People of the Philippines vs. Che Chun Ting

A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is valid only if it is contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the person of the suspect and the premises or surroundings within his immediate control; a search extending to the inner portion of a house beyond that area violates the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and renders the seized evidence inadmissible. The exception exists solely to protect the arresting officer from concealed weapons and to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence within reach, and may not be strained beyond those purposes.

Che Chun Ting, a Hong Kong national, was charged in two criminal cases before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City under RA 6425, The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by RA 7659 — one for delivering and distributing a regulated drug under Sec. 15, Art. III, and another for possessing the same under Sec. 16, Art. III. Section 20, Art. IV of the law, as amended, prescribes the applicable penalties according to the quantity of the dangerous drug involved, with 200 grams or more of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride triggering the highest range. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures under Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, and the exclusionary rule in Sec. 3(2) thereof, supply the governing legal framework for the principal question raised on review.

Che Chun Ting, a Hong Kong national also known as "Dick," was implicated as the source of regulated drugs following the apprehension of a suspected drug courier, Mabel Cheung Mei Po. Mabel had been caught in a series of buy-bust operations after she delivered a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance to an informant in full view of agents of the Special Operation Unit of the Narcotics Command. When questioned, she cooperated with the government agents and revealed Che Chun Ting as the source of the drugs.

On 27 June 1996 the Narcotics Command deployed a team to entrap and arrest Che Chun Ting, composed of Major Marcelo Garbo, a certain Captain Campos, P/Insp. Raymond Santiago, SPO3 Renato Campanilla, and a civilian interpreter. The team used two vehicles: a Nissan Sentra Super Saloon driven by Mabel, with P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla as passengers, and a second vehicle carrying Major Garbo, Captain Campos, and the interpreter. At about seven o'clock in the morning they proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden in Pasay City, where Che Chun Ting was, and placed the place under surveillance. They later moved to the McDonald's parking lot, where the interpreter transferred to the Nissan car. Mabel then called Che Chun Ting by cellular phone and spoke to him in Chinese; according to the interpreter, who translated the conversation for the NARCOM agents, Mabel ordered one kilo of shabu.

At about 10:30 in the morning, Mabel received a call from the accused saying he was ready to deliver the stuff, and she relayed the message to the agents. After Major Garbo gave the go-signal, P/Insp. Santiago, SPO3 Campanilla, and Mabel proceeded to the Roxas Seafront Garden, with the second vehicle trailing at a reasonable distance as a blocking force. On arrival, Mabel honked twice and went to Unit 122. The two NARCOM agents, waiting inside their car parked two meters away, saw the door of the unit open and a man come out to hand Mabel a transparent plastic bag containing a white crystalline substance. The agents immediately alighted and arrested the surprised man, whom Mabel positively identified as Che Chun Ting. The agents then radioed their superiors in the other car and coordinated with the security guard on duty at the Roxas Seafront Garden to search Unit 122. During the search, SPO3 Campanilla seized a black bag containing several plastic bags of white crystalline substance from an open cabinet on the second floor. The bag was examined in the presence of Major Garbo, the accused, and his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz, after which the accused and the evidence were brought to Camp Crame, where Forensic Chemist P/Sr. Inspector Julita T. de Villa, after conducting laboratory tests, found the white crystalline substance to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.

The defense offered a different account. Nimfa Ortiz testified that she had sent her brother Noli Ortiz to meet Mabel Cheung Mei Po in front of the Allied Bank along EDSA Extension to help the latter find a lawyer and to retrieve a laser disc she had lent to Mabel. Noli testified that when he got inside Mabel's car, a policeman seated behind him suddenly struck him on the head; the car then proceeded to the McDonald's at Roxas Boulevard near the Roxas Seafront Garden, where he was moved to a green Nissan Sentra occupied by Major Garbo, Captain Lukban, and a certain Palma, whom he perceived to be the civilian interpreter. Mabel remained behind at McDonald's until she was brought back to Camp Crame. Noli, Major Garbo, Captain Lukban, and Palma then went to the Roxas Seafront Garden and parked five to seven meters away from Unit 122. Noli rang the doorbell; when Nimfa opened the door, two NARCOM officers forced their way inside and searched the premises. Noli denied having seen any black bag seized by SPO3 Campanilla and claimed that what he saw was his sister's video camera being carted away by the agents. He further testified that his sister was frightened and crying when she was made to sign a certification on the conduct of the search of Unit 122, and that Che Chun Ting was then asleep on the second floor of the unit.

