Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989

FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IRENE M. ARANETA, IMEE MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, GREGORIO ARANETA, PACIFICO E. MARCOS, NICANOR YÑIGUEZ and PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), represented by its President, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, petitioners, vs.HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, CATALINO MACARAIG, SEDFREY ORDOÑEZ, MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, FIDEL RAMOS, RENATO DE VILLA, in their capacity as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Executive Secretary, Secretary of Justice, Immigration Commissioner, Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff, respectively, respondents.

CORTES, J.:

Before the Court is a contreversy of grave national importance. While ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in this case would undeniably have a profound effect on the political, economic and other aspects of national life.

We recall that in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non-violent "people power" revolution and forced into exile. In his stead, Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Republic under a revolutionary government. Her ascension to and consilidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the takeover of television station Channel 7 by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas with the support of "Marcos loyalists" and the unseccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from Hawii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a Lebanese arms dealer [Manila Bulletin, January 30, 1987] awakened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution enshrined the victory of "people power" and also clearly reinforced the constitutional moorings of Mrs. Aquino's presidency. This did not, however, stop bloody challenges to the government. On August 28, 1987, Col. Gregorio Honasan, one of the major players in the February Revolution, led a failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants and civilians, dead. There were several other armed sorties of lesser significance, but the message they conveyed was the same — a split in the ranks of the military establishment that thraetened civilian supremacy over military and brought to the fore the realization that civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious military.

But the armed threats to the Government were not only found in misguided elements and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There are also the communist insurgency and the seccessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. Marcos, to the extent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own on the areas they effectively control while the separatist are virtually free to move about in armed bands. There has been no let up on this groups' determination to wrest power from the govermnent. Not only through resort to arms but also to through the use of propaganda have they been successful in dreating chaos and destabilizing the country.

Nor are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated. The efforts at economic recovery, three years after Mrs. Aquino assumed office, have yet to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of the masses, while the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses has remained elusive.

Now, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the Philipppines to die. But Mrs. Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

The Petition

This case is unique. It should not create a precedent, for the case of a dictator forced out of office and into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social havoc in the country and who within the short space of three years seeks to return, is in a class by itself.

This petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.

The Issue

Th issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

According to the petitioners, the resolution of the case would depend on the resolution of the following issues:

1. Does the President have the power to bar the return of former President Marcos and family to the Philippines?

a. Is this a political question?

2. Assuming that the President has the power to bar former President Marcos and his family from returning to the

Philippines, in the interest of "national security, public safety or public health

a. Has the President made a finding that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety or public health?

b. Assuming that she has made that finding

(1) Have the requirements of due process been complied with in making such finding?

(2) Has there been prior notice to petitioners?

(3) Has there been a hearing?

(4) Assuming that notice and hearing may be dispensed with, has the President's decision, including the grounds upon which it was based, been made known to petitioners so that they may controvert the same?

c. Is the President's determination that the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health a political question?

d. Assuming that the Court may inquire as to whether the return of former President Marcos and his family is a clear and present danger to national security, public safety, or public health, have respondents established such fact?

3. Have the respondents, therefore, in implementing the President's decision to bar the return of former President Marcos and his family, acted and would be acting without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in performing any act which would effectively bar the return of former President Marcos and his family to the Philippines? [Memorandum for Petitioners, pp. 5-7; Rollo, pp. 234-236.1

The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit:

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

The petitioners contend that the President is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority or agency of the government, there must be legislation to that effect.

The petitioners further assert that under international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the Philippines is guaranteed.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which had been ratified by the Philippines, provides:

Article 12

1) Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2) Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3) The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (order public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

On the other hand, the respondents' principal argument is that the issue in this case involves a political question which is non-justiciable. According to the Solicitor General:

As petitioners couch it, the question involved is simply whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode. Petitioners invoke these constitutional rights in vacuo without reference to attendant circumstances.

Respondents submit that in its proper formulation, the issue is whether or not petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reside here at this time in the face of the determination by the President that such return and residence will endanger national security and public safety.

It may be conceded that as formulated by petitioners, the question is not a political question as it involves merely a determination of what the law provides on the matter and application thereof to petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family. But when the question is whether the two rights claimed by petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family impinge on or collide with the more primordial and transcendental right of the State to security and safety of its nationals, the question becomes political and this Honorable Court can not consider it.

There are thus gradations to the question, to wit:

Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have the right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here? This is clearly a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.

Do petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family have their right to return to the Philippines and reestablish their residence here even if their return and residence here will endanger national security and public safety? this is still a justiciable question which this Honorable Court can decide.

Is there danger to national security and public safety if petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and family shall return to the Philippines and establish their residence here? This is now a political question which this Honorable Court can not decide for it falls within the exclusive authority and competence of the President of the Philippines. [Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 9-11; Rollo, pp. 297-299.]

Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights. In support thereof, they cite Article II of the Constitution, to wit:

Section 4. The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military, or civil service.

Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and family from returning to the Philippines for reasons of national security and public safety has international precedents. Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Anastacio Somoza Jr. of Nicaragua, Jorge Ubico of Guatemala, Fulgencio batista of Cuba, King Farouk of Egypt, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez of El Salvador, and Marcos Perez Jimenez of Venezuela were among the deposed dictators whose return to their homelands was prevented by their governments. [See Statement of Foreign Affairs Secretary Raul S. Manglapus, quoted in Memorandum for Respondents, pp. 26-32; Rollo, pp. 314-319.]

The parties are in agreement that the underlying issue is one of the scope of presidential power and its limits. We, however, view this issue in a different light. Although we give due weight to the parties' formulation of the issues, we are not bound by its narrow confines in arriving at a solution to the controversy.

At the outset, we must state that it would not do to view the case within the confines of the right to travel and the import of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the leading cases of Kent v. Dulles [357 U.S. 116, 78 SCt 1113, 2 L Ed. 2d 1204] and Haig v. Agee [453 U.S. 280, 101 SCt 2766, 69 L Ed. 2d 640) which affirmed the right to travel and recognized exceptions to the exercise thereof, respectively.

It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right involved is the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights. The Declaration speaks of the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state" [Art. 13(l)] separately from the "right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [Art. 13(2).] On the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the "right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence" [Art. 12(l)] and the right to "be free to leave any country, including his own." [Art. 12(2)] which rights may be restricted by such laws as "are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or enter qqqs own country" of which one cannot be "arbitrarily deprived." [Art. 12(4).] It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one's country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.

The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]

Thus, the rulings in the cases Kent and Haig which refer to the issuance of passports for the purpose of effectively exercising the right to travel are not determinative of this case and are only tangentially material insofar as they relate to a conflict between executive action and the exercise of a protected right. The issue before the Court is novel and without precedent in Philippine, and even in American jurisprudence.

Consequently, resolution by the Court of the well-debated issue of whether or not there can be limitations on the right to travel in the absence of legislation to that effect is rendered unnecessary. An appropriate case for its resolution will have to be awaited.

Having clarified the substance of the legal issue, we find now a need to explain the methodology for its resolution. Our resolution of the issue will involve a two-tiered approach. We shall first resolve whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Then, we shall determine, pursuant to the express power of the Court under the Constitution in Article VIII, Section 1, whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcose's to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.

Executive Power

The 1987 Constitution has fully restored the separation of powers of the three great branches of government. To recall the words of Justice Laurel in Angara v. Electoral Commission [63 Phil. 139 (1936)], "the Constitution has blocked but with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government." [At 157.1 Thus, the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines" Art VI, Sec. 11, "[t]he executive power shall bevested in the President of the Philippines" [Art. VII, Sec. 11, and "[te judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law" [Art. VIII, Sec. 1.] These provisions not only establish a separation of powers by actual division [Angara v. Electoral Commission, supra] but also confer plenary legislative, executive and judicial powers subject only to limitations provided in the Constitution. For as the Supreme Court in Ocampo v. Cabangis [15 Phil. 626 (1910)] pointed out "a grant of the legislative power means a grant of all legislative power; and a grant of the judicial power means a grant of all the judicial power which may be exercised under the government." [At 631-632.1 If this can be said of the legislative power which is exercised by two chambers with a combined membership of more than two hundred members and of the judicial power which is vested in a hierarchy of courts, it can equally be said of the executive power which is vested in one official the President.

As stated above, the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines." [Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commander-in-chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to submit the budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress [Art. VII, Sec. 14-23].

The inevitable question then arises: by enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these se enumerated powers the breadth and scope of "executive power"? Petitioners advance the view that the President's powers are limited to those specifically enumerated in the 1987 Constitution. Thus, they assert: "The President has enumerated powers, and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her. Inclusion unius est exclusio alterius[Memorandum for Petitioners, p. 4- Rollo p. 233.1 This argument brings to mind the institution of the U.S. Presidency after which ours is legally patterned.**

Corwin, in his monumental volume on the President of the United States grappled with the same problem. He said:

Article II is the most loosely drawn chapter of the Constitution. To those who think that a constitution ought to settle everything beforehand it should be a nightmare; by the same token, to those who think that constitution makers ought to leave considerable leeway for the future play of political forces, it should be a vision realized.

We encounter this characteristic of Article 11 in its opening words: "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." . . .. [The President: Office and Powers, 17871957, pp. 3-4.]

Reviewing how the powers of the U.S. President were exercised by the different persons who held the office from Washington to the early 1900's, and the swing from the presidency by commission to Lincoln's dictatorship, he concluded that "what the presidency is at any particular moment depends in important measure on who is President." [At 30.]

This view is shared by Schlesinger who wrote in The Imperial Presidency:

For the American Presidency was a peculiarly personal institution. it remained of course, an agency of government subject to unvarying demands and duties no remained, of cas President. But, more than most agencies of government, it changed shape, intensity and ethos according to the man in charge. Each President's distinctive temperament and character, his values, standards, style, his habits, expectations, Idiosyncrasies, compulsions, phobias recast the WhiteHouse and pervaded the entire government. The executive branch, said Clark Clifford, was a chameleon, taking its color from the character and personality of the President. The thrust of the office, its impact on the constitutional order, therefore altered from President to President. Above all, the way each President understood it as his personal obligation to inform and involve the Congress, to earn and hold the confidence of the electorate and to render an accounting to the nation and posterity determined whether he strengthened or weakened the constitutional order. [At 212- 213.]

We do not say that the presidency is what Mrs. Aquino says it is or what she does but, rather, that the consideration of tradition and the development of presidential power under the different constitutions are essential for a complete understanding of the extent of and limitations to the President's powers under the 1987 Constitution. The 1935 Constitution created a strong President with explicitly broader powers than the U.S. President. The 1973 Constitution attempted to modify the system of government into the parliamentary type, with the President as a mere figurehead, but through numerous amendments, the President became even more powerful, to the point that he was also the de facto Legislature. The 1987 Constitution, however, brought back the presidential system of government and restored the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers by their actual distribution among

three distinct branches of government with provision for checks and balances.

It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers inhere in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.

On these premises, we hold the view that although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise ofspecific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated,

It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. Thus, in the landmark decision of Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), on the issue of who between the Governor-General of the Philippines and the Legislature may vote the shares of stock held by the Government to elect directors in the National Coal Company and the Philippine National Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court, in upholding the power of the Governor-General to do so, said:

...Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and "committee" respectively, are not charged with the performance of any legislative functions or with the doing of anything which is in aid of performance of any such functions by the legislature. Putting aside for the moment the question whether the duties devolved upon these members are vested by the Organic Act in the Governor-General, it is clear that they are not legislative in character, and still more clear that they are not judicial. The fact that they do not fall within the authority of either of these two constitutes logical ground for concluding that they do fall within that of the remaining one among which the powers of government are divided ....[At 202-203; Emphasis supplied.]

We are not unmindful of Justice Holmes' strong dissent. But in his enduring words of dissent we find reinforcement for the view that it would indeed be a folly to construe the powers of a branch of government to embrace only what are specifically mentioned in the Constitution:

The great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white. Even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other. ....

xxx xxx xxx

It does not seem to need argument to show that however we may disguise it by veiling words we do not and cannot carry out the distinction between legislative and executive action with mathematical precision and divide the branches into watertight compartments, were it ever so desirable to do so, which I am far from believing that it is, or that the Constitution requires. [At 210- 211.]

The Power Involved

The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of theGovernment is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order,the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." [Art. II, Secs. 4 and 5.]

Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as President of the Republic, the President has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them.

Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. Hence, lest the officers of the Government exercising the powers delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "[s]overeignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." [Art. II, Sec. 1.]

The resolution of the problem is made difficult because the persons who seek to return to the country are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be ill-gotten wealth are sought to be recovered. The constitutional guarantees they invoke are neither absolute nor inflexible. For the exercise of even the preferred freedoms of speech and ofexpression, although couched in absolute terms, admits of limits and must be adjusted to the requirements of equally important public interests [Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 79690-707, October 7, 1981.]

To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, it is not only the power of the President but also his duty to do anything not forbidden by the Constitution or the laws that the needs of the nation demand [See Corwin, supra, at 153]. It is a power borne by the President's duty to preserve and defend the Constitution. It also may be viewed as a power

implicit in the President's duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed [see Hyman, The American President, where the author advances the view that an allowance of discretionary power is unavoidable in any government and is best lodged in the President].

More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the President's powers as protector of the peace. Rossiter The American Presidency].The power of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of emergency or to leading the State against external and internal threats to its existence. The President is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the President's exercising as Commander-in- Chief powers short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order and security.

That the President has the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcose's from returning has been recognized by memembers of the Legislature, and is manifested by the Resolution proposed in the House of Representatives and signed by 103 of its members urging the President to allow Mr. Marcos to return to the Philippines "as a genuine unselfish gesture for true national reconciliation and as irrevocable proof of our collective adherence to uncompromising respect for human rights under the Constitution and our laws." [House Resolution No. 1342, Rollo, p. 321.1 The Resolution does not question the President's power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines, rather, it appeals to the President's sense of compassion to allow a man to come home to die in his country.

What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.

The Extent of Review

Under the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." [Art. VIII, Sec. 1] Given this wording, we cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the issue constitutes a political question which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to decide.

The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court, under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political departments to decide. But nonetheless there remain issues beyond the Court's jurisdiction the determination of which is exclusively for the President, for Congress or for the people themselves through a plebiscite or referendum. We cannot, for example, question the President's recognition of a foreign government, no matter how premature or improvident such action may appear. We cannot set aside a presidential pardon though it may appear to us that the beneficiary is totally undeserving of the grant. Nor can we amend the Constitution under the guise of resolving a dispute brought before us because the power is reserved to the people.

There is nothing in the case before us that precludes our determination thereof on the political question doctrine. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission cited by petitioners show that the framers intended to widen the scope of judicial review but they did not intend courts of justice to settle all actual controversies before them. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned. If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law is for the latter alone to decide. In this light, it would appear clear that the second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution, defining "judicial power," which specifically empowers the courts to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government, incorporates in the fundamental law the ruling in Lansang v. Garcia [G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 4481 that:]

Article VII of the [1935] Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our system of government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. However, the separation of powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes hand in hand with the system of checks and balances, under which the Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he acts within the sphere alloted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial Department, which, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme. In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is merely to check — not to supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act [At 479-480.]

Accordingly, the question for the Court to determine is whether or not there exist factual bases for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines. If such postulates do exist, it cannot be said that she has acted, or acts, arbitrarily or that she has gravely abused her discretion in deciding to bar their return.

We find that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in

chambers by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, there exist factual bases for the President's decision..

The Court cannot close its eyes to present realities and pretend that the country is not besieged from within by a well-organized communist insurgency, a separatist movement in Mindanao, rightist conspiracies to grab power, urban terrorism, the murder with impunity of military men, police officers and civilian officials, to mention only a few. The documented history of the efforts of the Marcose's and their followers to destabilize the country, as earlier narrated in this ponencia bolsters the conclusion that the return of the Marcoses at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the State and instigate more chaos.

As divergent and discordant forces, the enemies of the State may be contained. The military establishment has given assurances that it could handle the threats posed by particular groups. But it is the catalytic effect of the return of the Marcoses that may prove to be the proverbial final straw that would break the camel's back. With these before her, the President cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily and capriciously and whimsically in determining that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat to the national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return.

It will not do to argue that if the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines will cause the escalation of violence against the State, that would be the time for the President to step in and exercise the commander-in-chief powers granted her by the Constitution to suppress or stamp out such violence. The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre- emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct. Protection of the people is the essence of the duty of government. The preservation of the State the fruition of the people's sovereignty is an obligation in the highest order. The President, sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution and to see the faithful execution the laws, cannot shirk from that responsibility.

We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions. Then, We cannot ignore the continually increasing burden imposed on the economy by the excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime, which stifles and stagnates development and is one of the root causes of widespread poverty and all its attendant ills. The resulting precarious state of our economy is of common knowledge and is easily within the ambit of judicial notice.

The President has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. Given what is within our individual and common knowledge of the state of the economy, we cannot argue with that determination.

WHEREFORE, and it being our well-considered opinion that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of former President Marcos and his family at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-342 May 4, 1946

AURELIO S. ALVERO, petitioner, vs.ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL., respondent.

Albert and Albert for petitioner.First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Assistant Solicitor General Alvendia for respondents.

DE JOYA, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari with injunction originally filed in this court.

In the petition it is alleged that petitioner Aurelio S. Alvero has been accused of treason, in criminal case No. 3 of the People's Court; that at the hearing on his petition for bail, the prosecution presented, as part of its evidence, certain documents which had been allegedly seized by soldiers of the United States Army, accompanied by Filipino guerrillas, in the petitioner's house; that petitioner immediately objected to the presentation of said documents, and called the attention of the respondent judges to the fact that he had filed a petition, in which he protested against the procedure of the government in the seizure of said documents, and asked for their return to the petitioner; that the respondents permitted the prosecution to present said documents as evidence, which were considered, upon the termination of the presentation of the evidence for both parties, in denying said petition for bail; that the petition filed on December 1, 1945, for the return of the documents allegedly seized illegally in petitioner's house, was not considered by the respondents, before the commencement of the trial of petitioner's case, on the merits, due perhaps to an involuntary oversight; that at the commencement of the trial of said criminal case No. 3, and during its course, the prosecution again presented, as evidence, against the petitioner said documents which had been taken from his house, and petitioner renewed his objection thereto, and asked for their return to him, alleging that their seizure was illegal and that their presentation would be tantamount to compelling him to testify against himself, in violation of his constitutional rights; that in deciding the question so raised, the respondent judges, in open court, stated that the prosecution might in the meanwhile continue presenting said documents, without prejudice to the final resolution of said petition, when the prosecution should finish presenting its evidence; that in concluding the presentation of its evidence and resting the case, after offering said documents as part of its evidence, the petitioner again raised the question of the admissibility of said documents, and the respondent judges then ordered the substantiation of said allegations of petitioner, and set for hearing his petition for the return of said documents; that said petition was heard on February 16, 1946, and at said hearing, the petitioner and his wife testified, without any contradiction that, on February 12, 1945, on the occasion of the arrest of the petitioner by soldiers of the United States Army, the latter searched the house of the petitioner and seized, among other things, the documents which he had in his house; that when said petition for the return of said documents was submitted for the consideration and decision of the respondent judges, the latter, on February 26, 1946, issued an order denying said petition, and admitted as competent evidence the documents presented by the prosecution, marked as Exhibits A, C, G, H, K, L, P, R, R-1, R-2, U, Z, CC, DD, FF, HH; that on the same date that said order was issued, denying the petition for the return of said documents, petitioner asked for the reconsideration of said order, which was also denied. (Petition, pars. 1-12.)

