G.R. No. 109250 - People vs. Lacerna y Cordero

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109250)

Factual Background

On September 12, 1992, members of the Mobile Patrol Division of the Western Police District, including PO3 Carlito P. Valenzuela and PO3 Angelito Camero, patrolled sidestreets near Radial Road and Moriones Street pursuant to orders from General Nazareno; at about 2:00 p.m. they flagged down a taxicab in heavy traffic carrying appellant Marlon seated beside the driver and co-accused Noriel seated in the rear; the occupants avoided eye contact and the officers requested permission to search the vehicle and its luggage, to which the occupants assented; the officers inspected a dark blue plastic grocery bag and found, after poking a hole and unwrapping newspaper, eighteen individually wrapped blocks of dried leaves later identified by NBI forensic chemist Aida A. Pascual as marijuana totaling approximately 18.235 kilograms; appellant and co-accused said the bag was a padala from their uncle in Baguio bound for shipment to Iloilo; the accused and the seized items were brought to WPD Headquarters and later turned over for investigation and laboratory examination.

Trial Court Proceedings

At arraignment appellant and his co-accused appeared without counsel; Atty. Rodolfo P. Libatique of the Public Attorney’s Office was provisionally appointed when the accuseds’ chosen counsel did not appear and both pleaded not guilty; after trial the court a quo convicted appellant of violating Section 4 of R.A. 6425 for “giving away to another” the marijuana, sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P20,000, and acquitted co-accused Noriel for insufficiency of evidence; the trial court reasoned that the act of handing the plastic bag to Noriel constituted giving away within the meaning of Section 4 and that guilty knowledge need not be alleged for that offense.

The Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution presented PO3 Valenzuela, PO3 Rafael Melencio, and NBI forensic chemist Aida A. Pascual, who testified that Valenzuela and his companion stopped the taxi, requested and obtained consent to search, discovered a knotted plastic bag containing blocks emitting a marijuana odor after it was pierced, and observed dried marijuana leaves when a package was opened; Lt. de Soto counted eighteen blocks; specimens were submitted to the NBI where Aida Pascual tested them positive for marijuana; arrest and booking documents and the chain of custody were introduced in evidence.

The Defense’s Case

Appellant asserted denial and explained that he and Noriel were en route to North Harbor to board a boat to Iloilo and that the questioned blue plastic bag had been given to them by their uncle Edwin Lacerna at the Grand Central Station; appellant denied knowledge of the bag’s contents, recounted that the bag was twisted and knotted and that portions of the inspection occurred out of their sight, and alleged that they were maltreated and coerced into admission while in custody, though they refused to sign the booking reports and only impressed fingerprints on a blank paper.

Issues Presented on Appeal

Appellant raised three principal questions: (1) whether his right against warrantless arrest and seizure was violated so that the seized marijuana should be excluded; (2) whether the trial court erred in convicting him for giving away the eighteen blocks of marijuana under Section 4 of R.A. 6425; and (3) whether, alternatively, he could be convicted of illegal possession under Section 8 of R.A. 6425. The Court reformulated and answered the first two in the negative and the third in the affirmative.

Search and Seizure Analysis

The Court began with Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution and Sec. 3(2) regarding exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and surveyed judicial exceptions including the search incidental to lawful arrest, the search of moving vehicles, seizure in plain view, customs searches, and waiver by consent as reflected in Rule 126, Sec. 12 and in People v. Cuison and related authorities; it held that while the officers validly stopped the taxi at a checkpoint and routine visual inspection would not permit luggage search without probable cause, the record did not show probable cause because the radio assignment concerned robbery and holdups and the occupants’ furtive demeanor did not itself establish probable cause nor did a distinctive marijuana odor exist until the officer pierced the bag; nevertheless the Court found that the officers expressly sought and obtained appellant’s consent to search, that appellant affirmatively assented and stated he had nothing to hide, and that this voluntary consent validated the search notwithstanding the Aniag precedent outlawing implied acquiescence, so the seized marijuana was admissible.

