Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Chi Chan Liu
Case
G.R. No. 189272
Decision Date
Jan 21, 2015
Two Chinese nationals aboard a speedboat near Ambil Island, Occidental Mindoro, were apprehended with suspected shabu in 1998. Despite bribery attempts, illegal possession was proven, not importation, leading to life sentences.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189272)

Facts

While conducting surveillance on a “suspicious-looking” fishing boat near Ambil Island, PNP officers observed two boats transferring cargo. One vessel escaped; on the remaining speedboat they found appellants in possession of forty-five transparent plastic bags (approx. 1 kg each) containing crystalline methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”). Appellants failed to produce identification; offered bribes; were taken to shore, inventoried in the presence of the municipal mayor, and transported to Camp Vicente Lim. Custodial interrogation was hindered by language barriers until an interpreter arrived; appellants repeated “call China, big money” but made no admissions. The seized substance underwent proper marking, chain-of-custody procedures, and forensic testing, confirming it as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Procedural History

The Occidental Mindoro Provincial Prosecutor filed an Information for illegal importation of regulated drugs (Sec. 14, Art. III and Sec. 21(a), Art. IV of R.A. 6425, as amended). RTC Branch 44 found appellants guilty of importation, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and a ₱1,000,000 fine. The CA affirmed. Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, raising five issues on elements of importation, corpus delicti, presumption of regularity versus constitutional guarantees, validity of arraignment, and sufficiency of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues

  1. Whether appellants committed “importation” of regulated drugs without lawful authority.
  2. Whether corpus delicti was established beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. Whether presumption of regularity in police duty overcomes asserted constitutional violations.
  4. Validity of appellants’ arraignment.
  5. Whether guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Analysis

  1. Importation Requirement – Importation of regulated drugs under R.A. 6425 requires proof that the drugs were brought into the Philippines from a foreign territory. Previous rulings (e.g., United States v. Jose) and statutory definitions confirm that importation connotes introduction from an external source. The evidence did not show that the speedboat or drugs came from outside the Philippines; appellants’ nationality and bribe offers did not suffice to establish foreign origin.
  2. Possession as Included Offense – Under Supreme Court precedents (People v. Elkanish), possession is inherent in importation. Double jeopardy principles permit conviction for the lesser included offense of illegal possession when importation cannot be sustained but possession is proven.
  3. Elements of Illegal Possession (Sec. 16, Art. III, R.A. 6425, as amended) – (a) possession of a regulated drug; (b) lack of lawful authority; (c) conscious possession. All elements were met: appellants were found with plain-view bags of shabu on their boat; they offered bribes and failed to account for their presence or cargo; defense claims of frame-up lacked credible proof and were properly discredited by the trial court.
  4. Search, Seizure, and Arrest – Warrantless arrest was valid under the flagrante delicto exception (Rule 113, Sec. 5(a), Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure). The plain-view doctrine justified immediate seizure of the drugs, as officers lawfully approached, inadvertently saw incriminating evidence, and recognized its criminal character.
  5. Chain of Custody – Proper marking, inventory (in the presence of appellants and the mayor), turnover to PNP Regional Headquarters, laboratory examination, and court presentation ensured an unbroken chain of custody.
  6. Detention Period – Although the Information was filed five days after arrest, appellants did not initiate relief against alleged overdetention. Criminal proc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.