And herein petitioner now claims that the respondent judges, in denying the petition for the return of said documents, acted without jurisdiction and committed a grave abuse in the exercise of their discretion, alleging that even the seizure of documents by means of a search warrant legally issued, constitutes a violation of the rights guaranteed in paragraphs 3 and 18 of section 1 of Article III of the Constitution, and, consequently, when their seizure cannot be justified by the corresponding search warrant, the court should order their immediate return; that the petitioner has no other speedy and adequate remedy for the protection of his rights guaranteed by the Constitution, other than this petition for certiorari, as the right of appeal granted by law to a person accused of a crime, is costly and highly prejudicial to the petitioner, as it presupposes that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused by means of legal and competent evidence, as alleged in the last three (3) paragraphs of the petition.

Consequently, herein petitioner asks for the annulment of the order issued by the respondent judges, on February 26, 1946, in said criminal case No. 3, entitled — People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio S. Alvero, — the return to him of the documents presented by the prosecution, mentioned above, and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. .In their answer filed on March 21, 1946, herein respondents have substantially admitted the allegations made and contained in the first twelve (12) paragraphs of the petition, except the portions alleging that the documents in question had been obtained by means of force and intimidation or through coercion; and that certain soldiers of the American Army took certain personal properties of herein petitioner, at the time the search was made; and that the acquisition of said documents was manifestly a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights and that their admission, as evidence for the prosecution, would be tantamount to compelling petitioner, as accused, to testify against himself — all of which portions have been expressly denied by the respondents.

Respondents have also expressly denied the allegations contained in the remaining three (3) paragraphs of the petition.

And as defenses, respondents allege (1) that petitioner himself has admitted the legality of the seizure of the documents in question in his motion for reconsideration, dated February 26, 1946; (2) that petitioner has not proven that said documents had been illegally seized for him; (3) that the seizure of the documents in question took place, on February 12, 1945, in Pasay, Rizal, which was then still a combat zone, and that the seizure of certain papers in the house of the petitioner was made by soldiers of the United States Army of Liberation or its instrumentalities; (4) that said seizure was effected lawfully under the terms of the proclamation of the

Commander in Chief of the United States Liberation Forces, dated December 29, 1944, in which he declared his purpose to remove alleged collaborators, when apprehended, from any position of political and economic influence in the Philippines and to hold them in restraint for the duration of the war; (5) that the documents in question had been properly admitted as evidence for the prosecution in criminal case No. 3, as herein petitioner, as accused in said case, had expressly waived his right to object to their admissibility, particularly Exhibits A, FF, HH and P; (6) that petitioner's evidence of alleged ownership, relative to Exhibits C, G, H, K, I, P, R, R-1 and R-2, is altogether insufficient, and petitioner himself has expressly admitted that said documents are not his personal papers but part of the files of the New Leaders' Association, which was proven to be an organization created, for the purpose of collaborating with the enemy; (7) and that none of the exhibits referred to in the petition has been satisfactorily identified by the petitioner as included among the papers allegedly wrongfully seized from his house and belonging to him.

Considering the allegations made by the parties in their respective pleadings, and their supporting papers, as well as the admissions made therein, the following facts appear to have been sufficiently established:

(1) That on February 12, 1945, while the battle for Manila was raging, soldiers of the United States Army, accompanied by men of Filipino Guerrilla Forces, placed herein petitioner under arrest, having been suspected of collaboration with the enemy, and seized and took certain papers from his house in Pasay, Rizal;

(2) That on or about October 4, 1945, petitioner was accused of treason, in criminal case No. 3 of the People's Court; after which, on December 1, 1945, he filed a petition, demanding the return of the papers allegedly seized and taken from his house;

(3) That petitioner also filed a petition for bail, at the hearing of which the prosecution presented certain papers and documents, which were admitted as part of its evidence, and said petition was denied;

(4) That at the trial of the case on the merits, the prosecution again presented said papers and documents, which were admitted as part of its evidence, and were marked as exhibits, as described in the petition for certiorari, filed in this court;

(5) That herein petitioner had failed to object properly to the admission of said papers and documents at the hearing on said petition for bail, and at the trial of the case on the merits, in not having insisted that the question of the legality of the search and seizure of the papers and documents taken from his house should have been litigated and finally decided first, and thus practically waived his objection to their admissibility, as evidence for the prosecution;

(6) That at the hearing on his petition for the return of the papers taken from his house, held after they had been admitted as part of the evidence for the prosecution, at the hearing on the petition for bail and at the trial of the case on the merits, herein petitioner had failed to identify satisfactorily the documents now in question, and his ownership thereof; and

(7) That petitioner himself in his petition for reconsideration, dated February 26, 1946, admitted the legality the legality of the seizure of the documents taken from his house, and at the hearing on his petition for bail, he himself called for some of the documents in question.

The right of officers and men of the United States Army to arrest herein petitioner, as a collaborationist suspect, and to seize his personal papers, without any search warrant, in the zone of military operations, is unquestionable, under the provisions of article 4, Chapter II, Section I, of the Regulations relative to the Laws and Customs of War on Land of the Hague Conventions of 1907, authorizing the seizure of military papers in the possession of prisoners of war (Wilson, International Law, 3d ed., 1939, p.524); and also under the proclamation, dated December 29, 1944, issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, as Commander in Chief of the United States of Army, declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the Philippines, who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy, in violation of the allegiance due the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines, when apprehended, from any position of political and economic influence in the Philippines and to hold them in restraint for the duration of the war. (41 Off. Gaz., No. 2, pp. 148, 149.) As a matter of fact, petitioner himself, in his motion for reconsideration, dated February 26, 1946, expressly admitted the legality of the seizure of his personal papers and documents at the time of his arrest.

The most important exception to the necessity for a search warrant is the right of search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest. A lawful arrest may be made either while a crime is being committed or after its commission. The right to search includes in both instances that of searching the person of him who is arrested, in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed. (Agnello vs. United States, 269 U. S., 20.)

When one is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found in his possession or in his control may be seized and used in evidence against him; and an officer has the right to make an arrest without a warrant of a person believed by the officer upon reasonable grounds to have committed a felony. (Carroll vs. United States, 267 U. S., 132.).

The majority of the states have held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, which is also guaranteed by state constitutional provisions is not violated by the use in evidence of articles obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure. (People vs. Defore, 242 N. Y., 13; 150 N. E., 585.)

It is true that on December 1, 1945, herein petitioner filed a petition, demanding the return of certain papers and documents allegedly seized and taken from his house at the time of his arrest; but when he consented to their presentation, as part of the evidence for the prosecution, at the hearing on his petition for bail and at the trial of the case on the merits, without having insisted that the question of the alleged illegality of the search and seizure of said papers and documents should first have been directly litigated and established by a motion, made before the trial, for their return, he was and should be deemed to have waived his objection to their admissibility as part of the evidence for the prosecution; since the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination may be waived. (Weeks vs. United States, 232 U. S., 383; Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. United States, 251 U. S., 385; Gouled vs. United States, 255 U. S., 298; People vs. Carlos, 47 Phil., 626, 630, 631.)

At the hearing on his petition for bail, petitioner himself requested the production of the document marked as Exhibit A, which was a

letter sent by him to Dr. Jose P. Laurel; the document marked as Exhibit HH, which was a memorandum to Col. Suzuki, dated December 30, 1944; and the document marked as Exhibit P, which was a memorandum on Nippongo classes. And he is now, therefore, estopped from questioning their admission.

Furthermore, petitioner could not properly identify many of said documents, such as Exhibit FF, nor satisfactorily establish his ownership thereof; while the prosecution has sufficiently established the fact that some of the papers now in question, such as Exhibit C, had been received at the Office of the CIC of the United States Army in the City of Manila, since February 11, 1945, that is, one day prior to the seizure of certain papers and documents in the house of the petitioner. And with reference to Exhibits C, G, H, K, L, P, R, R-1 and R-2, petitioner himself admitted that they are not his personal papers but part of the files of the New Leader's Association. And it is well established rule in this jurisdiction that in a petition for the production of papers and documents, they must be sufficiently described and identified, otherwise the petition cannot prosper. (Liebenow vs. Philippine Vegetable Oil Co., 39 Phil., 60, 67, 69; Rule 21, section 1, Rules of Court.)

The purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. (Adams vs. New York, 192 U. S., 585.) But it does not prohibit the Federal Government from taking advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state law. (Weeks vs. United States, 232 U. S., 383; Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465.)

As the soldiers of the United States Army, that took and seized certain papers and documents from the residence of herein petitioner, on February 12, 1945, were not acting as agents or on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and that those papers and documents came in the possession of the authorities of the Commonwealth Government, through the Office of the CIC of the United States Army in Manila, the use and presentation of said papers and documents, as evidence for the prosecution against herein petitioner, at the trial of his case for treason, before the People's Court, cannot now be legally attacked, on the ground of unlawful or unreasonable searches and seizures, or on any other constitutional ground, as declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in similar cases. (Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465; Gambino vs. United States, 275 U. S., 310.)

In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the petition for certiorari with injunction, filed in this case, is absolutely without merit, and it is, therefore, hereby denied and dismissed with costs. So ordered.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleevs.ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Reynaldo B. Tatoy and Abelardo E. Rogacion for accused-appellant.

BIDIN, J.:p

This is an appeal from a decision * rendered by the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial Court, Branch XLIX) convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to Section 4, Article 11 and Section 2 (e) (i), Article 1 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The facts as summarized in the brief of the prosecution are as follows:

On August 14, 1987, between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them four (4) gift wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. The appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the transaction, writing therein his name, passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of the consignee, namely, "WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland" (Decision, p. 6)

Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine and inspect the packages. Appellant, however, refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view of appellant's representation, Anita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the packages. The four (4) packages were then placed inside a brown corrugated box one by two feet in size (1' x 2'). Styro-foam was placed at the bottom and on top of the packages before the box was sealed with masking tape, thus making the box ready for shipment (Decision, p. 8).

Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection . When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. His curiousity aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside.Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves . He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents thereof (tsn, pp. 29-30, October 6, 1987; Emphasis supplied).

Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper (tsn, pp. 5-6, October 6, 1987).

He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's shipment to the Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), at about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of that date, i.e., August 14, 1987. He was interviewed by the Chief of Narcotics Section. Job Reyes informed the NBI that the rest of the shipment was still in his office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three (3) NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes' office at Ermita, Manila (tsn, p. 30, October 6, 1987).

Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's packages were placed and, in the presence of the NBI agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styro-foam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves . Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been contained inside the cellophane wrappers (tsn, p. 38, October 6, 1987; Emphasis supplied).

The package which allegedly contained books was likewise opened by Job Reyes. He discovered that the package contained bricks or cake-like dried marijuana leaves. The package which allegedly contained tabacalera cigars was also opened. It turned out that dried marijuana leaves were neatly stocked underneath the cigars (tsn, p. 39, October 6, 1987).

The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents thereof, after signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects (tsn, pp. 2-3, October 7, 1987).

Thereupon, the NBI agents tried to locate appellant but to no avail. Appellant's stated address in his passport being the Manila Central Post Office, the agents requested assistance from the latter's Chief Security. On August 27, 1987, appellant, while claiming his mail at the Central Post Office, was invited by the NBI to shed light on the attempted shipment of the seized dried leaves. On the

same day the Narcotics Section of the NBI submitted the dried leaves to the Forensic Chemistry Section for laboratory examination. It turned out that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops as certified by the forensic chemist. (Appellee's Brief, pp. 9-11, Rollo, pp. 132-134).

Thereafter, an Information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

After trial, the court a quo rendered the assailed decision.

In this appeal, accused/appellant assigns the following errors, to wit:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE ILLEGALLY SEARCHED AND SEIZED OBJECTS CONTAINED IN THE FOUR PARCELS.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT HIS RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION WHILE UNDER CUSTODIAL PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT OBSERVED.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT GIVING CREDENCE TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT ON HOW THE FOUR PARCELS CAME INTO HIS POSSESSION (Appellant's Brief, p. 1;Rollo, p. 55)

1. Appellant contends that the evidence subject of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of communication (Sec. 2 and 3, Art. III, Constitution) and therefore argues that the same should be held inadmissible in evidence (Sec. 3 (2), Art. III).

Sections 2 and 3, Article III of the Constitution provide:

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

Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Our present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure had its origin in the 1935 Charter which, worded as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Sec. 1 [3], Article III)

was in turn derived almost verbatim from the Fourth Amendment ** to the United States Constitution. As such, the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the United States Federal Supreme Court and State Appellate Courts which are considered doctrinal in this jurisdiction.

Thus, following the exclusionary rule laid down in Mapp v. Ohio by the US Federal Supreme Court (367 US 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed. 1081 [1961]), this Court, in Stonehill v. Diokno (20 SCRA 383 [1967]), declared as inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search and seizure warrant, abandoning in the process the ruling earlier adopted in Moncado v. People's Court (80 Phil. 1 [1948]) wherein the admissibility of evidence was not affected by the illegality of its seizure. The 1973 Charter (Sec. 4 [2], Art. IV) constitutionalized the Stonehill ruling and is carried over up to the present with the advent of the 1987 Constitution.

In a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the exclusionary rule and has struck down the admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Bache & Co., (Phil.), Inc., v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [1971]; Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 66 SCRA 299 [1975]; People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 [1986]; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 [1987]; See also Salazar v. Hon. Achacoso, et al., GR No. 81510, March 14, 1990).

It must be noted, however, that in all those cases adverted to, the evidence so obtained were invariably procured by the State acting through the medium of its law enforcers or other authorized government agencies.

On the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without the intervention and participation of State authorities. Under the circumstances, can accused/appellant validly claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure has been violated? Stated otherwise, may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights, be invoked against the State?

We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.

As this Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA 345 [1972]:

1. This constitutional right (against unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's person,

whether citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which is his residence, his papers, and other possessions. . . .

. . . There the state, however powerful, does not as such have the access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle.Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. . . . (Cf. Schermerber v. California, 384 US 757 [1966] and Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 [1886]; Emphasis supplied).

In Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), 41 S Ct. 547; 65 L.Ed. 1048), the Court there in construing the right against unreasonable searches and seizures declared that:

(t)he Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and as shown in previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly served.

The above ruling was reiterated in State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]) where a parking attendant who searched the automobile to ascertain the owner thereof found marijuana instead, without the knowledge and participation of police authorities, was declared admissible in prosecution for illegal possession of narcotics.

And again in the 1969 case of Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), it was held that the search and seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals (citing People v. Potter, 240 Cal. App.2d 621, 49 Cap. Rptr, 892 (1966); State v. Brown, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 903 (1965); State v. Olsen, Or., 317 P.2d 938 (1957).

Likewise appropos is the case of Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517 (1967). The Court there said:

The search of which appellant complains, however, was made by a private citizen — the owner of a motel in which appellant stayed overnight and in which he left behind a travel case containing the evidence*** complained of. The search was made on the motel owner's own initiative. Because of it, he became suspicious, called the local police, informed them of the bag's contents, and made it available to the authorities.

The fourth amendment and the case law applying it do not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private citizen. Rather, the amendment only proscribes governmental action."

The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without the latter transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged.

Appellant, however, would like this court to believe that NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case which resulted in his conviction.

The postulate advanced by accused/appellant needs to be clarified in two days. In both instances, the argument stands to fall on its own weight, or the lack of it.

First, the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents conducted an illegal search and seizure of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who made search/inspection of the packages. Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts (TSN, October 6 & 7, 1987, pp. 15-18; pp. 7-8; Original Records, pp. 119-122; 167-168).

It will be recalled that after Reyes opened the box containing the illicit cargo, he took samples of the same to the NBI and later summoned the agents to his place of business. Thereafter, he opened the parcel containing the rest of the shipment and entrusted the care and custody thereof to the NBI agents. Clearly, the NBI agents made no search and seizure, much less an illegal one, contrary to the postulate of accused/appellant.

Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search (Chadwick v. State, 429 SW2d 135). Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution (US v. Lee 274 US 559, 71 L.Ed. 1202 [1927]; Ker v. State of California 374 US 23, 10 L.Ed.2d. 726 [1963]; Moore v. State, 429 SW2d 122 [1968]).

In Gandy v. Watkins (237 F. Supp. 266 [1964]), it was likewise held that where the property was taken into custody of the police at the specific request of the manager and where the search was initially made by the owner there is no unreasonable search and seizure within the constitutional meaning of the term.

That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection. But protection against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query which he himself posed, as follows:

First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas , Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17, 1986; Emphasis supplied)

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.

Appellant argues, however, that since the provisions of the 1935 Constitution has been modified by the present phraseology found in the 1987 Charter, expressly declaring as inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition against illegal search and seizure, it matters not whether the evidence was procured by police authorities or private individuals (Appellant's Brief, p. 8, Rollo, p. 62).

The argument is untenable. For one thing, the constitution, in laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between individuals. Moreover, it must be emphasized that the modifications introduced in the 1987 Constitution (re: Sec. 2, Art. III) relate to the issuance of either a search warrant or warrant of arrest vis-a-vis the responsibility of the judge in the issuance thereof (SeeSoliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 [1988]; Circular No. 13 [October 1, 1985] and Circular No. 12 [June 30, 1987]. The modifications introduced deviate in no manner as to whom the restriction or inhibition against unreasonable search and seizure is directed against. The restraint stayed with the State and did not shift to anyone else.

Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable search and seizure may only be invoked against the State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise of sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an act of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should also be construed as an act of the State would result in serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of the constitution.

Similarly, the admissibility of the evidence procured by an individual effected through private seizure equally applies, in pari passu, to the alleged violation, non-governmental as it is, of appellant's constitutional rights to privacy and communication.

2. In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the lower court erred in convicting him despite the undisputed fact that his rights under the constitution while under custodial investigation were not observed.

Again, the contention is without merit, We have carefully examined the records of the case and found nothing to indicate, as an "undisputed fact", that appellant was not informed of his constitutional rights or that he gave statements without the assistance of counsel. The law enforcers testified that accused/appellant was informed of his constitutional rights. It is presumed that they have regularly performed their duties (See. 5(m), Rule 131) and their testimonies should be given full faith and credence, there being no evidence to the contrary. What is clear from the records, on the other hand, is that appellant refused to give any written statement while under investigation as testified by Atty. Lastimoso of the NBI, Thus:

Fiscal Formoso:

You said that you investigated Mr. and Mrs. Job Reyes. What about the accused here, did you investigate the accused together with the girl?