Legal Characterization of “Give Away” under Section 4

The Court examined Section 4 of R.A. 6425, which proscribes selling, administering, delivering, giving away to another, distributing, dispatching in transit, or transporting any prohibited drug, and analyzed the phrase “give away” by reference to dictionary meanings and jurisprudence; it concluded that “give away” denotes a disposition akin to a gift or furnishing with transfer of ownership and is ejusdem generis with sale or gift rather than the mere manual passing of a package from one seat to another in a moving vehicle; the Court observed that treating any physical handing-over as a violation would produce absurd results and would criminalize innocent acts of transfer among occupants or between officers and recipients as happened during the encounter, and therefore the trial court erred in upholding a conviction under Section 4 for the limited act proved.

Doctrine on Possession and Its Relation to Sale or Delivery

The Court identified the established doctrine that possession is an essential element of prosecution for illegal sale or delivery and that possession is necessarily included in such offenses insofar as proof of sale or delivery presupposes possession; it cited cases holding that the corpus delicti of sale cannot be established absent seizure and identification of the prohibited drug and reiterated that possession may be the basis of conviction where sale or delivery is not sufficiently proven.

Elements and Proof of Illegal Possession under Section 8

Relying on authorities and annotations, the Court listed the elements of illegal possession under Section 8 as: (a) possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug; (b) possession not authorized by law; and (c) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug; the Court found that all elements were present because appellant was found in possession of eighteen separately wrapped bricks of marijuana identified positively by the NBI chemist, possession lacked authorization, and the evidence gave rise to the disputable presumption under Rule 131, Sec. 3(j) that the possessor is

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 109250)

Parties and Procedural Posture

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted Marlon Lacerna y Aranador and Noriel Lacerna y Cordero for violation of Section 4 of R.A. 6425, as amended.
Marlon Lacerna y Aranador appealed from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Manila, which convicted him and acquitted Noriel Lacerna.
The trial court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of P20,000 for the offense charged, prompting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court by appellant due to the life penalty.

Key Facts

Police Officer 3 Carlito P. Valenzuela and a companion observed a taxi occupied by appellant and his co-accused behave suspiciously near Radial Road about 2:00 p.m. on September 12, 1992.
The policemen stopped the taxi, requested and obtained permission to search the vehicle, and inspected a knapsack and a dark blue plastic grocery bag.
The officers found eighteen (18) blocks wrapped in newspaper inside the plastic bag which emitted the characteristic smell of marijuana after a hole was made in the bag, and the blocks weighed 18.235 kilograms in all.
The accuseds and the seized plastic bag were brought to Western Police District headquarters and later to the NBI, where Forensic Chemist Aida A. Pascual examined the specimens and reported positive identification as marijuana.
Appellant claimed the plastic bag was a padala from his uncle and that he did not know its contents, and he alleged maltreatment and coercion during detention leading to an alleged admission.
The plastic bag was publicly exhibited and destroyed during media presentation at the WPD and the NBI media events attended by reporters.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court found that appellant physically handed the plastic bag to co-accused Noriel Lacerna and interpreted such act as giving away within the meaning of Section 4 of R.A. 6425, as amended.
The trial court concluded that guilty knowledge was not required to establish the offense of giving away and convicted appellant accordingly.
The trial court acquitted Noriel Lacerna for insufficiency of evidence and credited differences in demeanor and probative showing between the two accused.

Issues Presented

Whether appellant's right against unreasonable searches and seizures under Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution was violated by the warrantless search and seizure.
Whether the trial court correctly convicted appellant for giving away the eighteen blocks of marijuana under Section 4 of R.A. 6425, as amended.
Whether appellant may nevertheless be convicted of illegal possession under Section 8 of R.A. 6425, as amended as a lesser-included or necessarily included offense.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court held that the search and seizure were lawful because appellant gave express consent to the search and the items obtained were therefore admissible in evidence.
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction under Section 4 of R.A. 6425, as amended, because the mere manual transfer of the bag did not constitute the statutory give away offense as interpreted by the Court.
The Supreme Court modified the judgment and convicted appellant of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 8 of R.A. 6425, as amended, and sentenced him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to eight (8) years as minimum to twelve (12) years as maximum and to pay a fine of P12,000, with costs de oficio.

Reasoning on Search and Seizure

The Court restated Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution and Sec. 3(2) of Article III concerning inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution.
The Court reviewed judicial exceptions to the warrant requirement, including search incidental to a lawful arrest, search of moving vehicles, seizure in plain view, customs searches, and waiver by consent, and noted the exigent-circumstances discussion in recent jurisprudence.
The Court fo