The defense also presented documents showing that Unit 122 was owned by Nimfa Ortiz, not by Che Chun Ting, who lived at 1001 Domingo Poblete Street, BF Homes, Parañaque — information the defense regarded as vital to ascertaining the legality of the search of Unit 122 and the seizure of the black bag of shabu. The defense likewise assailed the trial court for relying on the testimony of Mabel, who turned hostile during the trial. The trial court found the prosecution's narration of events positive, credible, and entirely in accord with human experience, and convicted the accused in both cases.

• Illegal Search and Seizure: The accused contended that the trial court erred in convicting him on the basis of the shabu seized inside Unit 122, which was constitutionally inadmissible as evidence because it was seized without a search warrant.
• Credibility of the Hostile Witness: He argued that the trial court failed to recognize that the testimony of Mabel Cheung Mei Po, who turned hostile in the course of the trial, discredited the prosecution's case and cast doubt on the testimonies of P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla.
• Accuracy of the Laboratory Tests: He questioned the accuracy of the laboratory tests conducted by the forensic chemist, contending that the PNP Crime Laboratory should have subjected the entire 999.43 grams and 5,578.66 grams of white crystalline substance taken from him to laboratory examination, and not merely representative samples thereof in milligrams.

• Application of the Search-Incident-to-Arrest Exception: The Solicitor General urged that the warrantless search of Unit 122 fell within the recognized exception to the warrant requirement, a position the Court rejected as straining the exception beyond what is needed to serve its purposes.

• Validity of the Warrantless Search: Whether the shabu seized inside Unit 122 was admissible in evidence, the search having been conducted without a search warrant.
• Credibility of the Hostile Witness: Whether the testimony of Mabel Cheung Mei Po, who turned hostile in the course of the trial, discredited the prosecution's case and cast doubt on the testimonies of the NARCOM agents.
• Sufficiency of the Forensic Examination: Whether the trial court erred in assuming that the entire white crystalline substance seized was positive methylamphetamine hydrochloride despite the laboratory examination of only representative samples.

• Validity of the Warrantless Search: No, as to the 5,578.68 grams seized inside Unit 122. The search did not fall within the exception to the warrant requirement because the accused was arrested outside the unit and the inner portion of the house was not within his reach or immediate control; the 999.43 grams handed to Mabel, however, was admissible as the fruit of a lawful warrantless arrest.
• Credibility of the Hostile Witness: No. The informant's testimony was merely corroborative and cumulative, and the arresting officers' positive testimonies, coupled with the presumption of regular performance of duty, sufficed to sustain the conviction.
• Sufficiency of the Forensic Examination: No. No law or rule of evidence requires the forensic chemist to test the entire quantity seized; a sample taken from a package is logically presumed representative of the whole contents.

• Validity of the Warrantless Search: The 1987 Constitution ordains that no arrest, search, or seizure may be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority, and renders inadmissible for any purpose any evidence obtained in violation of that right. The right is not absolute and admits of recognized exceptions, among them a search made as an incident of a lawful arrest, which may extend beyond the person of the arrestee to the permissible area or surroundings within his immediate control. The Court held that the case did not fall within this exception. The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search, the search must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time, and place of the arrest: as to subject, it is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect and things that may be seized from him, limited to dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense; as to time and place, it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest, conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter, and only at the place where the suspect was arrested or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. The purposes of the exception are only to protect the arresting officer against physical harm from a person who might be armed with a concealed weapon and to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence within his reach; the exception should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve those purposes. Here, the accused was admittedly outside Unit 122 and in the act of delivering a bag of shabu to Mabel when he was arrested, and Unit 122 was not even his residence but that of his girlfriend Nimfa Ortiz, where he was merely a sojourner. The inner portion of the house therefore did not constitute a permissible area within his reach or immediate control, and the search of Unit 122 and the seizure of 5,578.68 grams of shabu were illegal. As a consequence, the things seized were inadmissible under the exclusionary rule, being regarded as obtained from a polluted source, the "fruit of a poisonous tree." Nonetheless, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure, so the shabu, which cannot legally be possessed, must be retained by the government and disposed of in accordance with law. The inadmissibility of the 5,578.68 grams did not totally exonerate the accused, however, because the illegal search was preceded by a valid arrest: he was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of an entrapment conducted on the basis of the information provided by Mabel, and NARCOM agents P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla saw him handing over a bag of white crystalline substance to Mabel. His arrest was lawful, and the seized bag of shabu weighing 999.43 grams was admissible in evidence as the fruit of the crime.