WITNESS:

Yes, we have interviewed the accused together with the girl but the accused availed of his constitutional right not to give any written statement, sir. (TSN, October 8, 1987, p. 62; Original Records, p. 240)

The above testimony of the witness for the prosecution was not contradicted by the defense on cross-examination. As borne out by the records, neither was there any proof by the defense that appellant gave uncounselled confession while being investigated. What is more, we have examined the assailed judgment of the trial court and nowhere is there any reference made to the testimony of appellant while under custodial investigation which was utilized in the finding of conviction. Appellant's second assignment of error is therefore misplaced.

3. Coming now to appellant's third assignment of error, appellant would like us to believe that he was not the owner of the packages which contained prohibited drugs but rather a certain Michael, a German national, whom appellant met in a pub along Ermita, Manila: that in the course of their 30-minute conversation, Michael requested him to ship the packages and gave him P2,000.00 for the cost of the shipment since the German national was about to leave the country the next day (October 15, 1987, TSN, pp. 2-10).

Rather than give the appearance of veracity, we find appellant's disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving and contrary to human experience. It can easily be fabricated. An acquaintance with a complete stranger struck in half an hour could not have pushed a man to entrust the shipment of four (4) parcels and shell out P2,000.00 for the purpose and for appellant to readily accede to

comply with the undertaking without first ascertaining its contents. As stated by the trial court, "(a) person would not simply entrust contraband and of considerable value at that as the marijuana flowering tops, and the cash amount of P2,000.00 to a complete stranger like the Accused. The Accused, on the other hand, would not simply accept such undertaking to take custody of the packages and ship the same from a complete stranger on his mere say-so" (Decision, p. 19, Rollo, p. 91). As to why he readily agreed to do the errand, appellant failed to explain. Denials, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative self-serving evidence which deserve no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters (People v. Esquillo, 171 SCRA 571 [1989]; People vs. Sariol, 174 SCRA 237 [1989]).

Appellant's bare denial is even made more suspect considering that, as per records of the Interpol, he was previously convicted of possession of hashish by the Kleve Court in the Federal Republic of Germany on January 1, 1982 and that the consignee of the frustrated shipment, Walter Fierz, also a Swiss national, was likewise convicted for drug abuse and is just about an hour's drive from appellant's residence in Zurich, Switzerland (TSN, October 8, 1987, p. 66; Original Records, p. 244; Decision, p. 21; Rollo, p. 93).

Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances (People v. Alto, 26 SCRA 342 [1968], citing Daggers v. Van Dyke, 37 N.J. Eg. 130; see also People v. Sarda, 172 SCRA 651 [1989]; People v. Sunga, 123 SCRA 327 [1983]); Castañares v. CA, 92 SCRA 567 [1979]). As records further show, appellant did not even bother to ask Michael's full name, his complete address or passport number. Furthermore, if indeed, the German national was the owner of the merchandise, appellant should have so indicated in the contract of shipment (Exh. "B", Original Records, p. 40). On the contrary, appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving more weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him (Sec. 5 [j], Rule 131). At this point, appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise.

Premises considered, we see no error committed by the trial court in rendering the assailed judgment.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996

CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and papers taken by her from private respondent's clinic without the latter's knowledge and consent.

The facts are as follows:

Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.

Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against petitioner. The case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X, which, after trial, rendered judgment for private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, declaring him "the capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of plaintiff's Complaint or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress" and ordering Cecilia Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to a immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00, as nominal damages; P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorney's fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. The writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued was made final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and representatives were enjoined from "using or submitting/admitting as evidence" the documents and papers in question. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence this petition.

There is no question that the documents and papers in question belong to private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, and that they were taken by his wife, the herein petitioner, without his knowledge and consent. For that reason, the trial court declared the documents and papers to be properties of private respondent, ordered petitioner to return them to private respondent and enjoined her from using them in evidence. In appealing from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's decision, petitioner's only ground is that in Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr.,1 this Court ruled that the documents and papers (marked as Annexes A-1 to J-7 of respondent's comment in that case) were admissible in evidence and, therefore, their use by petitioner's attorney, Alfonso Felix did not constitute malpractice or gross misconduct, For this reason it is contended that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court instead of dismissing private respondent's complaint.

Petitioner's contention has no merit. The case against Atty. Felix, Jr. was for disbarment. Among other things, private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, as complainant in that case, charged that in using the documents in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed malpractice or gross misconduct because of the injunctive order of the trial court. In dismissing the complaint against Atty. Felix, Jr., this Court took note of the following defense of Atty. Felix; Jr. which it found to be "impressed with merit:"2

On the alleged malpractice or gross misconduct of respondent [Alfonso Felix, Jr.], he maintains that:

. . . .

4. When respondent refiled Cecilia's case for legal separation before the Pasig Regional Trial Court, there was admittedly an order of the Manila Regional Trial Court prohibiting Cecilia from using the documents Annex "A-1 to J-7." On September 6, 1983, however having appealed the said order to this Court on a petition for certiorari, this Court issued a restraining order on aforesaid date which order temporarily set aside the order of the trial court. Hence, during the enforceability of this Court's order, respondent's request for petitioner to admit the genuineness and authenticity of the subject annexes cannot be looked upon as malpractice. Notably, petitioner Dr. Martin finally admitted the truth and authenticity of the questioned annexes, At that point in time, would it have been malpractice for respondent to use petitioner's admission as evidence against him in the legal separation case pending in the Regional Trial Court of Makati? Respondent submits it is not malpractice.

Significantly, petitioner's admission was done not thru his counsel but by Dr. Martin himself under oath, Such verified admission constitutes an affidavit, and, therefore, receivable in evidence against him. Petitioner became bound by his admission. For Cecilia to avail herself of her husband's admission and use the same in her action for legal separation cannot be treated as malpractice.

Thus, the acquittal of Atty. Felix, Jr. in the administrative case amounts to no more than a declaration that his use of the documents and papers for the purpose of securing Dr. Martin's admission as to their genuiness and authenticity did not constitute a violation of the injunctive order of the trial court. By no means does the decision in that case establish the admissibility of the documents and

papers in question.

It cannot be overemphasized that if Atty. Felix, Jr. was acquitted of the charge of violating the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court, it was only because, at the time he used the documents and papers, enforcement of the order of the trial court was temporarily restrained by this Court. The TRO issued by this Court was eventually lifted as the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner against the trial court's order was dismissed and, therefore, the prohibition against the further use of the documents and papers became effective again.

Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" 3 is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law."4 Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." 5

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.6Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions.7 But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

BACHE & CO. (PHIL.), INC. and FREDERICK E. SEGGERMAN, Petitioners, v. HON. JUDGE VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, MISAEL P. VERA, in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ARTURO LOGRONIO, RODOLFO DE LEON, GAVINO

VELASQUEZ, MIMIR DELLOSA, NICANOR ALCORDO, JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE, JOHN DOE, and JOHN DOE, Respondents.

San Juan, Africa, Gonzales & San Agustin, for Petitioners.

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Crispin V . Bautista, Solicitor Pedro A. Ramirez and Special Attorney Jaime M. Maza for Respondents.

D E C I S I O NVILLAMOR, J.:

This is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction. In their petition Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and its President, Frederick E. Seggerman, pray this Court to declare null and void Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by respondent Judge on February 25, 1970; to order respondents to desist from enforcing the same and/or keeping the documents, papers and effects seized by virtue thereof, as well as from enforcing the tax assessments on petitioner corporation alleged by petitioners to have been made on the basis of the said documents, papers and effects, and to order the return of the latter to petitioners. We gave due course to the petition but did not issue the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for therein.

The pertinent facts of this case, as gathered from record, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On February 24, 1970, respondent Misael P. Vera, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to respondent Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for violation of Section 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code, in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof, particularly Sections 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and authorizing Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon, one of herein respondents, to make and file the application for search warrant which was attached to the letter.

In the afternoon of the following day, February 25, 1970, respondent De Leon and his witness, respondent Arturo Logronio, went to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. They brought with them the following papers: respondent Vera’s aforesaid letter-request; an application for search warrant already filled up but still unsigned by respondent De Leon; an affidavit of respondent Logronio subscribed before respondent De Leon; a deposition in printed form of respondent Logronio already accomplished and signed by him but not yet subscribed; and a search warrant already accomplished but still unsigned by respondent Judge.

At that time respondent Judge was hearing a certain case; so, by means of a note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of respondents De Leon and Logronio. After the session had adjourned, respondent Judge was informed that the depositions had already been taken. The stenographer, upon request of respondent Judge, read to him her stenographic notes; and thereafter, respondent Judge asked respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. Respondent Judge signed respondent de Leon’s application for search warrant and respondent Logronio’s deposition, Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 was then sign by respondent Judge and accordingly issued.

Three days later, or on February 28, 1970, which was a Saturday, the BIR agents served the search warrant petitioners at the offices of petitioner corporation on Ayala Avenue, Makati, Rizal. Petitioners’ lawyers protested the search on the ground that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was attached to the warrant. The agents nevertheless proceeded with their search which yielded six boxes of documents.

On March 3, 1970, petitioners filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal praying that the search warrant be quashed, dissolved or recalled, that preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of injunction be issued, that the search warrant be declared null and void, and that the respondents be ordered to pay petitioners, jointly and severally, damages and attorney’s fees. On March 18, 1970, the respondents, thru the Solicitor General, filed an answer to the petition. After hearing, the court, presided over by respondent Judge, issued on July 29, 1970, an order dismissing the petition for dissolution of the search warrant. In the meantime, or on April 16, 1970, the Bureau of Internal Revenue made tax assessments on petitioner corporation in the total sum of P2,594,729.97, partly, if not entirely, based on the documents thus seized. Petitioners came to this Court.

The petition should be granted for the following reasons:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Respondent Judge failed to personally examine the complainant and his witness.

The pertinent provisions of the Constitution of the Philippines and of the Revised Rules of Court are:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(3) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and

the persons or things to be seized." (Art. III, Sec. 1, Constitution.)

"SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or justice of the peace after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

"No search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.

"SEC. 4. Examination of the applicant. — The judge or justice of the peace must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him." (Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court.)

The examination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, required by Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3, of the Constitution, and by Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, should be conducted by the judge himself and not by others. The phrase "which shall be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce," appearing in the said constitutional provision, was introduced by Delegate Francisco as an amendment to the draft submitted by the Sub-Committee of Seven. The following discussion in the Constitutional Convention (Laurel, Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional Convention, Vol. III, pp. 755-757) is enlightening:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SR. ORENSE. Vamos a dejar compañero los piropos y vamos al grano.

En los casos de una necesidad de actuar inmediatamente para que no se frusten los fines de la justicia mediante el registro inmediato y la incautacion del cuerpo del delito, no cree Su Señoria que causaria cierta demora el procedimiento apuntado en su enmienda en tal forma que podria frustrar los fines de la justicia o si Su Señoria encuentra un remedio para esto casos con el fin de compaginar los fines de la justicia con los derechos del individuo en su persona, bienes etcetera, etcetera.

"SR. FRANCISCO. No puedo ver en la practica el caso hipottico que Su Señoria pregunta por la siguiente razon: el que solicita un mandamiento de registro tiene que hacerlo por escrito y ese escrito no aparecer en la Mesa del Juez sin que alguien vaya el juez a presentar ese escrito o peticion de sucuestro. Esa persona que presenta el registro puede ser el mismo denunciante o alguna persona que solicita dicho mandamiento de registro. Ahora toda la enmienda en esos casos consiste en que haya peticion de registro y el juez no se atendra solamente a sea peticion sino que el juez examiner a ese denunciante y si tiene testigos tambin examiner a los testigos.

"SR. ORENSE. No cree Su Señoria que el tomar le declaracion de ese denunciante por escrito siempre requeriria algun tiempo?.

"SR. FRANCISCO. Seria cuestio de un par de horas, pero por otro lado minimizamos en todo lo posible las vejaciones injustas con la expedicion arbitraria de los mandamientos de registro. Creo que entre dos males debemos escoger. el menor.

x x x

"MR. LAUREL. . . . The reason why we are in favor of this amendment is because we are incorporating in our constitution something of a fundamental character. Now, before a judge could issue a search warrant, he must be under the obligation to examine personally under oath the complainant and if he has any witness, the witnesses that he may produce . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The implementing rule in the Revised Rules of Court, Sec. 4, Rule 126, is more emphatic and candid, for it requires the judge, before issuing a search warrant, to "personally examine on oath or affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause, pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3, of the Constitution, and Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, both of which prohibit the issuance of warrants except "upon probable cause." The determination of whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.

In the case at bar, no personal examination at all was conducted by respondent Judge of the complainant (respondent De Leon) and his witness (respondent Logronio). While it is true that the complainant’s application for search warrant and the witness’ printed-form deposition were subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge, the latter did not ask either of the two any question the answer to which could possibly be the basis for determining whether or not there was probable cause against herein petitioners. Indeed, the participants seem to have attached so little significance to the matter that notes of the proceedings before respondent Judge were not even taken. At this juncture it may be well to recall the salient facts. The transcript of stenographic notes (pp. 61-76, April 1, 1970, Annex J-2 of the Petition) taken at the hearing of this case in the court below shows that per instruction of respondent Judge, Mr. Eleodoro V. Gonzales, Special Deputy Clerk of Court, took the depositions of the complainant and his witness, and that stenographic notes thereof were taken by Mrs. Gaspar. At that time respondent Judge was at the sala hearing a case. After respondent Judge was through with the hearing, Deputy Clerk Gonzales, stenographer Gaspar, complainant De Leon and witness

Logronio went to respondent Judge’s chamber and informed the Judge that they had finished the depositions. Respondent Judge then requested the stenographer to read to him her stenographic notes. Special Deputy Clerk Gonzales testified as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A And after finishing reading the stenographic notes, the Honorable Judge requested or instructed them, requested Mr. Logronio to raise his hand and warned him if his deposition will be found to be false and without legal basis, he can be charged criminally for perjury. The Honorable Court told Mr. Logronio whether he affirms the facts contained in his deposition and the affidavit executed before Mr. Rodolfo de Leon.

"Q And thereafter?

"A And thereafter, he signed the deposition of Mr. Logronio.

"Q Who is this he?

"A The Honorable Judge.

"Q The deposition or the affidavit?

"A The affidavit, Your Honor."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thereafter, respondent Judge signed the search warrant.

The participation of respondent Judge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 was thus limited to listening to the stenographer’s readings of her notes, to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be consider a personal examination. If there was an examination at all of the complainant and his witness, it was the one conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court. But, as stated, the Constitution and the rules require a personal examination by the judge. It was precisely on account of the intention of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention to make it a duty of the issuing judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses that the question of how much time would be consumed by the judge in examining them came up before the Convention, as can be seen from the record of the proceedings quoted above. The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate and the rule; for by that manner respondent Judge did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was in the best position to conceive. These were important in arriving at a sound inference on the all-important question of whether or not there was probable cause.

2. The search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense.

Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 was issued for" [v]iolation of Sec. 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof particularly Secs. 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209." The question is: Was the said search warrant issued "in connection with one specific offense," as required by Sec. 3, Rule 126?

To arrive at the correct answer it is essential to examine closely the provisions of the Tax Code referred to above. Thus we find the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 46(a) requires the filing of income tax returns by corporations.

Sec. 53 requires the withholding of income taxes at source.

Sec. 72 imposes surcharges for failure to render income tax returns and for rendering false and fraudulent returns.

Sec. 73 provides the penalty for failure to pay the income tax, to make a return or to supply the information required under the Tax Code.

Sec. 208 penalizes" [a]ny person who distills, rectifies, repacks, compounds, or manufactures any article subject to a specific tax, without having paid the privilege tax therefore, or who aids or abets in the conduct of illicit distilling, rectifying, compounding, or illicit manufacture of any article subject to specific tax . . .," and provides that in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association, the official and/or employee who caused the violation shall be responsible.

Sec. 209 penalizes the failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business, or gross value of output removed, or to pay the tax due thereon.

The search warrant in question was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Tax Code. The first is the violation of Sec. 46(a), Sec. 72 and Sec. 73 (the filing of income tax returns), which are interrelated. The second is the violation of Sec. 53 (withholding of income taxes at source). The third is the violation of Sec. 208 (unlawful pursuit of business or occupation); and the fourth is the violation of Sec. 209 (failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business or gross value of output actually removed or

to pay the tax due thereon). Even in their classification the six above-mentioned provisions are embraced in two different titles: Secs. 46(a), 53, 72 and 73 are under Title II (Income Tax); while Secs. 208 and 209 are under Title V (Privilege Tax on Business and Occupation).

Respondents argue that Stonehill, Et. Al. v. Diokno, Et Al., L-19550, June 19, 1967 (20 SCRA 383), is not applicable, because there the search warrants were issued for "violation of Central Bank Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code;" whereas, here Search Warrant No 2-M-70 was issued for violation of only one code, i.e., the National Internal Revenue Code. The distinction more apparent than real, because it was precisely on account of the Stonehill incident, which occurred sometime before the present Rules of Court took effect on January 1, 1964, that this Court amended the former rule by inserting therein the phrase "in connection with one specific offense," and adding the sentence "No search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense," in what is now Sec. 3, Rule 126. Thus we said in Stonehill:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection with the disputed search warrants, that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of Court that ‘a search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense.’ Not satisfied with this qualification, the Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that ‘no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.’"

3. The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized.

The documents, papers and effects sought to be seized are described in Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 in this manner:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements books, customers ledgers); receipts for payments received; certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory notes and deeds of sale; telex and coded messages; business communications, accounting and business records; checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits and withdrawals; and records of foreign remittances, covering the years 1966 to 1970."cralaw virtua1aw library

The description does not meet the requirement in Art III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized.

In Stonehill, this Court, speaking thru Mr. Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants was compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and seized, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or paper showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements.’

"Thus, the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights — that the things to be seized be particularly described — as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants."cralaw virtua1aw library

While the term "all business transactions" does not appear in Search Warrant No. 2-M-70, the said warrant nevertheless tends to defeat the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the elimination of general warrants, for the language used therein is so all-embracing as to include all conceivable records of petitioner corporation, which, if seized, could possibly render its business inoperative.

In Uy Kheytin, Et. Al. v. Villareal, etc., Et Al., 42 Phil. 886, 896, this Court had occasion to explain the purpose of the requirement that the warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . Both the Jones Law (sec. 3) and General Orders No. 58 (sec. 97) specifically require that a search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant — to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ may not be made, — that abuses may not be committed. That this is the correct interpretation of this constitutional provision is borne out by American authorities."cralaw virtua1aw library

The purpose as thus explained could, surely and effectively, be defeated under the search warrant issued in this case.

