by the
by R.A. No. 7659, states: NBI forensic chemist was a qualitative one
which merely yielded positive findings for
Section 20 - Application Of Penalties, shabu, but failed to establish its purity; hence,
Confiscation And Forfeiture Of The Proceeds or its exact quantity remains indeterminate and
Instrument Of The Crime The penalties for unproved.
offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of Article
II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III This contention is likewise without merit.
of this Act, shall be applied if the dangerous
The expert witness, George De Lara,
drugs involved is in any of the following stated that the tests conducted would have
quantities: indicated the presence of impurities if there
were any. He testified:
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
PROS. VELASCO By mixing it twice, Mr.
2. 40 grams or more of morphine; Witness, if there are any adulterants or
impurities, it will be discovered by just
3. 200 grams or more of shabu, or mixing it?
methylamphetamine hydrochloride; WITNESS If some drugs or additives were
present, it will appear in a thin layer
4. 40 grams or more of heroin; chromatographic examination.

5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp of PROS. VELASCO Did other drugs or other
marijuana; additives appear Mr. Witness?
WITNESS In my thin layer chromatographic
6. 50 grams of marijuana resin or marijuana plate, it only appears one spot which
resin oil; resembles or the same as the
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine sample
hydrochloride; or
....

39
PROS. VELASCO So, Mr. Witness, if there De Lara testified that he used a
are any adulterants present in the chromatography test to determine the
chemicals you have examined, in contents of Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-
chemical examination, what color it 3. Chromatography is a means of separating
will register, if any? and tentatively identifying the components of
a mixture. It is particularly useful for analyzing
WITNESS In sample, it contained a
the multicomponent specimens that are
potassium aluminum sulfate, it will not
frequently received in a crime lab. For
react with the reagent, therefore it will
example, illicit drugs sold on the street may be
not dissolve. In my examination, all the
diluted with practically any material that is at
specimens reacted on the re-agents,
the disposal of the drug dealer to increase the
sir.
quantity of the product that is made available
PROS. VELASCO And what is potassium to prospective customers. Hence, the task of
aluminum sulfate in laymans term? identifying an illicit drug preparation would be
an arduous one without the aid of
WITNESS It is only a tawas. chromatographic methods to first separate the
.... mixture into its components.[23]

COURT In this particular case, did you find The testimony of De Lara established not
any aluminum sulfate or tawas in the only that the tests were thorough, but also that
specimen? the scientifically correct method of obtaining
an accurate representative sample had been
WITNESS None, your Honor. obtained.[24] At any rate, as the Solicitor-
.... General has pointed out, if accused-appellant
was not satisfied with the results, it would have
ATTY. AGOOT I will cite an example, been a simple matter for her to ask for an
supposing ten grams of independent examination of the substance by
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is another chemist. This she did not do.
mixed with 200 grams of tawas, you
will submit that to qualitative Third. Accused-appellant argues that the
examination, what will be your prosecution failed to prove the negative
findings, negative or positive, Mr. allegation in the information that she did not
Witness? have a license to possess or use
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
WITNESS It will give a positive result for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Art. III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659 provides:
ATTY. AGOOT That is qualitative
examination. SEC. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated
WITNESS And also positive for aluminum Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
sulfate.[21] death and a fine ranging from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
A qualitative determination relates to the imposed upon any person who shall possess or
identity of the material, whereas a quantitative use any regulated drug without the
analysis requires the determination of the corresponding license or prescription, subject
percentage combination of the components of to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
a mixture. Hence, a qualitative identification of
a powder may reveal the presence of heroin Accused-appellant claims that possession
and quinine, for instance, whereas a or use of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
quantitative analysis may conclude the shabu,a regulated drug, is not unlawful unless
presence of 10 percent heroin and 90 percent the possessor or user does not have the
quinine.[22] required license or prescription. She points out
that since the prosecution failed to present any

