Case Summary (G.R. No. 189218)
Petitioner
The People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee).
Respondent
Elsie Bagista y Bangco (Accused-Appellant).
Key Dates
The seizure and arrest occurred on July 4, 1988. The trial court rendered decision on September 26, 1988; a motion for reconsideration was denied November 22, 1988. The Supreme Court decision reviewed the trial court’s conviction on appeal.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The conviction was for violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs). The Supreme Court applied the 1987 Constitution: Article III, Section 2 (prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and warrant requirement) and Article III, Section 3(2) (exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures). The Court also discussed recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement (search incident to lawful arrest, searches of moving vehicles, and plain view) and the requirement of probable cause for warrantless searches of vehicles.
Procedural History
Following arrest and lab confirmation that the seized bundles were marijuana, the trial court convicted accused-appellant and sentenced her to life imprisonment, fined her P20,000, plus subsidiary imprisonment if insolvent, and ordered costs. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the search was an illegal warrantless search and that the evidence obtained was inadmissible.
Factual Summary
NARCOM received information from a regular informant that a 23-year-old woman, with naturally curly hair and approximately 5'2"–5'3" in height, would be transporting marijuana from the north. Acting on this tip, NARCOM agents established a checkpoint at Km. 16, Acop, Tublay and inspected incoming vehicles. After several hours they stopped a Dangwa Tranco bus. Sgt. Parajas boarded, went to the rear, saw a woman fitting the description seated on the right side of the last seat with a black-and-orange striped travelling bag on her lap, opened the bag and found three bundles of marijuana leaves wrapped in clothing. The bag and its contents were confiscated and the woman arrested and later identified as the accused. Laboratory examination tested the seized material positive for marijuana. The accused denied ownership and claimed she was transporting ten sacks of cabbages loaded at Abatan, Benguet to sell in Baguio City; she asserted the bag containing marijuana was taken from the overhead luggage carrier and not from her lap. Conductor Nestor Yangkin testified that an agent removed a bag from the luggage carrier, opened it, smelled its contents, and then asked who owned it; when no one answered the agent later approached the accused and escorted her off the bus. Yangkin’s testimony, however, conflicted with the accused’s testimony regarding the loading and ownership of the ten sacks of vegetables.
Trial Court Findings
The trial court credited Sgt. Parajas’s testimony as direct and straightforward, found nothing to suggest improper motive, and concluded the bag containing marijuana was found on the accused’s lap. The court rejected contentions that the Receipt of Property Seized, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (and the accused’s signatures thereon) were inadmissible because no counsel was present, reasoning that those documents were not confessions or extrajudicial statements. The trial court regarded discrepancies raised by the defense (bag color, whether seized material were leaves or fruit tops) as immaterial and found the defense testimony and that of Yangkin unpersuasive, especially because Yangkin contradicted the accused about the ten sacks of vegetables.
Issues on Appeal
The accused raised two principal issues: (1) whether the warrantless search conducted by the NARCOM agents was illegal and unconstitutional under the 1987 Constitution; and (2) whether the allegedly illegally obtained evidence should have been excluded from trial.
Majority’s Legal Analysis on Searches and Seizures
The Court reiterated the constitutional rule that searches and seizures require a warrant except on occasions of lawful arrest or under recognized exceptions. The decision cited Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2). The Court acknowledged exceptions recognized by prior authorities, including searches incident to lawful arrest, searches of moving vehicles (Carroll v. U.S. principle), and plain view seizures, but emphasized that warrantless searches of vehicles require reasonable or probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime before an extensive search is undertaken.
Application of Law to Facts — Probable Cause and Waiver
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court concluded the NARCOM agents had probable cause to stop and search vehicles arriving from the north because of the informant’s information describing a woman transporting marijuana and because the accused fit that description. As a result, the warrantless search was held valid and the evidence obtained admissible. The Court further noted that the accused did not object in the trial court to the admissibility of the evidence on the specific ground that it was obtained through a warrantless search; the Court treated this failure to timely object as a waiver of the right to contest admissibility on that ground and cited precedent holding that a waiver requires the court to admit the evidence.
