G.R. No. 247906 - People vs. Alberto II

Accused-appellants Salvador Agunday Alberto II and Mary Jane Turalde Vargas were charged with illegally transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The charge arose from an Information filed on August 3, 2009 related to the transportation of 887.88 grams of heroin from the Pinoy Family Club Hotel in Pasay City to the departure area of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 110 convicted the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt; the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision before the case reached the Supreme Court.

On July 31, 2009, information gathered by Special Investigator (SI) Otic through a Filipino informant led to intelligence that a female courier (initially identified as Anita Aguday Alberto, later identified as Vargas) would arrive from Malaysia carrying an undetermined quantity of heroin.
SI Otic and his team, including SI Saul, SI Escurel, Atty. Fatima Liwalug, and others, coordinated with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), local police, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to plan an operation at the Hotel where Vargas was staying.
At approximately 9:00 a.m. at the Hotel, security personnel identified Vargas in Room 21, leading SI Otic and operatives to monitor her movements and interactions with Alberto, who was observed arriving and later conversing with Vargas in the Hotel’s cafeteria.
The duo was observed exchanging pleasantries, followed by identifying an exchange regarding a black trolley bag which Vargas handed to Alberto.

After leaving the Hotel, Alberto was intercepted at NAIA Terminal 1 by SI Saul and SI Escurel after the shuttle van carrying him was stopped.
The NBI operatives invited Alberto to their office for questioning regarding the contents of the bag he was carrying.
Meanwhile, Vargas was also invited to the NBI office, where she cooperated by asserting ownership of the bag despite later disputes concerning the contents.
At the NBI office, in the presence of DOJ representatives, barangay officials, media witnesses, and the accused-appellants, the black trolley bag was subjected to inspection.
During the search, SI Escurel used a knife to slash the side of the bag, revealing two brown envelopes labeled MEE-2 and MEE-3, which contained a white or yellowish powder subsequently identified by Forensic Toxicologist Rubie Banela-Calalo as heroin.

Evidence was gathered through a documented chain of custody, including the inventory and photographic evidence taken during the search conducted in strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
Testimonies from various NBI operatives (SI Otic, SI Saul, SI Escurel) detailed the coordinated operation and the involvement of both accused-appellants in the alleged drug transportation.
Accused-appellants’ personal accounts, including Alberto’s testimony regarding his employment, travel history and interactions with Vargas, were recorded.
Conflicting testimonies arose regarding the actual conduct of the search—specifically, who performed it and whether the operatives searched the bag with or without proper consent; nevertheless, the presence of independent witnesses helped corroborate the sequence of events.

The RTC convicted the accused-appellants, finding they conspired as drug couriers by transporting heroin, and imposed life imprisonment plus a fine of P500,000.
The CA affirmed the RTC decision, holding that the essential element of illegal transportation—the movement of dangerous drugs—was established, and that the warrantless arrest and consented search were legally justifiable given the circumstances.

Whether the warrantless arrest of accused-appellants, which was conducted by the NBI operatives without a formal warrant, was lawful.
Whether the manner in which the interrogation and custody of the accused-appellants were effected constituted a de facto arrest under Section 1, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the search of the black trolley bag—conducted after inviting the accused-appellants to the NBI office and in the presence of independent witnesses—was valid as a consented warrantless search.
Whether any procedural lapses or inconsistencies in the testimonies regarding the search (e.g., who conducted the search, timing of the search, and the nature of the consent provided) vitiated the admissibility of the evidence.

Whether the evidence, including the discovery of heroin within the bag and the chain of custody, was sufficient to demonstrate that the accused-appellants actually transported dangerous drugs, qualifying as an offense under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Whether the accused-appellants’ alleged lack of cooperation or denial of involvement mitigated their responsibility for the transportation of the drug.