Case Digest (G.R. No. 120915) Core Legal Reasoning
Core Legal Reasoning
Facts:
In People of the Philippines vs. Rosa Aruta y Menguin, G.R. No. 120915, decided on April 3, 1998 by the Third Division, the accused-appellant, Rosa Aruta y Menguin, was charged under Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) for transporting eight kilos and five hundred grams of dried marijuana. The Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City convicted her after prosecutors presented P/Lt. Ernesto Abello and P/Lt. Jose Domingo, together with supporting officers, who testified that on December 14, 1988 an informant named “Benjie” tipped them that “Aling Rosa” would arrive from Baguio City carrying drugs. The officers positioned themselves near Rizal Avenue in Olongapo City, identified appellant as she disembarked from a Victory Liner bus with a traveling bag, introduced themselves as NARCOM agents, and upon her handing over the bag, discovered dried marijuana leaves. A Receipt of Property Seized was prepared, and a Forensic Chemist confirmed the posit Case Digest (G.R. No. 120915) Expanded Legal Reasoning
Expanded Legal Reasoning
Facts:
- Background and NARCOM operation
- On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Ernesto Abello, OIC of NARCOM-Olongapo, received a tip from an informant “Benjie” that “Aling Rosa” would travel to Baguio on December 14 and return that afternoon carrying a large volume of marijuana.
- Acting on the tip, Abello formed a team composed of P/Lt. Jose Domingo, Sgt. Angel Sudiacal, Sgt. Oscar Imperial, Sgt. Danilo Santiago, and Sgt. Efren Quirubin. At about 4:00 p.m. on December 14, they deployed near the PNB building and the Caltex station along Rizal Avenue, West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City.
- Apprehension and seizure
- At around 6:30 p.m., a Victory Liner bus (body no. 474, marked “BGO”) stopped in front of the PNB. Two females and one male alighted; the informant pointed to one female as “Aling Rosa,” who was carrying a traveling bag.
- The team approached, introduced themselves as NARCOM agents, and asked about the contents of the bag. According to Abello, the accused handed the bag to him; upon opening, they found dried marijuana leaves inside a plastic bag labeled “Cash Katutak.” They seized the bag and the Victory Liner ticket (Lt. Domingo affixed his signature on the ticket).
- The accused was brought to the NARCOM office where a Receipt of Property Seized was prepared. Forensic examination by P/Maj. Marlene Salangad (PC/INP Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas) yielded a positive finding for marijuana.
- Proceedings in the RTC
- Information: Rosa Aruta y Menguin was charged with violation of Section 4, Article II, R.A. 6425 for transporting approximately 8.5 kilograms of dried marijuana in a plastic bag marked “Cash Katutak” placed in a traveling bag.
- Arraignment: She pleaded not guilty.
- Prosecution evidence: Testimonies of P/Lt. Abello and P/Lt. Domingo; submission of the laboratory report confirming marijuana.
- Defense motions: Filed a Demurrer to Evidence asserting illegality of the search and seizure and inadmissibility of the seized items; denied by the RTC without ruling on the constitutional issue to avoid “pre-judgment.” Proceeded to trial.
- Defense version: Accused testified that she had just watched a movie (“Balweg”) at Choice Theater; while crossing the street, an old woman asked her to carry a shoulder bag; in the middle of the road, Lts. Abello and Domingo arrested her, took her to the NARCOM office, and showed no warrant; she denied knowledge of the woman who allegedly disappeared.
- Objections preserved: After prosecution’s formal offer, defense filed a Comment/Objecting to the admissibility of seized items as fruits of an unreasonable search.
- RTC judgment: Convicted Aruta of transporting 8.5 kilos of marijuana; sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000, without subsidiary imprisonment.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Assigned errors:
- Relief sought: Reversal of conviction due to illegality of search and inadmissibility of evidence.
Issues:
- Warrantless search and arrest
- Whether the warrantless search of the accused’s traveling bag and her arrest were valid under any recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
- Whether the NARCOM agents had probable cause to effect a warrantless arrest under Rule 113, Section 5(a) (in flagrante delicto).
- Applicability of recognized exceptions
- Whether the seizure was justified under plain view.
- Whether the moving vehicle doctrine applies.
- Whether stop-and-frisk principles justified the stop and search.
- Whether exigent and emergency circumstances existed.
- Whether the search was consensual, amounting to a waiver of constitutional rights.
- Warrant procurement and particularity
- Whether NARCOM had adequate time and particulars to secure a search warrant, including after-hours, consistent with administrative circulars and the particularity requirement.
- Waiver and admissibility
- Whether accused-appellant’s arraignment, participation in trial, or failure to object earlier constituted waiver of objections to the illegal search and the admissibility of the seized items.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)