Evaluation of Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence
The Court reiterated the trial court’s prerogative to assess witness credibility based on demeanor and other factors not observable on appeal, and stated that weight is generally given to positive prosecution testimony over the denials of an accused. The Court found the positive testimony of Sgt. Parajas, corroborated by the Receipt of Property Seized which bore the accus
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 189218)
Procedural Posture
- Appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 10, dated September 26, 1988, which found accused-appellant Elsie Bagista y Bangco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.
- Sentence imposed by the trial court: life imprisonment, a fine of P20,000.00, subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and payment of costs.
- Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court (Second Division), G.R. No. 86218; reported at 288 Phil. 828. Decision of the Supreme Court rendered September 18, 1992 (Nocon, J., majority).
- Final disposition by the Supreme Court: conviction and sentence of the trial court AFFIRMED in toto; costs against accused-appellant. Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Regalado, and Melo, JJ., concur. Padilla, J., files a dissenting opinion.
Facts of the Case
- On July 4, 1988, at about 8:00 a.m., the Narcotics Command (NARCOM) Detachment Office in the Arix Building, Bokawkan Road, Baguio City, received information from a regular informant that a 23‑year‑old woman with naturally curly hair and about 5'2" or 5'3" in height would be transporting marijuana from up north. [1]
- Acting on that information, Sgt. Oscar Parajas, Sgt. Godofredo Fider, and a civilian NARCOM agent proceeded to Km. 16, Acop, Tublay, Benguet, arriving at roughly 11:00 a.m., where they established a checkpoint and flagged down vehicles coming from the north to inspect for marijuana. [2]
- After approximately four and one-half hours, a Dangwa Tranco bus (Plate No. AVD 938; body number 428) coming from Lepanto, Benguet was stopped. Sgts. Parajas and Fider boarded the bus; Parajas announced they were NARCOM agents and that they would search passengers' baggage. Parajas proceeded to the rear of the bus while Fider inspected bags in the front. [3]
- Sgt. Parajas observed a woman with curly hair seated on the right side of the last seat, with a travelling bag with black and orange stripes on her lap (Exhibit "D"). Upon inspection of that bag, Parajas discovered three bundles of marijuana leaves covered by assorted clothing. The bag and its contents were confiscated and the woman arrested; she was later identified as the accused-appellant. [4][5]
- The confiscated bundles were subjected to laboratory examination and were found positive for marijuana (Exhibit "E"). [6]
- Accused-appellant's version: she denied knowledge of the marijuana and asserted she was a vegetable seller carrying ten sacks of cabbages loaded at Abatan, Benguet, intended for a Maria Opino in Baguio City; she claimed the bag containing the marijuana had been taken from the luggage carrier above the passenger seats and that when no one admitted owning it, the NARCOM agent took the shoulder bag on her lap and asked her to come for investigation because she fit the informant’s description. [defense narrative]
- Defense witness Nestor Yangkin (conductor of the Dangwa Tranco) testified that a NARCOM agent got a bag from the luggage carrier, opened it, smelled its contents, asked passengers who owned the bag, and, when no one answered, walked to the back of the bus, looked at passengers’ faces, approached the accused, talked to her, and escorted her out. [7]
- During cross‑examination of Yangkin, he testified that the ten sacks of vegetables had been brought by a man who told him the fare for the sacks would be paid upon arrival at the Dangwa Station in Baguio City and that the owner of the sacks would be riding the bus; Yangkin did not seek out that alleged owner and no passenger offered to pay for the sacks—an account that contradicted accused-appellant’s testimony. [8]
Trial Court Findings and Rationale
- The trial court credited the testimony of Sgt. Oscar Parajas as direct, straightforward, and containing the requisite details of the entrapment operation based on information from a coordinating individual. [9]
- The trial court found no evidence suggesting improper motive on the part of Sgt. Parajas and relied on the presumption that, where no motive to falsify is shown, the witness’s testimony is entitled to full faith and credit (citing People v. Francia). [9]
- The trial court treated alleged discrepancies (e.g., color of the bag, whether seized matter were leaves or fruit tops) as immaterial to the core finding that the bag with marijuana was on the accused’s lap.
- The trial court ruled that documents such as the Receipt of Property Seized (Exhibit "G") and Booking Sheet and Arrest Report (Exhibit "B") and accused’s signatures thereon (Exhibits "G-1" and "B-1") were admissible despite absence of coun