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People v. Rubio; 57 Phil. 384); or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact — not of law — by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad Santos, J.,); or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 2, Rule

126, Revised Rules of Court). The herein search warrant does not conform to any of the foregoing tests. If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than those articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence. In this event, the description contained in the herein disputed warrant should have mentioned, at least, the dates, amounts, persons, and other pertinent data regarding the receipts of payments, certificates of stocks and securities, contracts, promissory notes, deeds of sale, messages and communications, checks, bank deposits and withdrawals, records of foreign remittances, among others, enumerated in the warrant.

Respondents contend that certiorari does not lie because petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of respondent Judge’s order of July 29, 1970. The contention is without merit. In the first place, when the questions raised before this Court are the same as those which were squarely raised in and passed upon by the court below, the filing of a motion for reconsideration in said court before certiorari can be instituted in this Court is no longer a prerequisite. (Pajo, etc., Et. Al. v. Ago, Et Al., 108 Phil., 905). In the second place, the rule requiring the filing of a motion for reconsideration before an application for a writ of certiorari can be entertained was never intended to be applied without considering the circumstances. (Matutina v. Buslon, Et Al., 109 Phil., 140.) In the case at bar time is of the essence in view of the tax assessments sought to be enforced by respondent officers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue against petitioner corporation, On account of which immediate and more direct action becomes necessary. (Matute v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 26 SCRA 768.) Lastly, the rule does not apply where, as in this case, the deprivation of petitioners’ fundamental right to due process taints the proceeding against them in the court below not only with irregularity but also with nullity. (Matute v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., supra.)

It is next contended by respondents that a corporation is not entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizures. Again, we find no merit in the contention.

"Although, for the reasons above stated, we are of the opinion that an officer of a corporation which is charged with a violation of a statute of the state of its creation, or of an act of Congress passed in the exercise of its constitutional powers, cannot refuse to produce the books and papers of such corporation, we do not wish to be understood as holding that a corporation is not entitled to immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A corporation is, after all, but an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected, under the 14th Amendment, against unlawful discrimination . . ." (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 50 L. ed. 652.)

"In Linn v. United States, 163 C.C.A. 470, 251 Fed. 476, 480, it was thought that a different rule applied to a corporation, the ground that it was not privileged from producing its books and papers. But the rights of a corporation against unlawful search and seizure are to be protected even if the same result might have been achieved in a lawful way." (Silverthorne Lumber Company, Et. Al. v. United States of America, 251 U.S. 385, 64 L. ed. 319.)

In Stonehill, Et. Al. v. Diokno, Et Al., supra, this Court impliedly recognized the right of a corporation to object against unreasonable searches and seizures, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or the interest of each of them in said corporations, whatever, the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the Stonehill case only the officers of the various corporations in whose offices documents, papers and effects were searched and seized were the petitioners. In the case at bar, the corporation to whom the seized documents belong, and whose rights have thereby been impaired, is itself a petitioner. On that score, petitioner corporation here stands on a different footing from the corporations in Stonehill.

The tax assessments referred to earlier in this opinion were, if not entirely — as claimed by petitioners — at least partly — as in effect admitted by respondents — based on the documents seized by virtue of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70. Furthermore, the fact that the assessments were made some one and one-half months after the search and seizure on February 25, 1970, is a strong indication that the documents thus seized served as basis for the assessments. Those assessments should therefore not be enforced.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is granted. Accordingly, Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by respondent Judge is declared null and void; respondents are permanently enjoined from enforcing the said search warrant; the documents, papers and effects seized thereunder are ordered to be returned to petitioners; and respondent officials the Bureau of Internal Revenue and their representatives are permanently enjoined from enforcing the assessments mentioned in Annex "G" of the present petition, as

well as other assessments based on the documents, papers and effects seized under the search warrant herein nullified, and from using the same against petitioners in any criminal or other proceeding. No pronouncement as to costs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CONWAY B. OMAWENG, Accused-Appellant.

The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joel C. Obar for Accused-Appellant.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS DRUG ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED DRUGS; PROOF OF OWNERSHIP THEREOF BY THE ACCUSED NOT REQUIRED. — The accused contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he is the owner of the marijuana found inside the travelling bag which he had in his vehicle, a Ford Fiera Proof of ownership is immaterial. Accused was prosecuted for the dispatching in transit or transporting of prohibited drugs pursuant to Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. This section does not require that for one to be liable for participating in any of the proscribed transactions enumerated therein, he must be the owner of the prohibited drug. This section penalizes the pusher, who need not be the owner of the prohibited drug. The law defines pusher as "any person who sells, administers, delivers, or gives away to another, on any terms whatsoever, or distributes, dispatches in transit or transports any dangerous drug or who acts as a broker in any of such transactions, in violation of this Act. [Section 2 (m), R.A. No. 6425, as amended.] In People v. Alfonso, [186 SCRA (1990)] where the accused was charged with the unlawful transportation of marijuana under the aforesaid Section 4, this Court ruled that ownership is not a basic issue.

2. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE COMBINATION THEREOF; WARRANTS A CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. — The facts, as proven by the prosecution, establish beyond cavil that the accused was caught in the act of transporting the prohibited drug or, in other words, in flagrante delicto. That he knew fully well what he was doing is shown beyond moral certainty by the following circumstances: (a) the prohibited drug was found in a travelling bag, (b) he is the owner of the said bag, (c) he concealed the bag behind a spare tire, (d) he was travelling alone, and (e) the Ford Fiera in which he loaded the bag was under his absolute control, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court (on circumstantial evidence), the combination of all these circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Such circumstances, unrebutted by strong and convincing evidence by the accused, even gave rise to the presumption that he is the owner of the prohibited drug. [Section 3(j), Rule 131, Rules of Court.]

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH & SEIZURE; WHEN DEEMED WAIVED. — Accused was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. [Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution.] If one had been made, this Court would be the first to condemn it "as the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional rights is one of the highest duties and privileges of the Court." [Rodriguez v. Villamiel, 65 Phil. 230 (1937).] He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. Thus, the accused waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures As this Court stated in People v. Malasugui: (63 Phil. 221, 226 [1936]. See also Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 [1938]; People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 [1991]; People v. Rodrigueza, 205 SCRA 791 [1992].)." . . When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of (sic) his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., vol. I, page 631.) The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly." Since in the course of the valid search forty-one (41) packages of drugs were found, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. Besides, when said packages were identified by the prosecution witnesses and later on formally offered in evidence, the accused did not raise any objection whatsoever.

D E C I S I O N

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Accused Conway B. Omaweng was originally indicted for the violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, in a criminal complaint filed with the Municipal Trial Court of Bontoc, Mountain Province on 12 September 1988. 1 Upon his failure to submit counter-affidavits despite the granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared that he had waived his right to a preliminary investigation and, finding probable cause against the accused, ordered the elevation of the case to the proper court. 2

On 14 November 1988, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Mountain Province filed an Information charging the accused with the violation of Section 47 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The accusatory portion thereof reads:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"That on or about September 12, 1988, at Dantay, Bontoc, Mountain Province, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously dispatch in transit or transport in a Ford Fiera, owned and driven by him, 10 1/4 kilos of processed marijuana in powder form contained in al plastic

bags of different sizes which were placed in a travelling bag destained (sic) and intended for delivery, disposition and sale in Sagada, Mountain Province, with full knowledge that said processed marijuana is (sic) prohibited drug or from which (sic) prohibited drug maybe manufactured.

CONTRARY TO LAW." 3

The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 713.

After his motion for reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal, 4 the accused entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment on 20 June 1989.

During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented four (4) witnesses. The accused did not present any evidence other than portions of the Joint Clarificatory Sworn Statement, dated 23 December 1988, of prosecution witnesses Joseph Layong and David Fomocod.

On 21 March 1991, the trial court promulgated its Judgment 5 convicting the accused of the crime of transporting prohibited drugs penalized under Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered imposing upon the accused herein the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Five Thousand Pesos.

Pursuant to Sec. 20, Art. IV of the aforecited special law, the drugs subject of the crime are ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government. Accordingly, it is further directed that such drugs so confiscated and forfeited be destroyed without delay per existing rules and regulations on the matter.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED." 6

Hence, this appeal.

In the Appellant’s Brief, Accused imputes upon the trial court the commission of the following errors.

"I

. . . IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

. . . IN NOT CONSIDERING THE JOINT CLARIFICATORY STATEMENT OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ACCUSED IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROHIBITED DRUG SUBJECT OF THIS CASE.

III

. . . IN NOT RULING THAT THE CONTRABAND SUBJECT OF THE INSTANT CASE IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH (sic) AND SEIZURE." 7

The appeal is without merit. The decision appealed from must be upheld.

After a careful review and evaluation of the evidence, We find to have been fully proven the following facts as summarized by the Solicitor General in the Brief for the Appellee. 8

"In the morning of September 12, 1988, Joseph Layong, a PC constable with the Mt. Province PC Command at Bontoc, Mt. Province proceeded with other PC soldiers to Barrio Dantay, Bontoc and, per instruction of their officer, Capt. Eugene Martin, put up a checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to Sagada and the other to Bontoc (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 3-4). They stopped and checked all vehicles that went through the checkpoint (TSN, April 5, 1990, p. 12).

At about 9:15 A.M., Layong and his teammate, Constable David Osborne Famocod (sic), saw and flagged down a cream-colored Ford Fiera bearing Plate No. ABT-634 coming from the Bontoc Poblacion and headed towards Baguio (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 4-5, 8). The vehicle was driven by appellant and had no passengers (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 4-5).

Layong and his companions asked permission to inspect the vehicle and appellant acceded to the request. (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 4-5). When they peered into the rear of the vehicle, they saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a

spare tire under the passenger seat on the right side of the vehicle (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 6, 10, 11).chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Layong and his companions asked permission to see the contents of the bag (TSN, November 9, 1989, p. 6). Appellant consented to the request but told them that it only contained some clothes (TSN, November 9, 1989, p. 6). When Layong opened the bag, he found that it contained forty-one (41) plastic packets of different sizes containing pulverized substances (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 7, 9).

Layong gave a packet to his team leader, constable David Osborne Fomocod, who, after sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana (TSN, November 9, 1989, p. 16).

The PC constables, together with appellant, boarded the latter’s Ford Fiera and proceeded to the Bontoc poblacion to report the incident to the PC Headquarters (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 7-8) The prohibited drugs were surrendered to the evidence custodian, Sgt. Angel Pokling (TSN, November 9, 1989, pp. 7-8).

Major Carlos Figueroa, a PC Forensic Chemist at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet, who has conducted more than 2500 professional examinations of marijuana, shabu and cocaine samples, conducted two chemistry examinations of the substance contained in the plastic packets taken from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or marijuana (TSN, October 24, 1990, pp. 3, 5-81)." 9

Anent the first assigned error, the accused contends that the prosecution failed to prove that he is the owner of the marijuana found inside the travelling bag which he had in his vehicle, a Ford Fiera Proof of ownership is immaterial. Accused was prosecuted for the dispatching in transit or transporting of prohibited drugs pursuant to Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. This section does not require that for one to be liable for participating in any of the proscribed transactions enumerated therein, he must be the owner of the prohibited drug. It simply reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed."cralaw virtua1aw library

This section penalizes the pusher, who need not be the owner of the prohibited drug. The law defines pusher as "any person who sells, administers, delivers, or gives away to another, on any terms whatsoever, or distributes, dispatches in transit or transports any dangerous drug or who acts as a broker in any of such transactions, in violation of this Act. 10

In People v. Alfonso, 11 where the accused was charged with the unlawful transportation of marijuana under the aforesaid Section 4, this Court ruled that ownership is not a basic issue.cralawnad

The facts, as proven by the prosecution, establish beyond cavil that the accused was caught in the act of transporting the prohibited drug or, in other words, in flagrante delicto. That he knew fully well what he was doing is shown beyond moral certainty by the following circumstances: (a) the prohibited drug was found in a travelling bag, (b) he is the owner of the said bag, (c) he concealed the bag behind a spare tire, (d) he was travelling alone, and (e) the Ford Fiera in which he loaded the bag was under his absolute control, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court (on circumstantial evidence), the combination of all these circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Such circumstances, unrebutted by strong and convincing evidence by the accused, even gave rise to the presumption that he is the owner of the prohibited drug. 12

The second assigned error is devoid of merit. The declaration in the joint clarificatory sworn statement executed by the apprehending officers, that the marijuana subject of the case was surreptitiously placed by an unknown person in the bag of the accused, is not supported by evidence. Said sworn statement cannot be used as a basis for exoneration because the very same officers who signed the same reiterated on the witness stand their statements in their original affidavit implicating the accused, both the criminal complaint before the Municipal Trial Court of Lontoc and the information in this case were based on this original affidavit. No probative value could be assigned to it not only because it was procured by the defense under questionable circumstances, but also because the affiants therein merely expressed their personal opinion. The trial court’s correct exposition on this point, to which nothing more may be added, deserves to be quoted, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the portions of the ‘Joint Clarificatory Sworn Statement- of prosecution witnesses Layong and Fomocod cited (Exhs. "I" to "I-C" ; p 155, Record), the defense would want this Court to draw the inference that the accused Conway Omaweng is innocent as confirmed by no less than the persons who apprehended the suspect in flagranti (sic). In other words, that the said accused is not the owner of the contraband confiscated but someone else; that to (sic) mysterious individual placed the prohibited articles inside the travelling bag of the accused without the knowledge and consent of the latter; and that the identity of this shadowy third person is known by the PC/INP investigators. The isolated declarations, albeit under oath are much too asinine to be true and do not affect the credibilities of the witnesses — affiants and the truth of their affirmations on the stand. As gleaned from parts of the record of the reinvestigation of this case conducted by the Provincial Fiscal (Exhs "G" and "D" ; pp. 158 and 161, Record), it appears that Layong and Fomocod were prevailed upon to affix their signatures to (sic) the document styled as ‘Joint Clarificatory Sworn Statement’ by

interested persons in a vain ploy to extricate the accused from the morass he got himself into. Testifying in open court, the same witnesses maintained the tenor of their original affidavit supporting the filing of the criminal complaint in the lower court (Exh. "C" ; p. 2, Record) No additional information was elicited from said witnesses during their examination from which it can reasonably be deduced that a third person instead of the accused is the culprit and that the suspect is being framed-up for a crime he did not commit. Nonetheless, granting arguendo that the declarations of Layong and Fomocod now the bone of contention, are on the level, the same are but mere opinions and conclusions without bases. Any which way, to believe that any person in his right mind owning several kilos of hot hashish worth tens of thousands of pesos would simply stash it away in the travelling bag of someone he has no previous agreement with is a mockery of common sense. And to think further that the PC/INP agents know of such fact yet they kept the vital information under ‘confidential Status’ (whatever that means in police parlance) while an innocent person is being prosecuted and practically in the shadow of the gallows for the offense would be stretching human credulity to the snapping point. By and large, the fact remains as the circumstances logically indicate that the accused Conway Omaweng has knowledge of the existence of the contraband inside his vehicle and he was caught red-handed transporting the hot stuff." 13

The third assignment of error hardly deserves any consideration Accused was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a violation of his Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 14 If one had been made, this Court would be the first to condemn it "as the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional rights is one of the highest duties and privileges of the Court." 15 He willingly gave prior consent to the search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. Prosecution witness Joseph Layong testified thus:chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

"PROSECUTOR AYOCHOK:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q When you and David Fomocod saw the travelling bag, what did you do?

A When we saw that travelling bag, we asked the driver if we could see the contents.

Q And what did or what was the reply of the driver, if there was any?

A He said ‘you can see the contents but those are only clothings (sic).’

Q When he said that, what did you do?

A We asked him if we could open and see it.

Q When you said that, what did he tell you?

A He said you can see it.

Q And when he said ‘you can see and open it,’ what did you do?

A When I went inside and opened the bag, I saw that it was not clothings (sic) that was contained in the bag.

Q And when you saw that it was not clothings (sic), what did you do?

A When I saw that the contents were not clothes, I took some of the contents and showed it to my companion Fomocod and when Fomocod smelled it, he said it was marijuana." 16

This testimony was not dented on cross-examination or rebutted by the accused for he chose not to testify on his own behalf.

Thus, the accused waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures As this Court stated in People v. Malasugui: 17

". . . When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of (sic) his person or premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed., vol. I, page 631.) The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since in the course of the valid search forty-one (41) packages of drugs were found, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure. Besides, when said packages were identified by the prosecution witnesses and later on formally offered in evidence, the accused did not raise any objection whatsoever. Thus, in the accused’s Comments And/Or Objections To Offer of Evidence, 18 We merely find the following:chanrobles law library

"EXHIBIT COMMENTS AND/OR OBJECTIONS

"A" The bag was not positively identified to be

the same bag allegedly found inside the vehicle driven by the accused. The arresting officers failed to show any identifying marks; thug, said bag is an irrelevant evidence not admissible in court; "A-1" to "A-40" Objected to also as irrelevant as the 40 bags now being offered are not the same bags alleged in the information which is 41 bags. The prosecution failed to proved (sic) beyond

reasonable doubt that Exhibit "A-1" to "A-40" are the same bags allegedly taken from inside Exhibit "A" because what is supposed to be inside the bag are 41 bags and not 40 bags."cralaw virtua1aw library

x x x

WHEREFORE, the decision of Branch 36 of the Regional Trial t of Bontoc, Mountain Province of 21 March 1991 in Criminal Case No. 713 finding the accused CONWAY B. OMAWENG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, is hereby AFFIRMED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-27968 December 3, 1975

JOSE G. LOPEZ and TOMAS VELASCO, petitioners, vs.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF DAVAO, CHAIRMAN OF THE ASAC, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CITY FISCAL OF DAVAO, SENIOR NBI AGENT OF DAVAO, EARL REYNOLDS, AND/OR ANY OF THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES,respondents.

A. Romero for petitioners.

Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Augusto M. Amores for respondents.

FERNANDO, J.:

This Court, understandably and appropriately in the decision of cases coming before it, is called upon to act with due care to avoid putting obstacles to the governmental policy "to minimize, if not to do away entirely, with the evil and corruption that smuggling brings in its wake ..." 1 Nonetheless, the steps taken by administrative authorities to implement such a laudable objective must not be repugnant to nor in conflict with constitutional rights. To be more specific, when the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure is invoked, there is a need to scrutinize the facts rigorously to preclude any infringement thereof. In this special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus which arose from the seizures made by the Collector of Customs of Davao of 1,480 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee from the M/V motor vessel Jolo Lema, our decision of November 29, 1974 in Nasiad v. Court of Tax Appeals 2 made clear that there was no failure to comply with the requirements of the law in effecting the same. The seizure was therefore declared lawful by the Court of Tax Appeals, and its decision was affirmed by us. 3 The only question left then is whether the search conducted by a party headed by respondent Earl Reynolds, Senior NBI Agent of Davao, 4 without the search warrant for the hotel room of petitioner Tomas Velasco, who entered into a contract with the other petitioner, Jose G. Lopez, the awardee of such Philippine Reparations Commission vessel, for its operation and use ostensibly for fishing, 5 is violative of such constitutional provision. 6 The defense interposed by respondents is that there was consent. A careful scrutiny of the pleadings reveals that such indeed was the case. We find for respondents and dismiss the action.

