Case Digest (G.R. No. 121877)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Gonzales y Evangelista, G.R. No. 121877, September 12, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee is the People of the Philippines; the accused-appellant is Erlinda Gonzales y Evangelista.On December 23, 1993 the Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo filed an information charging appellant with illegal transport of marijuana (ten kilos, compressed in bricks), allegedly committed on or about August 30, 1993 in Duenas, Iloilo, in violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. No. 6425. Appellant was arraigned on January 31, 1994 and pleaded not guilty; trial followed in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Iloilo City, Branch 39, Criminal Case No. 42441.
The prosecution presented PO1 Reggie Pedroso and PNP forensic chemist Angela Baldevieso, and offered exhibits consisting of the ten bricks of dried marijuana (weighing 9.560 kg), Physical Sciences Report No. D-087-93, and a black traveling bag. The evidence narrative was that policemen acting on a tip received the evening of August 29, 1993 formed mobile patrols the next morning, spotted a woman matching the tipster’s description standing by a trisikad holding a black traveling bag, accosted her, brought her, the trisikad driver (Isaac Lamera) and the bag to the police station, forced open the locked bag and discovered ten bricks of dried marijuana; the chemist later confirmed the substance as marijuana.
Appellant denied ownership of the bag and alleged she was not a trisikad passenger; she also asserted the bag shown at trial differed from the one seized. Defense witness Lamera testified that a male passenger had left the bag on his trisikad and that appellant was not holding the bag when police arrived, but his trial testimony conflicted with two earlier sworn statements. The RTC found the prosecution witnesses credible, convicted appellant on March 8, 1995 of violating Secti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Was appellant’s warrantless arrest and the consequent search lawful, making the seized marijuana admissible in evidence?
- Was the penalty imposed by the RTC (life imprisonment) correct under the law in force...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)