40
certification that she is not authorized to find little difficulty in establishing the fact that
possess or use regulated drugs, it therefore he used it under the advice and on the
falls short of the quantum of proof needed to prescription of a physician, if in fact he did
sustain a conviction. so.[26]
The contention has no merit.
An accused person sometimes owes a
The question raised in this case is similar duty to himself if not to the State. If he does
to that raised in United States v. Chan not perform that duty he may not always
Toco.[25] The accused in that case was charged expect the State to perform it for him. If he
with smoking opium without being duly fails to meet the obligation which he owes to
registered. He demurred to the information on himself, when to meet it is an easy thing for
the ground that it failed to allege that the use him to do, he has no one but himself to blame.
of opium had not been prescribed as a
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the
medicine by a duly licensed and practicing
Solicitor General, there is nothing in R.A. No.
physician.
6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended,
This Court denied the motion and said: which requires the prosecution to present a
certification that accused-appellant has no
The evident interest and purpose of the statute license or permit to possess shabu. Mere
is to prohibit and to penalize generally the possession of the prohibited substance is a
smoking of opium in these Islands. But the crime per se and the burden of proof is upon
legislator desired to withdraw from the accused-appellant to show that she has a
operation of the statute a limited class of license or permit under the law to possess the
smokers who smoked under the advice and by prohibited drug.
prescription of a licensed and practicing
Fourth. Lastly, accused-appellant
physician . . . . Hence where one is charged with
contends that the evidence presented by the
a violation of the general provisions of the
prosecution is not sufficient to support a
Opium Law, it is more logical as well as more
finding that she is guilty of the crime charged.
practical and convenient, if he did in fact
smoke opium under the advice of a physician, This contention must likewise be rejected.
that he should set up this fact by way of
Credence was properly accorded to the
defense, than that the prosecution should be
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who
called upon to prove that every smoker,
are law enforcers. When police officers have
charged with a violation of the law, does so
no motive to testify falsely against the accused,
without such advice or prescription. Indeed,
courts are inclined to uphold this
when it is considered that under the law any
presumption. In this case, no evidence has
person may, in case of need and at any time,
been presented to suggest any improper
procure the advice of a physician to use opium
motive on the part of the police enforcers in
or some of its derivatives, and that in the
arresting accused-appellant. This Court
nature of things no public record of
accords great respect to the findings of the trial
prescriptions of this kind is or can be required
court on the matter of credibility of the
to be kept, it is manifest that it would be wholly
witnesses in the absence of any palpable error
impracticable and absurd to impose on the
or arbitrariness in its findings.[27]
prosecution the burden of alleging and proving
the fact that one using opium does so without It is noteworthy that, aside from the
the advice of a physician. To prove beyond a denial of accused-appellant, no other witness
reasonable doubt, in a particular case, that one was presented in her behalf. Her denial cannot
using opium does so without the advice or prevail over the positive testimonies of the
prescription of a physician would be in most prosecution witnesses.[28] As has been held,
cases a practical impossibility without the aid denial as a rule is a weak form of defense,
of the defendant himself, while a defendant particularly when it is not substantiated by
charged with the illegal use of opium should

41
clear and convincing evidence. The defense of
denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been
invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor
for it can just as easily be concocted and is a
common and standard defense ploy in most
prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.[29]
The Court is convinced that the
requirements of the law in order that a person
may be validly charged with and convicted of
illegal possession of a dangerous drug in
violation of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, have
been complied with by the prosecution in this
case. The decision of the trial court must
accordingly be upheld.
As regards the fine imposed by the trial
court, it has been held that courts may fix any
amount within the limits established by
law.[30] Considering that five hundred eighty
point two (580.2) grams of shabu were
confiscated from accused-appellant, the fine
imposed by the trial court may properly be
reduced to P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 110, finding
accused-appellant guilty of violation of 16 of
R.A. No. 6425, as amended, and imposing upon
her the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby
AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
fine imposed on accused-appellant is reduced
to P50,000.00. Costs against appellant.
The passport, airline ticket, luggage, girdle
and other personal effects not yet returned to
the accused-appellant are hereby ordered
returned to her.
SO ORDERED.

42

Potrebbero piacerti anche