The relevant facts as found in the aforesaid Nasiad decision read as follows: "As noted in the appealed decision, the issue submitted "for resolution is the legality of the seizure made by the Collector of Customs of Davao of the 1,408 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee allegedly owned by the petitioners." Then came this portion: "Petitioners claim that the 1,408 sacks of copra and 86 sacks of coffee in question were purchased in Kiamba, Lumatin, and Lumasal, all in the province of Cotabato, from a certain Osmeña Juanday. Petitioners contend that, inasmuch as the said goods were not imported and of foreign origin, they are not legally subject to seizure and forfeiture. They likewise contend that the forfeiture made by the Collector of Customs of Davao was invalid because the said forfeiture was based on documents and papers which were illegally seized by agents of the Government through violence and intimidation. Respondent denies petitioners' claim. He contends that the evidence is sufficient to hold that the goods in question came from Indonesia and subsequently brought to the Philippines in violation of our laws and, therefore, subject to forfeiture; and that the Indonesian documents and papers allegedly secured illegally by the combined team of NBI, PC and RASAC agents stationed in Davao, were in fact lawfully and validly secured by them. Consequently, said documents and papers are admissible in evidence in the forfeiture proceedings instituted administratively by the Collector of Customs of Davao." It was then set forth: "The voluminous [evidence] of record clearly show that M/V [Jolo Lema] had been under strict surveillance by the combined team of agents of the NBI, PC, RASAC, and City Police of Davao prior to its apprehension at a private wharf in Batjak, Sasa, Davao City; that the said M/V [Jolo Lema] was skippered (sic) by Capt. Aquilino Pantinople and chartered by Mr. Tomas Velasco; during the period from the latter part of August to September 18, 1966, the said vessel was in Indonesian waters where it loaded copra and coffee beans from Taruna, Pitta and Mangenito, all of Indonesia ... ; that in its trip to Indonesia it brought various merchandise from the Philippines which were exchanged and/or bartered for copra and coffee beans and subsequently taken to Davao City ...; and that said vessel passed Marore, Indonesia on September 18, 1966 on its way to Tahuna, Indonesia ... before proceeding to Davao City where it was apprehended on September 19, 1966." Then came the reference to the evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses of both parties, being appraised by respondent Court, which did not find any ground to discredit the finding of respondent Collector of Customs. As therein pointed out: "The evidence does not show any plausible motive for respondent's witnesses to falsify the truth because they represent different agencies of the government. From all appearances, they have no personal interest whatsoever over the goods subject of the forfeiture proceedings. Besides, petitioners have not adduced any evidence showing that they were enemies of the witnesses for the government. In short, no iota of evidence was ever presented by the petitioners to destroy the integrity of the government witnesses and to cast a cloud of doubt on their testimonies." Also: "The decision of the Collector of Customs of Davao shows that a petitioner herein and at the same time one of the claimants of the confiscated copra and coffee beans, Mr. Ernesto Lozada, is the Officer-in-Charge of the vessel M/V Jolo Lema. It is not surprising, therefore, that the members of his crew repudiated their sworn statements given to government agents." Then, lastly: "Moreover, petitioners failed to explain satisfactorily, much less refute the vital testimony of Fiscal Mariano Umali of the Department of Justice, Manila that the various Indonesian documents ... duly authenticated by the Indonesian Consulate in Manila, show in clear

detail that the vessel M/V Jolo Lema was in Indonesia during the period from the latter part of August to September 18, 1966, and that it loaded copra and coffee beans therein before the said vessel returned to Davao City on September 19, 1966. Petitioners' failure to successfully dispute or destroy said testimony by competent and reliable evidence strongly indicates that the copra and coffee beans in question were imported from Indonesia." " 7

On the question of the search of the hotel room, the petition alleged that at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of September 19, 1966, when the vessel was searched, a combined team of Constabulary and Regional Anti-Smuggling Center operatives headed by NBI agent Earl Reynolds raided the hotel room then being rented by petitioner Tomas Velasco without any search warrant and in the absence at the time of such petitioner Tomas Velasco or the presence of any other person, except one Teofila Ibañez, a mere manicurist of Davao City by occupation and "forcibly opened luggages and boxes from which only several documents and papers were found, then seized, confiscated and took away the same." 8 There was this refutation of such allegation in the answer presented by respondents, represented by the then Solicitor General, 9 now Associate Justice, Antonio P. Barredo: "(a) After Captain Pantinople informed the team that petitioner Tomas Velasco, the charterer of the vessel, had other documents showing that vessel came from Indonesia carrying smuggled copra and coffee, some members of the team proceeded to the room of petitioner Velasco at the Skyroom Hotel in Davao City, to ask for said documents; (b) Although petitioner Velasco was not inside the hotel room, respondent Reynolds, after identifying himself as a police officer and after explaining his purpose, was allowed to enter the room by Mrs. Tomas Velasco who subsequently volunteered to open the suitcases and baggages of petitioner Velasco and delivered the documents and things contained therein to respondent Reynolds; ... (c) The said police team did not search the room; neither did the members thereof forcibly open the luggages and boxes nor seized and confiscated the documents and things contained therein, since that was not necessary because ... Mrs. Tomas Velasco voluntarily opened the baggages and suitcases and gave their contents of documents and things to respondent Reynolds. Such fact is also established by the joint affidavit of PC Lt. Romeo Arceño, Angel Huertas, Gregorio Esperancilla, Wilfredo G. Agcaoili, Patricio Barnes and Lucero Cordero, a joint sworn statement of Antonio Bonotan, Vicente Dubria, Alberto Morgady and Virgilio Humol; and another affidavit of Pio Raganit and Winifredo Calamba, ... " 10

Thus, as noted at the outset, petitioners are not entitled to the remedies prayed for.

1. There has been marked receptivity on the part of this Court to claims based on the protection of the search and seizure clause of the Constitution, whenever properly invoked. So it was made clear from the leading case ofAlvarez v. Court of First Instance. 11 It has been thus since then. 12 Such was the case likewise under previous organic acts. 13 There is this succinct restatement of what is embraced in the guarantee in the latest case of Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 14 with Justice Martin as ponente: "There can be no question that without the proper search warrant, no public official has the right to enter the premises of another without his consent for the purpose of search and seizure." 15 It does not admit of doubt therefore that a search or seizure cannot be stigmatized as unreasonable and thus offensive to the Constitution if consent be shown. Such a view is implicit in People v. Malasugui. 16 For this immunity from unwarranted intrusion is a personal right which may be waived either expressly or impliedly. 17

The crucial question then is whether in this instance there was consent on the part of the person who was the occupant of the hotel room then rented by petitioner Velasco. It cannot be contended that such premises would be outside the constitutional protection of a guarantee intended to protect one's privacy. It stands to reason that in such a place, the insistence on being free from any unwelcome intrusion is likely to be more marked. 18 Was there, however, consent sufficient in law to dispense with the warrant? Respondents, as previously noted, contend that there was such consent. They so alleged in their answer. Their memorandum would stress it further in these words: "Here the wife of petitioner Tomas Velasco, upon being informed of the purpose of the search by the officers, invited them to enter and search the hotel room and even voluntarily gave the documents and things requested by said officers. This fact could be gleaned from the following records of the two seizure cases involving the vessel M/V Jolo Lema and its cargo of Indonesian copra and coffee: (a) On September 19, 1966, Teofila Ibañez, wife of petitioner Tomas Velasco, issued a written statement which states that — "... I have voluntarily and freely allowed my husband's and my personal belongings to be searched and freely gave the following items." ... (b) On the same date, she issued another certification which reads in part, viz.: "... That I have voluntarily turned over for safekeeping and verification the following."... (c) Also on the same date, she issued still another certification which reads partially, thus:"... that I have freely and voluntarily allowed the search of my and my husband's personal belongings and turn-over to the NBI of the following items."... (d) On October 13, 1966 the Davao City Police Department issued a certification to the effect that the petitioner Tomas Velasco never filed any "report for robbery or other offenses ... against any member of the NBI or the PC during the period from September 19, 1966 to the present,"... ." 19Their memorandum likewise included as an annex an affidavit from Benjamin Doronal Y. Yañez, the assistant manager of the Skyroom Hotel. It was worded thus: "That on September 19, 1966 at around 3:00 to 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a joint NBI, PC and Davao City Police Commando Team conducted a search on Room 220 of the Skyroom Hotel occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Tomas Velasco; That before said search was conducted, [Teofila Ibañez], the actual occupant of the room at the time, voluntarily consented to the request of Atty. [Earl Reynolds] and Lt.[Romeo Arceño], to search their room (Rm. 220) after the latter introduced themselves by showing their respective identifications cards; That during said search, upon the request of Atty. [Reynolds] and Lt.[Arceño], [Teofila Ibañez] voluntarily opened her handbag which was found to contain a .45 caliber pistol and likewise voluntarily opened the maletas which were found to contain several papers and documents; That receipts were duly issued to [Teofila Ibañez] which accounted for everything taken from their room (Rm. No. 220) during the search, including said .45 caliber pistol, papers and documents and that nothing was lost; That [Teofila Ibañez] signed the receipts and received copies thereof; That [Teofila Ibañez] and I were present when the said search was being conducted; That said search was conducted in a peaceful and orderly manner ... ." 20

There was an attempt on the part of petitioners to counteract the force of the above recital by an affidavit of one Corazon Y. Velasco, 21 who stated that she is the legal wife of petitioner Tomas Velasco, and another by such petitioner himself 22 reiterating

such a fact and that the person who was present at his hotel room was one Teofila Ibañez, "a manicurist by occupation ." 23 Their effort appurtenant thereto is doomed to failure. If such indeed were the case, then it is much more easily understandable why that person, Teofila Ibañez, who could be aptly described as the wrong person at the wrong place and at the wrong time, would have signified her consent readily and immediately. Under the circumstances, that was the most prudent course of action. It would save her and even petitioner Velasco himself from any gossip or innuendo. Nor could the officers of the law be blamed if they would act on the appearances. There was a person inside who from all indications was ready to accede to their request. Even common courtesy alone would have precluded them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there. Under all the circumstances, therefore, it can readily be concluded that there was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for a search warrant. The petition cannot, therefore, prevail.

2. It was set forth at the outset that the state policy of minimizing, if not doing away entirely with the festering sore of smuggling must be carried out with due respect for constitutional rights. It is a truism in law that a desirable end cannot be attained by illegal means. Whenever there is a showing therefore that the safeguards of the fundamental law are disregarded, more specifically the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, then judicial redress is appropriate. To repeat, such is not the case here. Moreover, it may likewise be added that as previously mentioned in Nasiad v. Court of Tax Appeals, 24 involving the very same occurrence, the only difference being that the petitioners there were the importers of the smuggled goods, this Court had affirmed the validity of the seizure proceeding. No injustice can therefore be claimed by petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is dismissed. Costs against petitioners.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-95630 June 18, 1992

SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and MA. LUISA VEROY, petitioners, vs.THE HON. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE, Presiding Judge, Branch XIV, Regional Trial Court at Davao City; and BRIG. GEN. PANTALEON DUMLAO, Commanding General, PC-Criminal Investigation Service, respondents.

PARAS, J.:

This was originally a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court: certiorari, to review the Order of the respondent Judge dated October 2, 1990 denying herein petitioner's Motion for Hospital Confinement; mandamus, to compel respondent Judge to resolve petitioners' long pending motion for bail; and prohibition, to enjoin further proceedings on the ground that the legal basis therefore is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

The facts of this case are as follows:

Petitioners are husband and wife who owned and formerly resided at No. 13 Isidro St., Skyline Village. Catalunan Grande, Davao City. When petitioner Leopoldo Veroy was promoted to the position of Assistant Administrator of the Social Security System sometime in June, 1988, he and his family transferred to 130 K-8th St., East Kamias, Quezon City, where they are presently residing. The care and upkeep of their residence in Davao City was left to two (2) houseboys, Jimmy Favia and Eric Burgos, who had their assigned quarters at a portion of the premises. The Veroys would occasionally send money to Edna Soguilon for the salary of the said houseboys and other expenses for the upkeep of their house. While the Veroys had the keys to the interior of the house, only the key to the kitchen, where the circuit breakers were located, was entrusted to Edna Soguilon to give her access in case of an emergency. Hence, since 1988, the key to the master's bedroom as well as the keys to the children's rooms were retained by herein Petitioners so that neither Edna Soguilon nor the caretakers could enter the house.

On April 12, 1990, Capt. Reynaldo Obrero of the Talomo Patrol Station, PC/INP, acting upon a directive issued by Metrodiscom Commander Col. Franco Calida, raided the house of herein petitioners in Davao City on information that the said residence was being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers. They were able to enter the yard with the help of the caretakers but did not enter the house since the owner was not present and they did not have a search warrant. Petitioner Ma. Luisa was contacted by telephone in her Quezon City residence by Capt. Obrero to ask permission to search the house in Davao City as it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center of rebel soldiers. Petitioner Ma. Luisa Veroy responded that she is flying to Davao City to witness the search but relented if the search would not be conducted in the presence of Major Ernesto Macasaet, an officer of the PC/INP, Davao City and a long time family friend of the Veroys. The authority given by Ma. Luisa Veroy was relayed by Capt. Obrero to Major Macasaet who answered that Ma. Luisa Veroy has called him twice by telephone on the matter and that the permission was given on the condition that the search be conducted in his presence.

The following day, Capt. Obrero and Major Macasaet met at the house of herein petitioners in Skyline Village to conduct the search pursuant to the authority granted by petitioner Ma. Luisa Veroy. The caretakers facilitated their entry into the yard, and using the key entrusted to Edna Soguilon, they were able to gain entrance into the kitchen. However, a locksmith by the name of George Badiang had to be employed to open the padlock of the door leading to the children's room. Capt. Obrero and Major Macasaet then entered the children's room and conducted the search. Capt. Obrero recovered a .45 cal. handgun with a magazine containing seven (7) live bullets in a black clutch bag inside an unlocked drawer. Three (3) half-full jute sacks containing printed materials of RAM-SFP (samples of which were attached as Annexes "H" and "H-1" of the petition) (Rollo, pp. 49-55) were also found in the children's room. A search of the children's recreation and study area revealed a big travelling bag containing assorted polo shirts, men's brief, two (2) pieces polo barong and short sleeve striped gray polo. sweat shirt, two (2) pairs men's socks, a towel made in U.S.A., one blanket, a small black bag, Gandhi brand, containing a book entitled "Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation", a road map of the Philippines, a telescope, a plastic bag containing assorted medicines and religious pamphlets was found in the master's bedroom. Sgt. Leo Justalero was instructed by Capt. Obrero to make an inventory and receipt of the articles seized, in the house (Annex "F" of the Petition,Rollo, p. 48). Said receipt was signed by Eric Burgos, one of the caretakers, and George Badiang, the locksmith, as witnesses. Sgt. Justalero turned over the articles to Sgt. Rodolfo Urbano at the police station.

The case was referred for preliminary investigation to Quezon City Assistant Prosecutor Rodolfo Ponferrada who was designated Acting Provincial Prosecutor for Davao City by the Department of Justice through Department Order No. 88 dated May 16, 1990. In a resolution dated August 6, 1990, Fiscal Ponferrada recommended the filing of an information against herein petitioners for Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions in Furtherance of Rebellion) (Annex "L" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 71). Hence, on August 8, 1990. an Information for the said offense was filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City before the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Davao City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 20595-90 and entitled "People of the Philippines v. Atty. Leopoldo Veroy and Mrs. Maria Luisa Veroy" (Annex "K" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 70). No bail was recommended by the prosecution.

The aforementioned resolution dated August 6, 1990 of Fiscal Ponferrada was received by the petitioners on August 13, 1990. On

the same day, the latter filed a Motion for Bail before herein respondent Judge Layague which was denied on August 17, 1990 for being premature since at that time, petitioners had not yet been arrested. Despite the fact that the warrants for their arrest have not yet been served on them, herein petitioners voluntarily surrendered themselves to Brig. Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao, PC-CIS Chief, since it was the CIS that initiated the complaint. However, the latter refused to receive them on the ground that his office has not yet received copies of their warrants of arrest.

In the meantime, on August 15, 1990, herein petitioners were admitted to the St. Luke's Hospital for various ailments brought about or aggravated by the stress and anxiety caused by the filing of the criminal complaint. On August 17, 1990, Brig. Gen. Dumlao granted their request that they be allowed to be confined at the hospital and placed under guard thereat.

In an Indorsement dated August 20, 1990, the CIS through Capt. Benjamin de los Santos, made its return to the trial court informing the latter of the voluntary surrender of herein petitioners and the fact that they were under hospital confinement. Herein Petitioner reiterated their Motion for Bail. In an Order dated August 24, 1990 (Annex "M" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 74), the hearing for the Motion for Ball was set for August 31, 1990 to enable the prosecution to present evidence it opposition to said motion. The prosecution filed its written opposition (Annex "N" of the Petition,Rollo, p. 75) on August 28, 1990, arguing that the evidence of petitioners' guilt was strong and thereafter presented its evidence.

On September 21, 1990, respondent Judge required the CIS to produce the bodies of herein petitioners on October 1, 1990 for arraignment (Annex "O" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 76). Upon their arraignment, herein Petitioners entered a plea of not guilty and filed an "Urgent Motion for Hospital Confinement" (Annex "OO" of the Petition Rollo, p. 77) which was denied by the court in its Order dated October 2, 1990 (Annex "P" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 80). It likewise ordered their commitment at the Davao City Rehabilitation Center, Ma-a, Davao City pending trial on the merits. Herein petitioners argued orally a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the prosecution. At the conclusion thereof, the court a quo issued a second order annex "Q" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 83) denying then motion for reconsideration and as to the alternative prayer to reopen the motion for hospital confinement, set the continuance thereof to October 17, 1990. It was further ordered that the petitioners shall remain under the custody of the PC-CIS pending resolution of the case.

Meanwhile, petitioners were returned to the St. Luke's Hospital where their physical condition remained erratic. On or about October 18, 1990, herein petitioners were informed that Brig. Gen. Dumlao had issued a directive for their transfer from the St. Luke's Hospital to Camp Crame on the basis of the October 2, 1990 Order (Annex "Q" of the Petition, Rollo, p. 83). Petitioners made representations that the tenor of the court order warranted maintenance of the status quo, i.e., they were to continue their hospital confinement. However, Brig, Gen. Dumlao informed them that unless otherwise restrained by the court, they would proceed with their transfer pursuant to the order of the trial court.

Hence, this petition on October 25, 1990 this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from this Court, ordering: (a) respondent Hon. William L. Layague to refrain from further proceeding with petitioners' "Motion for Hospital Confinement" in Criminal Case No. 20595-90 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Leopoldo Veroy and Ma. Luisa Veroy"; and (b) respondent Brig. Gen. Pantaleon Dumlao to refrain from transferring petitioners from the St. Luke's Hospital (Rollo, pp. 84-A to 84-C).

