Case Summary (G.R. No. 120670)
Factual Background
On April 12, 1994, airport security’s walk‐through metal detector signaled a metallic presence in a box marked “Bongbong’s piaya” carried by appellant. PASCOM personnel asked him to open it; he initially hesitated but ultimately consented, uttering “open.” Inside were eighteen foil‐wrapped packs of dried marijuana fruiting tops totaling 1.9 kg. Appellant attempted to flee but was apprehended, informed of his rights, and the seized material was submitted for laboratory confirmation.
Procedural Posture
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Bacolod City, convicted appellant of illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II, R.A. No. 6425, sentencing him to death and a ₱10 million fine. Under R.A. No. 7659, the case proceeded to automatic review before the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
Appellant challenged:
- PASCOM’s authority to open and search the box.
- Validity of his consent to search.
- Constitutionality of warrantless search and seizure.
- Misapplication of plain‐view and incidental‐to‐arrest doctrines.
- Sufficiency of proof of animus possidendi.
- Alleged frame‐up by co‐accused and officers.
- Excessiveness of the death penalty and fine.
Search Authority under R.A. No. 6235 and LOI No. 399
The Court held PASCOM’s security function—created by LOI 399 and a 1978 MOU—empowers it to inspect hand‐carried luggage. Section 8, R.A. No. 6235 authorizes carriers to open suspicious packages “to help the authorities.” PASCOM, as airport security implementing arm, lawfully operated under this grant and security manuals to conduct the search.
Consent to Search
Testimony established appellant’s voluntary consent. Despite initial reluctance, he verbally assented (“open”) after explanation. The RTC’s credibility finding—that appellant understood English and knowingly waived his right to object—was affirmed.
Flagrante Delicto and Arrest
Discovery of marijuana during a lawful, consented search rendered appellant caught in flagrante delicto. His warrantless arrest under Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Criminal Procedure, was valid as the offense was committed in the officers’ presence.
Admissibility of Seized Evidence
The marijuana was admissible. The Court rejected reliance on plain‐view and incidental‐arrest exceptions but upheld admissibility based on valid consent and lawful search procedures.
Frame-Up Allegations
Appellant’s claim of a conspiracy involving Takeshi Koketsu and certain officers lacked any supporting evidence or witness testimony. In absence of clear and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 120670)
Procedural History
- Criminal Case No. 94-16100 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Bacolod City, involving illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
- Appellant Hedishi Suzuki arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and underwent trial by presentation of prosecution and defense witnesses.
- Trial court rendered judgment on December 7, 1994, convicting Suzuki of possession of 1.54707 kilograms of marijuana, sentencing him to death and a fine of ₱10,000,000, with forfeiture of the drug exhibit.
- Automatic review granted by the Supreme Court under R.A. No. 7659; appellant assigned fifteen interrelated errors.
Facts Established by Prosecution
- November 1993 directive by PNP Narcotics Command required regional units to cover domestic airport terminals and coordinate with PASCOM and local authorities to curb drug trafficking.
- On April 12, 1994, Suzuki and fellow Japanese national Takeshi Koketsu entered Bacolod Airport pre-departure area bound for Manila; Suzuki carried a small travel bag and a box labeled “Bongbong’s piaya.”
- Metal detector at checkpoint alarmed when Suzuki passed; frisk of person negative, machine alarm persisted when the box was scanned.
- Suzuki escorted to hand-carried luggage inspection; he appeared reluctant but eventually consented—uttering “open, open”—to have the box opened.
- Inspection revealed eighteen small packs, seventeen wrapped in aluminum foil; one pack contained dried fruiting tops resembling marijuana.
- Suzuki attempted flight but was chased and apprehended by PASCOM and NARCOM officers; suspects Koketsu and his wife Lourdes Linsangan also detained.
- Confiscation receipt prepared; Suzuki, on advice of counsel, refused to acknowledge it.
- Specimen samples sent to PNP Crime Laboratory; forensic chemist Villavicencio conducted three tests, all positive for marijuana; total weight confirmed at 1.9 kg (later found to be 1.54707 kg on re-weighing).
Defense Version
- Suzuki traveled from Osaka to Manila on April 9, 1994, to collect a debt of ¥2.5 million (≈₱500,000) from Koketsu; accompanied by Koketsu and Koketsu’s wife, Lourdes.
- Suzuki stayed at Koketsu’s house in Bacolod; upon demand, Koketsu admitted he had no funds; Suzuki spent a night at Casino Filipino, then met a woman “Pinky,” with whom he went to Moonlight Motel.
- On the morning of April 12, “Pinky” gave Suzuki the box of piaya as pasalubong; Suzuki did not inspect contents, trusting a woman he had met the prior night.
- At the airport, Suzuki accompanied by Koketsu and Lourdes; machine alarm led to opening of the box; Koketsu allegedly told Suzuki it was marijuana.
- Suzuki claimed language barrier hampered communication; he was brought successively to PASCOM, NARCOM offices, police station, prosecutor’s office, and jail.
- Alleged that Koketsu and certain officers conspired to frame him; Koketsu promised to arrange bail and threatened Suzuki’s life if he did not cooperate.
- Five days post-arrest, escorted back to Koketsu’s house to collect Suzuki’s money (¥120,000 ≈₱30,000), which Koketsu claimed was spent on drinks for officers.
Trial Court’s Findings and Decision
- Credited prosecution witnesses on airport checkpoint procedure and Suzuki’s verbal consent (“open, open”)