G.R. No. 199938 - People vs. Laba y Samanoding

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199938)

Factual Background

On the date in question the accused was at the Manila Domestic Airport ostensibly to board a flight to Davao City when a non-uniformed personnel frisker, Mark Anthony Villocillo, physically searched him and felt what appeared to be rice in the accused's oversized white rubber shoes bearing the mark "Spicer." Villocillo asked the accused to remove the shoes and discovered three plastic sachets hidden therein; two sachets were inside the left shoe and one was inside the right shoe. Upon extraction of the sachets, the accused reportedly said, "Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito," while handing a rolled wad of paper bills. Villocillo called his supervisor, SPO2 Nolasco Peji, who apprehended the accused, apprised him of his rights, brought him to their office, and turned him over to PO2 Edwin Caimoso and later to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents who arrived at the scene.

Laboratory Examination and Evidence

The confiscated sachets were marked and weighed as follows: EXH-A at 98.81 grams, EXH-B at 96.65 grams, and EXH-C at 1.17 grams, aggregating to 196.63 grams of white crystalline substance. On the following day, qualitative examination by Police Senior Inspector Stella Garciano Ebuen tested the substance positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly referred to as shabu. The marked sachets and the chemist's report were offered by the prosecution at trial.

Formal Charge and Plea

An Information charged the accused with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 for unlawfully transporting 196.63 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride by concealing it inside his worn white rubber shoes marked "SPICER." When arraigned with counsel the accused pleaded not guilty.

Defense's Contentions

The accused testified that he was passing through the airport for his flight when SPO2 Peji called him to stay because something had allegedly been recovered; he claimed he heard SPO2 Peji tell another arrestee to "pass" the contraband to him. He alleged that he was taken to an office where SPO2 Peji forced him to admit ownership of the shabu and then demanded a settlement of P100,000.00 which the accused could not pay. He further claimed that SPO2 Peji confiscated his wallet containing P1,600.00 and that P2,000.00 was found in his pants pocket, denied wearing the marked shoes, and asserted that he was framed.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

After trial the Regional Trial Court convicted the accused on August 29, 2006. The RTC found that the elements of transportation were established by proof of actual physical possession and control coupled with presentation of the corpus delicti. It credited the testimonies of Villocillo and SPO2 Peji as candid and reliable and applied the presumption that law enforcers regularly performed their duties. The RTC rejected the accused's bare denials and framing or extortion allegations as unsubstantiated. The court sentenced the accused to suffer life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs.

Court of Appeals' Disposition

On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that the identity of the seized substance had been adequately proved and that the chain of custody was properly established from seizure, marking, laboratory examination, to presentation in court. The CA acknowledged noncompliance with Sec. 21, Par. (1) of RA 9165 insofar as the arresting officers did not strictly comply with photographic inventory requirements, but found that the evidentiary value of the seized items had nonetheless been preserved. The CA also held that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist at trial was not fatal to the prosecution's case.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The determinative issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court committed reversible error in convicting the accused for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision. The Court sustained the conviction for transportation under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, rejecting the accused's defenses and upholding the factual findings on possession, corpus delicti, and chain of custody. The Court ruled that the evidence established that the accused was caught at the airport with a substantial quantity of shabu concealed in his shoes while intending to board a flight, and that such presence and circumstance constituted transporting the dangerous drug.

Legal Reasoning on Transport and Purpose

The Court explained that "transport" under the Dangerous Drugs Act means to carry or convey from one place to another and that the essential element is movement of the dangerous drug. The Court reasoned that the accused's presence at the airport, prepared to board a flight to Davao City, sufficed to show intent to transport the drugs even if he had not yet b

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199938)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted the case for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.
LABA Y CAMALOMNG SAMANODING was the accused and appellant who pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 231, Pasay City convicted the appellant on August 29, 2006 and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02479 by its April 7, 2011 decision.
The Supreme Court, Second Division received the appeal and rendered the challenged decision on January 28, 2013 by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, affirming the CA decision.

Key Factual Allegations

The appellant arrived at Manila Domestic Airport on June 18, 2005 intending to board a flight to Davao City when he was approached at the initial check-in area.
Mark Anthony Villocillo, a non-uniformed personnel frisker, physically searched the appellant and suspected that the appellant's oversized white rubber shoes marked "Spicer" contained rice-like material.
Upon removal and inspection of the shoes, Villocillo discovered three plastic sachets of a white crystalline substance, two sachets in the left shoe and one sachet in the right shoe.
When the sachets were extracted, the appellant handed Villocillo a rolled wad of paper bills and said, "Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito."
SPO2 Nolasco Peji then apprehended the appellant, apprised him of his rights, and took custody of the appellant pending investigation.
The appellant was later investigated by PO2 Edwin Caimoso and the seized items were indorsed to arriving PDEA agents.

Charges and Information

The appellant was charged in an Information with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 for transporting 196.63 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) concealed in his shoes.
The Information alleged the offense occurred on June 18, 2005 at Pasay City while the appellant was a departing passenger on Cebu Pacific Airlines flight bound for Davao.
The appellant entered a plea of not guilty at his June 27, 2005 arraignment.

Defense Contentions

The appellant claimed he was framed and that law enforcers attempted to extort money from him by offering to "settle" the matter for P100,000.00.
The appellant asserted that SPO2 Peji confiscated his wallet containing P1,600.00 and that P2,000.00 was found in his pants pocket.
The appellant denied wearing the white rubber shoes with the "Spicer" label at the time of arrest.
The appellant maintained that statements obtained at a PDEA office were the product of coercion and that he was forced to admit ownership.

Trial Findings

The RTC found the testimonies of Villocillo and SPO2 Peji to be candid, forthright, and reliable, and gave them full credence.
The RTC rejected the appellant's bare denials and allegations of frame-up an