On November 2, 1990, respondent Judge issued an order denying petitioners' Motion for Bail (Annex "A" of the Second Supplemental Petition, Rollo, p. 133). Petitioners filed a Supplemental Petition on November 7, 1990 (Rollo, P. 105) and a Second Supplemental Petition on November 16, 1990 (Rollo, p. 120) which sought to review the order of the trial court dated November 2, 1990 denying their petition for bail.

Acting on the Supplemental Petition filed by Petitioners and taking into consideration several factors such as: a) that the possibility that they will flee or evade the processes of the court is fairly remote; b) their poor medical condition; and c) the matters in their Second Supplemental Petition especially since the prosecution's evidence refers to constructive possession of the disputed firearms in Davao City through the two (2) caretakers while petitioners lived in Manila since 1988, this Court, on November 20, 1990, granted petitioners' provisional liberty and set the bail bond at P20,000.00 each (Rollo, p. 141). Petitioners posted a cash bond in the said amount on November 23, 1990 (Rollo, pp. 143-145).

The petition was given due course on July 16, 1991 (Rollo, p. 211). Respondents adopted their Comment dated December 28, 1990 (Rollo, pp. 182-191) as their Memorandum while, petitioners filed their Memorandum on September 9, 1991 (Rollo, pp. 218-269).

As submitted by the respondents, and accepted by petitioners, the petition for mandamus to compel respondent Judge to resolve petitioners' Motion for Bail, and the petition for certiorari to review the order of respondent judge initially denying their Motion for Hospital Confinement, were rendered moot and academic by the resolutions of this Court dated November 20, 1990 and October 25, 1990, respectively. What remains to be resolved is the petition for prohibition where petitioners raised the following issues:

1. Presidential Decree No. 1866, or at least the third paragraph of Section 1 thereof, is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution;

2. Presidential Decree No. 1866 has been repealed by Republic Act No. 6968;

3. Assuming the validity of Presidential Decree No. 1866 the respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in admitting in evidence certain articles which were clearly inadmissible for being violative of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The issue of constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1866 has been laid to rest in the case of Misolas v. Panga, G.R. No. 83341, January 30, 1990 (181 SCRA 648), where this Court held that the declaration of unconstitutionality of the third paragraph of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 is wanting in legal basis since it is neither a bill of attainder nor does it provide a possibility of a

double jeopardy.

Likewise, petitioners' contention that Republic Act 6968 has repealed Presidential Decree No. 1866 is bereft of merit. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous. its meaning and the intention of the legislature must be determined from the language employed, and where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction (Provincial Board of Cebu v. Presiding Judge of Cebu, CFI, Br. IV, G.R. No. 34695, March 7, 1989 [171 SCRA 1]). A perusal of the aforementioned laws would reveal that the legislature provided for two (2) distinct offenses: (1) illegal possession of firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866; and (2) rebellion, coup d' etat, sedition and disloyalty under Republic Act 6968; evidently involving different subjects which were not clearly shown to have eliminated the others.

But petitioners contend that Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 is couched in general or vague terms. The terms "deal in", "acquire", "dispose" or "possess" are capable of various interpretations such that there is no definiteness as to whether or not the definition includes "constructive possession" or how the concept of constructive possession should be applied. Petitioners were not found in actual possession of the firearm and ammunitions. They were in Quezon City while the prohibited articles were found in Davao City. Yet they were being charged under Presidential Decree No. 1866 upon the sole circumstance that the house wherein the items were found belongs to them (Memorandum for Petitioners, Rollo, pp. 242-244).

Otherwise stated, other than their ownership of the house in Skyline Village, there was no other evidence whatsoever that herein petitioners possessed or had in their control the items seized (Ibid., pp. 248-250). Neither was it shown that they had the intention to possess the Firearms or to further rebellion (Ibid., P. 252).

In a similar case, the revolver in question was found in appellant's store and the question arouse whether he had possession or custody of it within the meaning of the law.

This Court held that:

The animus possidendi must be proved in opium cases where the prohibited drug was found on the premises of the accused and the same rule is applicable to the possession of firearms. The appellant denied all knowledge of the existence of the revolver, and the Government's principal witness stated that there were a number of employees in the store. The only testimony which tends to show that the appellant had the possession or custody of this revolver is the inference drawn from the fact that it was found in his store, but we think that this inference is overcome by the positive testimony of the appellant, when considered with the fact that there were a number of employees in the store, who, of course, could have placed the revolver in the secret place where it was found without the knowledge of the appellant. At least there is a very serious doubt whether he knew of the existence of this revolver. In such case the doubt must be resolved in favor of the appellant. (U.S. v. Jose and Tan Bo., 34 Phil. 724 [1916])

But more importantly, petitioners question the admissibility in evidence of the articles seized in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Petitioners aver that while they concede that Capt. Obrero had permission from Ma. Luisa Veroy to break open the door of their residence, it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining thereat the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. The permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to room search once inside the house. The items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal search, violative of their constitutional rights As such, they are inadmissible in evidence against them.

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). However, the rule that searches and seizures must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. Among the recognized exceptions thereto are: (1) a search incidental to an arrest; (2) a search of a moving vehicle; and (3) seizure of evidence in plain view (People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, January 21, 1991 [193 SCRA 122]).

None of these exceptions pertains to the case at bar. The reason for searching the house of herein petitioners is that it was reportedly being used as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers. While Capt. Obrero was able to enter the compound, he did not enter the house because he did not have a search warrant and the owners were not present. This shows that he himself recognized the need for a search warrant, hence, he did not persist in entering the house but rather contacted the Veroys to seek permission to enter the same. Permission was indeed granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the presence of rebel soldiers. Under the circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but did not.

In a number of cases decided by this Court, (Guazon v. De Villa, supra.; People v. Aminnudin, G.R. No. L-74869, July 6, 1988 [163 SCRA 402]; Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. L-69401, June 23, 1987 [151 SCRA 279]), warrantless searches were declared illegal because the officials conducting the search had every opportunity to secure a search Warrant. The objects seized, being products of illegal searches, were inadmissible in evidence in the criminal actions subsequently instituted against the accused-appellants (People v. Cendana, G.R. No. 84715, October 17, 1990 [190 SCRA 538]).

Undeniably, the offense of illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum but it does not follow that the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply because they are prohibited. A search warrant is still necessary. Hence, the rule having been violated and no exception being applicable, the articles seized were confiscated illegally and are therefore protected by the exclusionary principle. They cannot be used as evidence against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of firearms. (Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 689-690 [1986]). Besides, assuming that there was indeed a search warrant, still in mala prohibita, while there is no need of criminal intent, there must be knowledge that the same existed. Without the knowledge or voluntariness there is no crime.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition as granted and the criminal case against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 91107 June 19, 1991

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MIKAEL MALMSTEDT, *defendant-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles for defendant-appellant.

PADILLA, J.:p

In an information dated 15 June 1989, accused-appellant Mikael Malmstedt (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10, in Criminal Case No. 89-CR-0663, for violation of Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended. The factual background of the case is as follows:

Accused Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the third time in December 1988 as a tourist. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985.

In the evening of 7 May 1989, accused left for Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morning of the following day, he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for two (2) days.

At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning of 11 May 1989, accused went to the Nangonogan bus stop in Sagada to catch the first available trip to Baguio City. From Baguio City, accused planned to take a late afternoon trip to Angeles City, then proceed to Manila to catch his flight out of the country, scheduled on 13 May 1989. From Sagada, accused took a Skyline bus with body number 8005 and Plate number AVC 902. 1

At about 8: 00 o'clock in the morning of that same day (11 May 1989), Captain Alen Vasco, the Commanding Officer of the First Regional Command (NARCOM) stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint in the said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM, that same morning, that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. 2

The group composed of seven (7) NARCOM officers, in coordination with Tublay Police Station, set up a checkpoint at the designated area at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning and inspected all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region.

At about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon, the bus where accused was riding was stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. The two (2) NARCOM officers started their inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus. Accused who was the sole foreigner riding the bus was seated at the rear thereof.

During the inspection, CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused's waist. Suspecting the bulge on accused's waist to be a gun, the officer asked for accused's passport and other identification papers. When accused failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and when accused opened the same bag, as ordered, the officer noticed four (4) suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape, prompting the officer to open one of the wrapped objects. The wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of marijuana.

Thereafter, accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But before he alighted from the bus, accused stopped to get two (2) travelling bags from the luggage carrier.

Upon stepping out of the bus, the officers got the bags and opened them. A teddy bear was found in each bag. Feeling the teddy bears, the officer noticed that there were bulges inside the same which did not feel like foam stuffing. It was only after the officers had opened the bags that accused finally presented his passport.

Accused was then brought to the headquarters of the NARCOM at Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. At the investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and they were found to also contain hashish. Representative samples were taken from the hashish found among the personal effects of accused and the same were brought to the PC Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.

In the chemistry report, it was established that the objects examined were hashish. a prohibited drug which is a derivative of marijuana. Thus, an information was filed against accused for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

During the arraignment, accused entered a plea of "not guilty." For his defense, he raised the issue of illegal search of his personal effects. He also claimed that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his pouch bag and that the two (2) travelling bags

were not owned by him, but were merely entrusted to him by an Australian couple whom he met in Sagada. He further claimed that the Australian couple intended to take the same bus with him but because there were no more seats available in said bus, they decided to take the next ride and asked accused to take charge of the bags, and that they would meet each other at the Dangwa Station.

Likewise, accused alleged that when the NARCOM officers demanded for his passport and other Identification papers, he handed to one of the officers his pouch bag which was hanging on his neck containing, among others, his passport, return ticket to Sweden and other papers. The officer in turn handed it to his companion who brought the bag outside the bus. When said officer came back, he charged the accused that there was hashish in the bag. He was told to get off the bus and his picture was taken with the pouch bag placed around his neck. The trial court did not give credence to accused's defense.

The claim of the accused that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers, was belied by his failure to raise such defense at the earliest opportunity. When accused was investigated at the Provincial Fiscal's Office, he did not inform the Fiscal or his lawyer that the hashish was planted by the NARCOM officers in his bag. It was only two (2) months after said investigation when he told his lawyer about said claim, denying ownership of the two (2) travelling bags as well as having hashish in his pouch bag.

In a decision dated 12 October 1989, the trial court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, specifically Section 4, Art. II of RA 6425, as amended. 3 The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of the accused Mikael Malmstedt established beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds him GUILTY of violation of Section 4, Article 11 of Republic Act 6425, as amended, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

Let the hashish subject of this case be turned over to the First Narcotics Regional Unit at Camp Bado; Dangwa, La Trinidad Benguet for proper disposition under Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act 6425, as amended.

SO ORDERED. 4

Seeking the reversal of the decision of the trial court finding him guilty of the crime charged, accused argues that the search of his personal effects was illegal because it was made without a search warrant and, therefore, the prohibited drugs which were discovered during the illegal search are not admissible as evidence against him.

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 5 However, where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a search warrant. A lawful arrest without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances. 6

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

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7. (6a 17a).

Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish). A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under paragraph (1) of the foregoing provisions of law, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. 7

While it is true that the NARCOM officers were not armed with a search warrant when the search was made over the personal effects of accused, however, under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime.

Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. 8 The required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not determined by any fixed formula but is resolved according to the facts of each case. 9

Warrantless search of the personal effects of an accused has been declared by this Court as valid, because of existence of probable cause, where the smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag owned by the accused, 10or where the accused was acting suspiciously, 11 and attempted to flee. 12

Aside from the persistent reports received by the NARCOM that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs, their Commanding Officer also received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada on that particular day had prohibited drugs in his possession. Said information was received by the Commanding Officer of NARCOM the very same

morning that accused came down by bus from Sagada on his way to Baguio City.

When NARCOM received the information, a few hours before the apprehension of herein accused, that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio City was carrying with him prohibited drugs, there was no time to obtain a search warrant. In the Tangliben case, 13 the police authorities conducted a surveillance at the Victory Liner Terminal located at Bgy. San Nicolas, San Fernando Pampanga, against persons engaged in the traffic of dangerous drugs, based on information supplied by some informers. Accused Tangliben who was acting suspiciously and pointed out by an informer was apprehended and searched by the police authorities. It was held that when faced with on-the-spot information, the police officers had to act quickly and there was no time to secure a search warrant.

It must be observed that, at first, the NARCOM officers merely conducted a routine check of the bus (where accused was riding) and the passengers therein, and no extensive search was initially made. It was only when one of the officers noticed a bulge on the waist of accused, during the course of the inspection, that accused was required to present his passport. The failure of accused to present his identification papers, when ordered to do so, only managed to arouse the suspicion of the officer that accused was trying to hide his identity. For is it not a regular norm for an innocent man, who has nothing to hide from the authorities, to readily present his identification papers when required to do so?

The receipt of information by NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession, plus the suspicious failure of the accused to produce his passport, taken together as a whole, led the NARCOM officers to reasonably believe that the accused was trying to hide something illegal from the authorities. From these circumstances arose a probable cause which justified the warrantless search that was made on the personal effects of the accused. In other words, the acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring the accused to open his pouch bag and in opening one of the wrapped objects found inside said bag (which was discovered to contain hashish) as well as the two (2) travelling bags containing two (2) teddy bears with hashish stuffed inside them, were prompted by accused's own attempt to hide his identity by refusing to present his passport, and by the information received by the NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including, to search even without warrant, in the light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed judgment of conviction by the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 136860 January 20, 2003

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.AGPANGA LIBNAO y KITTEN and ROSITA NUNGA y VALENCIA, accused.AGPANGA LIBNAO y KITTEN, accused-appellant.

PUNO, J.:

Before us is an appeal from the Decision dated November 19, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Tarlac City, finding appellant Agpanga Libnao and her co-accused Rosita Nunga guilty of violating Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.1 For their conviction, each was sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of two million pesos.

Appellant and her co-accused were charged under the following Information:

"That on or about October 20, 1996 at around 1:00 o’clock dawn, in the Municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused conspiring, confederating and helping with one another, without being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously make delivery/transport with intent to sell marijuana leaves wrapped in a transparent plastic weighing approximately eight (8) kilos, which is in violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.

CONTRARY TO LAW."2

During their arraignment, both entered a plea of Not Guilty. Trial on the merits ensued.

It appears from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that in August of 1996, intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) stationed in Tarlac, Tarlac began conducting surveillance operation on suspected drug dealers in the area. They learned from their asset that a certain woman from Tajiri, Tarlac and a companion from Baguio City were transporting illegal drugs once a month in big bulks.

On October 19, 1996, at about 10 o’clock in the evening, Chief Inspector Benjamin Arceo, Tarlac Police Chief, held a briefing in connection with a tip which his office received that the two drug pushers, riding in a tricycle, would be making a delivery that night. An hour later, the Police Alert Team installed a checkpoint in Barangay Salapungan to apprehend the suspects. Witness SPO1 Marlon Gamotea, PO3 Florante Ferrer and SPO3 Roberto Aquino were assigned to man the checkpoint.

At about 1:00 o’clock in the morning of the following day, SPO1 Gamotea and PO3 Ferrer flagged down a passing tricycle. It had two female passengers seated inside, who were later identified as the appellant Agpanga Libnao and her co-accused Rosita Nunga.3 In front of them was a black bag. Suspicious of the black bag and the two’s uneasy behavior when asked about its ownership and content, the officers invited them to Kabayan Center No.2 located at the same barangay. They brought with them the black bag.

Upon reaching the center, PO3 Ferrer fetched Barangay Captain Roy Pascual to witness the opening of the black bag. In the meantime, the two women and the bag were turned over to the investigator on duty, SPO3 Arthur Antonio. As soon as the barangay captain arrived, the black bag was opened in the presence of the appellant, her co-accused and personnel of the center. Found inside it were eight bricks of leaves sealed in plastic bags and covered with newspaper. The leaves were suspected to be marijuana.

To determine who owns the bag and its contents, SPO3 Antonio interrogated the two. Rosita Nunga stated that it was owned by the appellant. The latter, in turn, disputed this allegation. Thereafter, they were made to sign a confiscation receipt without the assistance of any counsel, as they were not informed of their right to have one. During the course of the investigation, not even close relatives of theirs were present.

The seized articles were later brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory in San Fernando, Pampanga on October 23, 1996. Forensic Chemist Daisy P. Babu conducted a laboratory examination on them. She concluded that the articles were marijuana leaves weighing eight kilos.4

For their part, both accused denied the accusation against them. Rosita Nunga testified that in the evening of October 19,1996, she went to buy medicine for her ailing child at a pharmacy near the Tarlac Provincial Hospital. The child was suffering from diarrhea, occasioned by abdominal pain. To return to their house, she boarded a tricycle bound for Barangay Tariji, where she resides. Along the way, the tricycle she was riding was flagged down by a policeman at a checkpoint in Barangay Salapungan. She was taken aback when the officer invited her to the Kabayan Center. It was there that she was confronted with the black bag allegedly containing eight bricks of marijuana leaves. She disputed owning the bag and knowing its contents. She also denied sitting beside the appellant in the passenger’s seat inside the tricycle, although she admitted noticing a male passenger behind the driver.

Remarkably, appellant did not appear in court and was only represented by her lawyer. The latter marked and submitted in evidence an affidavit executed by one Efren Gannod, a security guard of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines in Tarlac, Tarlac. The sworn statement declared that at about 0220H on October 20, 1996, SPO2 Antonio arrived at their terminal and arrested a certain woman who

boarded their Bus No. 983. The incident was recorded in the company’s logbook. Gannod, however, was not presented in court to attest that the woman referred in his affidavit was the appellant.

After trial, the court convicted appellant and her co-accused Rosita Nunga, thus:

"WHEREFORE, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Article II, Section 4 of RA 6425 in relation to RA 7659, they are hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of two million pesos.

SO ORDERED."5

Aggrieved by the verdict, appellant interposed the present appeal. In her brief, she assigned the following errors:

"1. The Honorable Regional Trial Court failed to appreciate the contention of the defense that the right of accused against illegal and unwarranted arrest and search was violated by the police officers who arrested both accused.

2. The Honorable Court failed to appreciate the contention of the defense that the right of the accused to custodial investigation was deliberately violated by the peace officers who apprehended and investigated the accused.

3. The Honorable Court miserably failed to evaluate the material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses which inconsistencies cast doubt and make incredible the contention and version of the prosecution.

4. The Honorable Court gravely abused its discretion when it appreciated and considered the documentary and object evidence of the prosecution not formally offered amounting to ignorance of the law."6

We are not persuaded by these contentions; hence, the appeal must be dismissed.

In arguing that her arrest was unlawful, appellant capitalizes on the absence of a warrant for her arrest. She contends that at the time she was apprehended by the police officers, she was not committing any offense but was merely riding a tricycle. In the same manner, she impugns the search made on her belongings as illegal as it was done without a valid warrant or under circumstances when warrantless search is permissible. Consequently, any evidence obtained therein is inadmissible against her.

These arguments fail to impress. The general rule is that a search may be conducted by law enforcers only on the strength of a search warrant validly issued by a judge as provided in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, thus:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant and warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."7

The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure clause is that between persons and police must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants and warrants of arrest.8

Be that as it may, the requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained prior to the carrying out of a search and seizure is not absolute. There are certain familiar exceptions to the rule, one of which relates to search of moving vehicles.9 Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought.10 Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection.11 When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains as item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.12

In earlier decisions, we held that there was probable cause in the following instances: (a) where the distinctive odor of marijuana emanated from the plastic bag carried by the accused;13 (b) where an informer positively identified the accused who was observed to be acting suspiciously;14 (c) where the accused who were riding a jeepney were stopped and searched by policemen who had earlier received confidential reports that said accused would transport a quantity of marijuana;15 (d) where Narcom agents had received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada, Mountain Province had in his possession prohibited drugs and when the Narcom agents confronted the accused Caucasian because of a conspicuous bulge in his waistline, he failed to present his passport and other identification papers when requested to do so;16 (f) where the moving vehicle was stopped and searched on the basis of intelligence information and clandestine reports by a deep penetration agent or spy -- one who participated in the drug smuggling activities of the syndicate to which the accused belong -- that said accused were bringing prohibited drugs into the country;17 (g) where the arresting officers had received a confidential information that the accused, whose identity as a drug distributor was established in a previous test-buy operation, would be boarding MV Dona Virginia and probably carrying shabu with him;18 (h) where police officers received an information that the accused, who was carrying a suspicious-looking gray luggage bag, would transport marijuana in a bag to Manila;19and (i) where the appearance of the accused and the color of the bag he was carrying fitted the description given by a civilian asset.20

The warrantless search in the case at bench is not bereft of a probable cause. The Tarlac Police Intelligence Division had been conducting surveillance operation for three months in the area. The surveillance yielded the information that once a month, appellant and her co-accused Rosita Nunga transport drugs in big bulks. At 10:00 pm of October 19, 1996, the police received a tip

that the two will be transporting drugs that night riding a tricycle. Surely, the two were intercepted three hours later, riding a tricycle and carrying a suspicious-looking black bag, which possibly contained the drugs in bulk. When they were asked who owned it and what its content was, both became uneasy. Under these circumstances, the warrantless search and seizure of appellant’s bag was not illegal.

It is also clear that at the time she was apprehended, she was committing a criminal offense. She was making a delivery or transporting prohibited drugs in violation of Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425. Under the Rules of Court, one of the instances a police officer is permitted to carry out a warrantless arrest is when the person to be arrested is caught committing a crime in flagrante delicto, thus:

"Section 5. Arrest without Warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

x x x."21 (emphasis supplied)

Appellant also takes issue of the fact that she was not assisted by a lawyer when police officers interrogated her. She claimed that she was not duly informed of her right to remain silent and to have competent counsel of her choice. Hence, she argues that the confession or admission obtained therein should be considered inadmissible in evidence against her.

These contentions deserve scant attention. Appellant did not make any confession during her custodial investigation. In determining the guilt of the appellant and her co-accused, the trial court based its decision on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and on the existence of the confiscated marijuana. We quote the relevant portion of its decision:

"Earlier in the course of the proceedings, the court then presided by Judge Angel Parazo, granted bail to accused Agpanga Libnao, ruling that the confiscation receipt signed by both accused (Exhibit "C") is inadmissible because they were not assisted by a counsel. Confronted with this same issue, this court finds the postulate to rest on good authority and will therefore reiterate its inadmissibility.

Since the prosecution had not presented any extrajudicial confession extracted from both accused as evidence of their guilt, the court finds it needless to discuss any answer given by both accused as a result of the police interrogation while in their custody. By force of necessity, therefore, the only issue to be resolved by the court is whether or not, based on the prosecution’s evidence, both accused can be convicted."22 (emphasis supplied)

Appellant then faults the trial court for appreciating and taking into account the object and documentary evidence of the prosecution despite the latter’s failure to formally offer them. Absent any formal offer, she argues that they again must be deemed inadmissible.

The contention is untenable. Evidence not formally offered can be considered by the court as long as they have been properly identified by testimony duly recorded and they have themselves been incorporated in the records of the case.23 All the documentary and object evidence in this case were properly identified, presented and marked as exhibits in court, including the bricks of marijuana.24 Even without their formal offer, therefore, the prosecution can still establish the case because witnesses properly identified those exhibits, and their testimonies are recorded.25Furthermore, appellant’s counsel had cross-examined the prosecution witnesses who testified on the exhibits.26

Appellant also assails the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. She first cites the inconsistency between the testimony of SPO1 Marlon Gamotea, who said that it was SPO2 Antonio who opened the black bag containing the marijuana; and that of SPO2 Antonio, who declared that the bag was already open when he arrived at the Kabayan Center. She then focuses on the police officers’ failure to remember the family name of the driver of the tricycle where she allegedly rode, claiming that this is improbable and contrary to human experience.

Again, appellant’s arguments lack merit. The alleged inconsistencies she mentions refer only to minor details and not to material points regarding the basic elements of the crime. They are inconsequential that they do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor detract from the established fact that appellant and her co-accused were transporting marijuana. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence.27 The identity of the person who opened the bag is clearly immaterial to the guilt of the appellant. Besides, it is to be expected that the testimony of witnesses regarding the same incident may be inconsistent in some aspects because different persons may have different recollections of the same incident.28

Likewise, we find nothing improbable in the failure of the police officers to note and remember the name of the tricycle driver for the reason that it was unnecessary for them to do so. It was not shown that the driver was in complicity with the appellant and her co-accused in the commission of the crime.

To be sure, credence was properly accorded to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, who are law enforcers. When police officers have no motive to testify falsely against the accused, courts are inclined to uphold this presumption.29 In this case, no evidence has been presented to suggest any improper motive on the part of the police enforcers in arresting the appellant.

Against the credible positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant’s defense of denial and alibi cannot stand. The defense of denial and 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 cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.30 It has to be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.31 The sole proof presented in the lower court by the appellant to support her claim of denial and alibi was a sworn statement, which was not even affirmed on the witness stand by the affiant. Hence, we reject her defense.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the instant appeal is DENIED. The decision of the trial court finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of Article II, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6425 in relation to R.A. No. 7659, and sentencing her to an imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of two million pesos is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 121917 March 12, 1997

ROBIN CARIÑO PADILLA @ ROBINHOOD PADILLA, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FRANCISCO, J.:

On October 26, 1992, high-powered firearms with live ammunitions were found in the possession of petitioner Robin Padilla @ Robinhood Padilla, i.e.:

(1) One .357 Caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson, SN-32919 with six (6) live ammunitions;

(2) One M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP 131120 with four (4) long and one (1) short magazine with ammunitions;

(3) One .380 Pietro Beretta, SN-A 35723 Y with clip and eight (8) ammunitions; and

(4) Six additional live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver. 1

Petitioner was correspondingly charged on December 3, 1992, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under P.D. 1866 2 thru the following Information: 3

That on or about the 26th day of October, 1992, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP 131120 with four (4) long and one (1) short magazines with ammunitions, one (1) .357 caliber revolver Smith and Wesson, SN-32919 with six (6) live ammunitions and one (1) .380 Pietro Beretta, SN-A35723Y with clip and eight (8) ammunitions, without having the necessary authority and permit to carry and possess the same.

ALL CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

The lower court then ordered the arrest of petitioner, 5 but granted his application for bail. 6 During the arraignment on January 20, 1993, a plea of not guilty was entered for petitioner after he refused, 7 upon advice of counsel, 8 to make any plea. 9 Petitioner waived in writing his right to be present in any and all stages of the case. 10

After trial, Angeles City RTC Judge David Rosete rendered judgment dated April 25, 1994 convicting petitioner of the crime charged and sentenced him to an "indeterminate penalty from 17 years, 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as minimum, to 21 years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum". 11 Petitioner filed his notice of appeal on April 28, 1994. 12 Pending the appeal in the respondent Court of Appeals, 13 the Solicitor-General, convinced thatthe conviction shows strong evidence of guilt, filed on December 2, 1994 a motion to cancel petitioner's bail bond. The resolution of this motion was incorporated in the now assailed respondent court's decision sustaining petitioner's conviction14 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing circumstances considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED, and furthermore, the P200,000.00 bailbond posted by accused-appellant for his provisional liberty, FGU Insurance Corporation Bond No. JCR (2) 6523, is hereby cancelled. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Angeles City, is directed to issue the Order of Arrest of accused-appellant and thereafter his transmittal to the National Bureau of Prisons thru the Philippine National Police where the said accused-appellant shall remain under confinement pending resolution of his appeal, should he appeal to the Supreme Court. This shall be immediately executory. The Regional Trial Court is further directed to submit a report of compliance herewith.

SO ORDERED. 15

Petitioner received a copy of this decision on July 26, 1995. 16 On August 9, 1995 he filed a "motion for reconsideration (and to recall the warrant of arrest)" 17 but the same was denied by respondent court in its September 20, 1995 Resolution 18 copy of which was received by petitioner on September 27, 1995. The next day, September 28, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari with application for bail 19 followed by two "supplemental petitions" filed by different counsels, 20 a "second supplemental petition" 21 and an urgent motion for the separate resolution of his application for bail. Again, the Solicitor-General 22 sought the denial of the application for bail, to which the Court agreed in a Resolution promulgated on July 31, 1996. 23 The Court also granted the Solicitor-General's motion to file a consolidated comment on the petitions and thereafter required the petitioner to file his reply.24 However, after his vigorous resistance and success on the intramural of bail (both in the respondent court and this Court) and thorough exposition of petitioner's guilt in his 55-page Brief in the respondent court, the Solicitor-General now makes a complete turnabout by filing a "Manifestation In Lieu Of Comment" praying for petitioner's acquittal. 25

The People's detailed narration of facts, well-supported by evidence on record and given credence by respondent court, is as

follows: 26

At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of October 26, 1992, Enrique Manarang and his compadre Danny Perez were inside the Manukan sa Highway Restaurant in Sto. Kristo, Angeles City where they took shelter from the heavy downpour (pp. 5-6, TSN, February 15, 1993) that had interrupted their ride on motorcycles (pp 5-6, ibid.) along McArthur Highway (ibid). While inside the restaurant, Manarang noticed a vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero, running fast down the highway prompting him to remark that the vehicle might get into an accident considering the inclement weather. (p. 7, Ibid) In the local vernacular, he said thus: "Ka bilis na, mumuran pa naman pota makaaksidente ya." (p. 7, ibid). True enough, immediately after the vehicle had passed the restaurant, Manarang and Perez heard a screeching sound produced by the sudden and hard braking of a vehicle running very fast (pp. 7-8, ibid) followed by a sickening sound of the vehicle hitting something (p. 8, ibid). Danny Cruz, quite sure of what had happened, remarked "oy ta na" signifying that Manarang had been right in his observation (pp. 8-9,ibid).

Manarang and Cruz went out to investigate and immediately saw the vehicle occupying the edge or shoulder of the highway giving it a slight tilt to its side (pp. 9-10, ibid). Manarang, being a member of both the Spectrum, a civic group and the Barangay Disaster Coordinating Council, decided to report the incident to the Philippine National Police of Angeles City (p. 10, ibid). He took out his radio and called the Viper, the radio controller of the Philippine National Police of Angeles City (p. 10, ibid). By the time Manarang completed the call, the vehicle had started to leave the place of the accident taking the general direction to the north (p. 11, ibid).

Manarang went to the location of the accident and found out that the vehicle had hit somebody (p. 11,ibid).

He asked Cruz to look after the victim while he went back to the restaurant, rode on his motorcycle and chased the vehicle (p. 11 ibid). During the chase he was able to make out the plate number of the vehicle as PMA 777 (p. 33, TSN, February 15, 1193). He called the Viper through the radio once again (p. 34, ibid) reporting that a vehicle heading north with plate number PMA 777 was involved in a hit and run accident (p. 20, TSN, June 8, 1993). The Viper, in the person of SP02 Ruby Buan, upon receipt of the second radio call flashed the message to all units of PNP Angeles City with the order to apprehend the vehicle (p. 20, ibid). One of the units of the PNP Angeles City reached by the alarm was its Patrol Division at Jake Gonzales Street near the Traffic Division (pp. 5-7, TSN, February 23, 1993). SPO2 Juan C. Borja III and SPO2 Emerlito Miranda immediately borded a mobile patrol vehicle (Mobile No. 3) and positioned themselves near the south approach of Abacan bridge since it was the only passable way going to the north (pp. 8-9, ibid). It took them about ten (10) seconds to cover the distance between their office and the Abacan bridge (p. 9, ibid).

Another PNP mobile patrol vehicle that responded to the flash message from SPO2 Buan was Mobile No. 7 of the Pulongmaragal Detachment which was then conducting patrol along Don Juico Avenue (pp. 8-9, TSN, March 8, 1993). On board were SPO Ruben Mercado and SPO3 Tan and SPO2 Odejar (p. 8, ibid). SPO Ruben Mercado immediately told SPO3 Tan to proceed to the MacArthur Highway to intercept the vehicle with plate number PMA 777 (p. 10, ibid).

In the meantime, Manarang continued to chase the vehicle which figured in the hit and run incident, even passing through a flooded portion of the MacArthur Highway two (2) feet deep in front of the Iglesia ni Kristo church but he could not catch up with the same vehicle (pp. 11-12, February 15, 1993). When he saw that the car he was chasing went towards Magalang, he proceeded to Abacan bridge because he knew Pulongmaragal was not passable (pp. 12-14, ibid). When he reached the Abacan bridge, he found Mobile No. 3 and SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda watching all vehicles coming their way (p. 10, TSN, February 23, 1993). He approached them and informed them that there was a hit and run incident (p. 10, ibid). Upon learning that the two police officers already knew about the incident, Manarang went back to where he came from (pp. 10-11; ibid). When Manarang was in front of Tina's Restaurant, he saw the vehicle that had figured in the hit and run incident emerging from the corner adjoining Tina's Restaurant (p. 15, TSN, February 15, 1993). He saw that the license plate hanging in front of the vehicle bore the identifying number PMA 777 and he followed it (p. 15, ibid) towards the Abacan bridge.

Soon the vehicle was within sight of SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda of Mobile No. 3 (p. 10, TSN, February 23, 1993). When the vehicle was about twelve (12) meters away from their position, the two police officers boarded their Mobile car, switched on the engine, operated the siren and strobe light and drove out to intercept the vehicle (p. 11, ibid). They cut into the path of the vehicle forcing it to stop (p. 11, ibid).

SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda alighted from Mobile No. 3 (P. 12, TSN, February 23, 1993). SPO2 Miranda went to the vehicle with plate number PMA 777 and instructed its driver to alight (p. 12, ibid). The driver rolled down the window and put his head out while raising both his hands. They recognized the driver as Robin C. Padilla, appellant in this case (p. 13, ibid). There was no one else with him inside the vehicle (p. 24). At that moment, Borja noticed that Manarang arrived and stopped his motorcycle behind the vehicle of appellant (p. 14, ibid). SPO2 Miranda told appellant to alight to which appellant complied. Appellant was wearing a short leather jacket (p. 16, TSN, March 8, 1993) such that when he alighted with both his hands raised, a gun (Exhibit "C") tucked on the left side of his waist was revealed (p. 15, TSN, February 23, 1993), its butt protruding (p. 15, ibid). SPO2 Borja made the move to confiscate the gun but appellant held the former's hand alleging that the gun was covered by legal papers (p. 16, ibid). SPO2 Borja, however, insisted that if the gun really was covered by legal papers, it would have to be shown in the office (p. 16, ibid). After disarming appellant, SPO2 Borja told him about the hit and run incident which was angrily denied by appellant (p. 17, ibid). By that time, a crowd had formed at the place (p. 19, ibid). SPO2 Borja checked the cylinder of the gun and find six (6) live bullets inside (p. 20, ibid).

While SPO2 Borja and appellant were arguing, Mobile No. 7 with SPO Ruben Mercado, SPO3 Tan and SPO2 Odejar on board arrived (pp. 11-12, TSN, March 8, 1993). As the most senior police officer in the group, SPO Mercado took over the matter and informed appellant that he was being arrested for the hit and run incident (p. 13, ibid). He pointed out to appellant the fact that the plate number of his vehicle was dangling and the railing and the hood were dented (p. 12, ibid). Appellant, however, arrogantlydenied his misdeed and, instead, played with the crowd by holding their hands with one hand and pointing to SPO3 Borja with his right hand saying "iyan, kinuha ang baril ko" (pp. 13-15, ibid). Because appellant's jacket was short, his gesture exposed a long magazine of an armalite rifle tucked in appellant 's back right, pocket (p. 16, ibid). SPO Mercado saw this and so when appellant turned around as he was talking and proceeding to his vehicle, Mercado confiscated the magazine from appellant (pp. 16-17, ibid). Suspecting that appellant could also be carrying a rifle inside the vehicle since he had a magazine, SPO2 Mercado prevented appellant from going back to his vehicle by opening himself the door of appellant's vehicle (16-17, ibid). He saw a baby armalite rifle (Exhibit D) lying horizontally at the front by the driver 's seat. It had a long magazine filled with live bullets in a semi-automatic mode (pp. 17-21, ibid). He asked appellant for the papers covering the rifle and appellant answered angrily that they were at his home (pp. 26-27, ibid). SPO Mercado modified the arrest of appellant by including as its ground illegal possession of firearms (p. 28, ibid). SPO Mercado then read to appellant his constitutional rights (pp. 28-29, ibid).

The police officers brought appellant to the Traffic Division at Jake Gonzales Boulevard (pp. 31-32, ibid) where appellant voluntarily surrendered a third firearm, a pietro berreta pistol (Exhibit "L") with a single round in its chamber and a magazine (pp. 33-35, ibid) loaded with seven (7) other live bullets. Appellant also voluntarily surrendered a black bag containing two additional long magazines and one short magazine (Exhibits M, N, and O, pp. 36-37, ibid). After appellant had been interrogated by the Chief of the Traffic Division, he was transferred to the Police Investigation Division at Sto. Rosario Street beside the City Hall Building where he and the firearms and ammunitions were turned over to SPO2 Rene Jesus Gregorio (pp. 5-10, TSN, July 13, 1993). During the investigation, appellant admitted possession of the firearms stating that he used them for shooting (p. 14, ibid). He was not able to produce any permit to carry or memorandum receipt to cover the three firearms (pp. 16-18, TSN, January 25, 1994).

On November 28, 1992, a certification (Exhibit "F") was issued by Captain, Senior Inspector Mario Espino, PNP, Chief, Record Branch of the Firearms and Explosives Office (pp. 7-8, TSN, March 4, 1993). The Certification stated that the three firearms confiscated from appellant, an M-16 Baby armalite rifle SN-RP 131280, a .357 caliber revolver Smith and Wesson SN 32919 and a .380 Pietro Beretta SN-A35720, were not registered in the name of Robin C. Padilla (p. 6, ibid). A second Certification dated December 11, 1992 issued by Captain Espino stated that the three firearms were not also registered in the name of Robinhood C. Padilla (p. 10, ibid).

Petitioner's defenses are as follows: (1) that his arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule; (2) that he is a confidential agent authorized, under a Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt, to carry the subject firearms; and (3) that the penalty for simple illegal possession constitutes excessive and cruel punishment proscribed by the 1987 Constitution.

After a careful review of the records 27 of this case, the Court is convinced that petitioner's guilt of the crime charged stands on terra firma, notwithstanding the Solicitor-General's change of heart.

Anent the first defense, petitioner questions the legality of his arrest. There is no dispute that no warrant was issued for the arrest of petitioner, but that per se did not make his apprehension at the Abacan bridge illegal.

Warrantless arrests are sanctioned in the following instances: 28

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

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Paragraph (a) requires that the person be arrested (i) after he has committed or while he is actually committing or is at least attempting to commit an offense, (ii) in the presence of the arresting officer or private person. 29 Both elements concurred here, as it has been established that petitioner's vehicle figured in a hit and run — an offense committed in the "presence" of Manarang, a private person, who then sought to arrest petitioner. It must be stressed at this point that "presence" does not only require that the arresting person sees the offense, but also when he "hears the disturbance created thereby AND proceeds at once to the scene." 30 As testified to by Manarang, he heard the screeching of tires followed by a thud, saw the sideswiped victim (balut vendor), reported the incident to the police and thereafter gave chase to the erring Pajero vehicle using his motorcycle in order to apprehend its driver. After having sent a radio report to the PNP for assistance, Manarang proceeded to the Abacan bridge where he found responding policemen SPO2 Borja and SPO2 Miranda already positioned near the bridge who effected the actual arrest of petitioner. 31

Petitioner would nonetheless insist on the illegality of his arrest by arguing that the policemen who actually arrested him were not at the scene of the hit and run. 32 We beg to disagree. That Manarang decided to seek the aid of the policemen (who admittedly were nowhere in the vicinity of the hit and run) in effecting petitioner's arrest, did not in any way affect the propriety of the apprehension. It was in fact the most prudent action Manarang could have taken rather than collaring petitioner by himself, inasmuch as policemen are unquestionably better trained and well-equipped in effecting an arrest of a suspect (like herein petitioner) who, in all probability, could have put up a degree of resistance which an untrained civilian may not be able to contain without endangering his own life. Moreover, it is a reality that curbing lawlessness gains more success when law enforcers function in collaboration with private citizens. It is precisely through this cooperation, that the offense herein involved fortunately did not become an additional entry to the long list of unreported and unsolved crimes.

It is appropriate to state at this juncture that a suspect, like petitioner herein, cannot defeat the arrest which has been set in motion in a public place for want of a warrant as the police was confronted by an urgent need to render aid or take action. 33 The exigent circumstances of — hot pursuit, 34 a fleeing suspect, a moving vehicle, the public place and the raining nighttime — all created a situation in which speed is essential and delay improvident. 35 The Court acknowledges police authority to make the forcible stop since they had more than mere "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle has been engaged in criminal activity. 36 Moreover, when caught in flagrante delicto with possession of an unlicensed firearm (Smith & Wesson) and ammunition (M-16 magazine), petitioner's warrantless arrest was proper as he was again actually committing another offense (illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions) and this time in the presence of a peace officer. 37

Besides, the policemen's warrantless arrest of petitioner could likewise be justified under paragraph (b) as he had in fact just committed an offense. There was no supervening event or a considerable lapse of time between the hit and run and the actual apprehension. Moreover, after having stationed themselves at the Abacan bridge in response to Manarang's report, the policemen saw for themselves the fast approaching Pajero of petitioner, 38 its dangling plate number (PMA 777 as reported by Manarang), and the dented hood and railings thereof. 39 These formed part of the arresting police officer's personal knowledge of the facts indicating that petitioner's Pajero was indeed the vehicle involved in the hit and run incident. Verily then, the arresting police officers acted upon verified personal knowledge and not on unreliable hearsay information. 40

Furthermore, in accordance with settled jurisprudence, any objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his plea. 41 Petitioner's belated challenge thereto aside from his failure to quash the information, his participation in the trial and by presenting his evidence, placed him in estoppel to assail the legality of his arrest. 42 Likewise, by applying for bail, petitioner patently waived such irregularities and defects. 43

We now go to the firearms and ammunitions seized from petitioner without a search warrant, the admissibility in evidence of which, we uphold.

The five (5) well-settled instances when a warrantless search and seizure of property is valid, 44 are as follows:

1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 45 and by prevailing jurisprudence 46,

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view", the elements of which are: 47

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

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

(c). the evidence must be immediately apparent, and

(d). "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 48

3. search of a moving vehicle. 49 Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity. 50

4. consented warrantless search, and

5. customs search.

In conformity with respondent court's observation, it indeed appears that the authorities stumbled upon petitioner's firearms and ammunitions without even undertaking any active search which, as it is commonly understood, is a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. 51 The seizure of the Smith & Wesson revolver and an M-16 rifle magazine was justified for they came within "plain view" of the policemen who inadvertently discovered the revolver and magazine tucked in petitioner's waist and back pocket respectively, when he raised his hands after alighting from his Pajero. The same justification applies to the confiscation of the M-16 armalite rifle which was immediately apparent to the policemen as they took a casual glance at the Pajero and saw said rifle lying horizontally near the driver's seat. 52 Thus it has been held that:

(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the commission of a criminal offense, the . . . police officers should happen to discover a criminal offense being committed by any person, they are not precluded from performing their duties as police officers for the apprehension of the guilty person and the taking of the, corpus delicti. 53

Objects whose possession are prohibited by law inadvertently found in plain view are subject to seizure even without a warrant. 54

With respect to the Berreta pistol and a black bag containing assorted magazines, petitioner voluntarily surrendered them to the police. 55 This latter gesture of petitioner indicated a waiver of his right against the alleged search and seizure 56, and that his failure to quash the information estopped him from assailing any purported defect.57

Even assuming that the firearms and ammunitions were products of an active search done by the authorities on the person and vehicle of petitioner, their seizure without a search warrant nonetheless can still be justified under a search incidental to a lawful arrest (first instance). Once the lawful arrest was effected, the police may undertake a protective search 58 of the passenger compartment and containers in the vehicle 59 which are within petitioner's grabbing distance regardless of the nature of the offense. 60 This satisfied the two-tiered test of an incidental search: (i) the item to be searched (vehicle) was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control 61 and (ii) the search was contemporaneous with the arrest. 62 The products of that search are admissible evidence not excluded by the exclusionary rule. Another justification is a search of a moving vehicle (third instance). In connection therewith, a warrantless search is constitutionally permissible when, as in this case, the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law-offender (like herein petitioner with respect to the hit and run) or the contents or cargo of the vehicle are or have been instruments or the subject matter or the proceeds of some criminal offense. 63

Anent his second defense, petitioner contends that he could not be convicted of violating P.D. 1866 because he is an appointed civilian agent authorized to possess and carry the subject firearms and ammunition as evidenced by a Mission Order 64 and Memorandum Receipt duly issued by PNP Supt. Rodialo Gumtang, the deputy commander of Task Force Aguila, Lianga, Surigao del Sur. The contention lacks merit.

In crimes involving illegal possession of firearm, two requisites must be established, viz.: (1) the existence of the subject firearm and, (2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. 65 The first element is beyond dispute as the subject firearms and ammunitions 66 were seized from petitioner's possession via a valid warrantless search, identified and offered in evidence during trial. As to the second element, the same was convincingly proven by the prosecution. Indeed, petitioner's purported Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt are inferior in the face of the more formidable evidence for the prosecution as our meticulous review of the records reveals that the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were mere afterthoughts contrived and issued under suspicious circumstances. On this score, we lift from respondent court's incisive observation. Thus:

Appellant's contention is predicated on the assumption that the Memorandum Receipts and Mission Order were issued before the subject firearms were seized and confiscated from him by the police officers in Angeles City. That is not so. The evidence adduced indicate that the Memorandum Receipts and Mission Order were prepared and executed long after appellant had been apprehended on October 26, 1992.

Appellant, when apprehended, could not show any document as proof of his authority to possess and carry the subject firearms. During the preliminary investigation of the charge against him for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions he could not, despite the ample time given him, present any proper document showing his authority. If he had, in actuality, the Memorandum Receipts and Missions Order, he could have produced those documents easily, if not at the time of apprehension, at least during the preliminary investigation. But neither appellant nor his counsel inform the prosecutor that appellant is authorized to possess and carry the subject firearms under Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order. At the initial presentation of his evidence in court, appellant could have produced these documents to belie the charged against him. Appellant did not. He did not even take the witness stand to explain his possession of the subject firearms.

Even in appellant's Demurrer to Evidence filed after the prosecution rested contain no allegation of a Memorandum Receipts and Mission Order authorizing appellant to possess and carry the subject firearms.

At the initial presentation of appellant's evidence, the witness cited was one James Neneng to whom a subpoena was issued. Superintendent Gumtang was not even mentioned. James Neneng appeared in court but was not presented by the defense. Subsequent hearings were reset until the defense found Superintendent Gumtang who appeared in court without subpoena on January 13, 1994. 67

The Court is baffled why petitioner failed to produce and present the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt if they were really issued and existing before his apprehension. Petitioner's alternative excuses that the subject firearms were intended for theatrical purposes, or that they were owned by the Presidential Security Group, or that his Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were left at home, further compound their irregularity. As to be reasonably expected, an accused claiming innocence, like herein petitioner, would grab the earliest opportunity to present the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt in question and save himself from the long and agonizing public trial and spare him from proffering inconsistent excuses. In fact, the Mission Order itself, as well as the Letter-Directive of the AFP Chief of Staff, is explicit in providing that:

VIII. c. When a Mission Order is requested for verification by enforcement units/personnels such as PNP, Military Brigade and other Military Police Units of AFP, the Mission Order should be shown without resentment to avoid embarrassment and/or misunderstanding.

IX. d. Implicit to this Mission Order is the injunction that the confidential instruction will be carried out through all legal means and do not cover an actuation in violation of laws. In the latter event, this Mission Order is rendered inoperative in respect to such violation. 68

which directive petitioner failed to heed without cogent explanation.

The authenticity and validity of the Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt, moreover, were ably controverted. Witness for the

prosecution Police Supt. Durendes denied under oath his signature on the dorsal side of the Mission Order and declared further that he did not authorize anyone to sign in hisbehalf. 69 His surname thereon, we note, was glaringly misspelled as"Durembes." 70 In addition, only Unit Commanders and Chief of Offices have the authority to issue Mission Orders and Memorandum Receipts under the Guidelines on the Issuance of MOs, MRs, & PCFORs. 71 PNP Supt. Rodialo Gumtang who issued petitioner's Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt is neither a Unit Commander nor the Chief of Office, but a mere deputy commander. Having emanated from an unauthorized source, petitioner's Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt are infirm and lacking in force and effect. Besides, the Mission Order covers "Recom 1-12-Baguio City," 72 areas outside Supt. Gumtang's area of responsibility thereby needing prior approval "by next higher Headquarters" 73 which is absent in this case. The Memorandum Receipt is also unsupported by a certification as required by the March 5, 1988 Memorandum of the Secretary of Defense which pertinently provides that:

No memorandum receipt shall be issued for a CCS firearms without corresponding certification from the corresponding Responsible Supply Officer of the appropriate AFP unit that such firearm has been officially taken up in that units property book, and that report of such action has been reported to higher AFP authority.

Had petitioner's Memorandum Receipt been authentic, we see no reason why he cannot present the corresponding certification as well.

What is even more peculiar is that petitioner's name, as certified to by the Director for Personnel of the PNP, does not even appear in the Plantilla of Non-Uniform Personnel or in the list of Civilian Agents or Employees of the PNP which could justify the issuance of a Mission Order, a fact admitted by petitioner's counsel. 74 The implementing rules of P.D. 1866 issued by the then PC-INP Chief and Director-General Lt. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos are clear and unambiguous, thus:

No Mission Order shall be issued to any civilian agent authorizing the same to carry firearms outside residence unless he/she is included in the regular plantilla of the government agency involved in law enforcement and is receiving regular compensation for the services he/she is rendering in the agency. Further, the civilian agent must be included in a specific law enforcement/police/intelligence project proposal or special project which specifically required the use of firearms(s) to insure its accomplishment and that the project is duly approved at the PC Regional Command level or its equivalent level in other major services of the AFP, INP and NBI, or at higher levels of command. 75Circular No. 1, dated January 6, 1986, of the then Ministry of Justice likewise provides as follows:

If mission orders are issued to civilians (not members of the uniformed service), they must be civilian agents included in the regular plantilla of the government agency involved in law enforcement and are receiving regular compensation for the service they are rendering.

That petitioner's Mission Order and Memorandum Receipt were fabricated pieces of evidence is accentuated all the more by the testimony and certification of the Chief of the Records Branch of the firearms and Explosives Office of the PNP declaring that petitioner's confiscated firearms are not licensed or registered in the name of the petitioner. 76 Thus:

Q. In all these files that you have just mentioned Mr. Witness, what did you find, if any?

A. I found that a certain Robin C. Padilla is a licensed registered owner of one 9 mm pistol, Smith and Wesson with Serial No. TCT 8214 and the following firearms being asked whether it is registered or not, I did not find any records, the M-16 and the caliber .357 and the caliber .380 but there is a firearm with the same serial number which is the same as that licensed and/or registered in the name of one Albert Villanueva Fallorina.

Q. So in short, the only licensed firearms in the name of accused Robin C. Padilla is a pistol, Smith and Wesson, caliber 9 mm with Serial No. TCT 8214?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the firearms that were the subject of this case are not listed in the names of the accused in this case?

A. Yes, sir. 77

xxx xxx xxx

And the certification which provides as follows:

Republic of the PhilippinesDepartment of the Interior and Local Government

GENERAL HEADQUARTERS PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICEFIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES OFFICE

Camp Crame, Quezon City

PNFEO5 28 November 1992

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that Robin C. Padilla of 59 Labo St., Quezon City is a licensed/registered holder of Pistol

Smith and Wesson Cal 9mm with serial number TCT8214 covered by License No. RL M76C4476687.

Further certify that the following firearms are not registered with this Office per verification from available records on file this Office as of this date:

M16 Baby Armalite SN-RP131120

Revolver Cal 357 SN-3219

Pistol Cal 380 Pietro Beretta SN-35723

However, we have on file one Pistol Cal 380, Beretta with serial number 35723Y, licensed/registered to one Albert Villanueva Fallorina of 29 San Juan St., Capitol Pasig, MM under Re-Registered License.

This certification is issued pursuant to Subpoena from City of Angeles.

FOR THE CHIEF, FEO:

(Sgd.)

JOSE MARIO M. ESPINOSr. Inspector, PNPChief, Records Branch 78

In several occasions, the Court has ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of illegal possession of firearm. 79 In People vs. Tobias, 80 we reiterated that such certification is sufficient to show that a person has in fact no license. From the foregoing discussion, the fact that petitioner does not have the license or permit to possess was overwhelmingly proven by the prosecution. The certification may even be dispensed with in the light of the evidences 81 that an M-16 rifle and any short firearm higher than a .38 caliber pistol, akin to the confiscated firearms, cannot be licensed to a civilian, 82 as in the case of petitioner. The Court, therefore, entertains no doubt in affirming petitioner's conviction especially as we find no plausible reason, and none was presented, to depart from the factual findings of both the trial court and respondent court which, as a rule, are accorded by the Court with respect and finality. 83

Anent his third defense, petitioner faults respondent court "in applying P.D. 1866 in a democratic ambience (sic) and a non-subversive context" and adds that respondent court should have applied instead the previous laws on illegal possession of firearms since the reason for the penalty imposed under P.D. 1866 no longer exists. 84 He stresses that the penalty of 17 years and 4 months to 21 years for simple illegal possession of firearm is cruel and excessive in contravention of the Constitution. 85

The contentions do not merit serious consideration. The trial court and the respondent court are bound to apply the governing law at the time of appellant's commission of the offense for it is a rule that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. 86 Indeed, it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law as it stands. 87 And until its repeal, respondent court can not be faulted for applying P.D. 1866 which abrogated the previous statutes adverted to by petitioner.

Equally lacking in merit is appellant's allegation that the penalty for simple illegal possession is unconstitutional. The penalty for simple possession of firearm, it should be stressed, ranges from reclusion temporal maximum toreclusion perpetua contrary to appellant's erroneous averment. The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make the same cruel and excessive.

It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. "The fact that the punishment authorized by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and unusual." (24 C.J.S., 1187-1188). Expressed in other terms, it has been held that to come under the ban, the punishment must be "flagrantly and plainly oppressive", "wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community" 88

It is well-settled that as far as the constitutional prohibition goes, it is not so much the extent as the nature of the punishment that determines whether it is, or is not, cruel and unusual and that sentences of imprisonment, though perceived to be harsh, are not cruel or unusual if within statutory limits. 89

Moreover, every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. The burden of proving the invalidity of the statute in question lies with the appellant which burden, we note, was not convincingly discharged. To justify nullification of the law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and argumentative implication, 90 as in this case. In fact, the constitutionality of P.D. 1866 has been upheld twice by this Court.91 Just recently, the Court declared that "the pertinent laws on illegal possession of firearms [are not] contrary to any provision of the Constitution. . . " 92 Appellant's grievances on the wisdom of the prescribed penalty should not be addressed to us. Courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy or morality of laws. That question falls exclusively within the province of Congress which enacts them and the Chief Executive who approves or vetoes them. The only function of the courts, we reiterate, is to interpret and apply the laws.

With respect to the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by respondent court (17 years 4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as minimum, to 21 years of reclusion perpetua, as maximum), we reduce the same in line with the fairly recent case of People v. Lian 93 where the Court en banc provided that the indeterminate penalty imposable for simple illegal possession of firearm, without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, should be within the range of ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve years (12) of prision mayor, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) of reclusion temporal, as maximum. This is discernible from the following explanation by the Court:

In the case at bar, no mitigating or aggravating circumstances have been alleged or proved, In accordance with the doctrine regarding special laws explained in People v. Simon, 94 although Presidential Decree No. 1866 is a special law, the penalties therein were taken from the Revised Penal Code, hence the rules in said Code for graduating by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied. Consequently, the penalty for the offense of simple illegal possession of firearm is the medium period of the complex penalty in said Section 1, that is, 18 years, 8 months and 1 day to 20 years.

This penalty, being that which is to be actually imposed in accordance with the rules therefor and not merely imposable as a general prescription under the law, shall be the maximum of the range of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum thereof shall be taken, as aforesaid, from any period of the penalty next lower in degree, which is, prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its mediumperiod. 95

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining petitioner's conviction by the lower court of the crime of simple illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions is AFFIRMED EXCEPT that petitioner's indeterminate penalty is MODIFIED to "ten (10) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to eighteen (18) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum.

SO ORDERED.