• Credibility of the Hostile Witness: Appellate courts give weight, and at times even finality, to the findings of the trial judge, who is in a better position to determine the credibility of witnesses because he can observe firsthand their demeanor and deportment while testifying; appellate courts have none of the judge's advantageous position and rely merely on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion. Mabel turned hostile understandably because of her adverse interest in the case, she having been separately charged for violation of Sec. 15, Art. III, RA 6425, although she was subsequently acquitted by the trial court on reasonable doubt; it was therefore to be expected that she would be extremely cautious in giving her testimony as it might incriminate her. At any rate, the testimony of the police informant in an illegal drug case is not essential for the conviction of the accused, since that testimony would merely be corroborative and cumulative; even conceding that Mabel's testimony was discredited on account of the dismissal of the criminal case against her, the prosecution could still rely on the testimonies of the arresting officers and secure a conviction on the basis thereof. The attempt to downgrade the testimonies of the NARCOM agents was bereft of substantial basis, as it was not shown that they had an improper motive for testifying as they did. NARCOM agents are not just ordinary witnesses but law enforcers, and as compared to the baseless disclaimers of the witnesses for the defense, the narration of the incident by the police officers is far more worthy of belief, coming as it does from law enforcers who are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. The evidence for the prosecution was both substantial and convincing, at its core the testimony of P/Insp. Santiago and SPO3 Campanilla, who categorically pointed to the accused as the person who handed to Mabel a plastic bag of white crystalline substance which, upon forensic examination, was found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride; their narration was positive, credible, and entirely in accord with human experience, and even the rigid cross-examination by the defense could not dent the essence of their testimonies.

• Sufficiency of the Forensic Examination: There is no law or rule of evidence requiring the forensic chemist to test the entire quantity of seized drugs to determine whether the whole lot is really prohibited or regulated drugs as suspected. On the contrary, it has always been the standard procedure in the PNP Crime Laboratory to test only samples of the drugs submitted for laboratory examination, and a sample taken from a package may be logically presumed to be representative of the whole contents of the package. Moreover, chemical analysis is not an indispensable prerequisite to establish whether a certain substance offered in evidence is a prohibited drug; the ability to recognize these drugs can be acquired without any knowledge of chemistry to such an extent that the testimony of a witness on the point may be entitled to great weight, such technical knowledge not being required, and the degree of familiarity of a witness with such drugs affecting only the weight and not the competency of his testimony. At any rate, it was up to the defense to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the findings of the forensic chemist were erroneous; in the absence of such evidence, the positive results of the tests should be accepted as conclusive, the chemist having in her favor the presumption that she regularly performed her official duty, which was to carry out those tests in accordance with the accepted standard procedure.

• Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest — A warrantless search is valid as an incident of a lawful arrest only if it is limited in subject, time, and place. As to subject, it is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. As to time and place, the search must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest — conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter — and only at the place where the suspect was arrested or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. The exception exists solely to protect the arresting officer from physical harm from a person who might be armed with a concealed weapon and to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence within his reach, and may not be strained beyond those purposes. Applied here, the search of Unit 122 and the seizure of 5,578.68 grams of shabu were illegal because the accused was arrested outside the unit, which was not even his residence but that of his girlfriend, and the inner portion of the house was not within his reach or immediate control.

• Exclusionary Rule and the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" — Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, being regarded as obtained from a polluted source. The Court applied the rule to exclude the 5,578.68 grams of shabu seized from Unit 122.

• Non-Return of Prohibited Objects — Notwithstanding the illegality of the seizure, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners. The shabu, which cannot legally be possessed by the accused, was ordered retained by the government and forfeited in its favor for disposition in accordance with law.

• Deference to Trial Court Findings on Credibility — Appellate courts give weight, and at times even finality, to the findings of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses because the judge can observe firsthand their demeanor and deportment while testifying, whereas appellate courts rely merely on the cold records of the case and on the judge's discretion.

• Hostile Witness and the Informant's Testimony — A witness may be considered unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. Mabel's hostility was understandable given her adverse interest, she having been separately charged under Sec. 15, Art. III, RA 6425 and subsequently acquitted on reasonable doubt. In any event, the testimony of a police informant in an illegal drug case is not essential for the conviction of the accused, being merely corroborative and cumulative.

• Presumption of Regular Performance of Official Duty — Law enforcers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary. The Court applied the presumption to the NARCOM agents' testimonies and to the forensic chemist's conduct of the laboratory tests.

• Entrapment and Flagrante Delicto — The accused was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of an entrapment operation, the NARCOM agents having seen him hand a bag of white crystalline substance to Mabel. His arrest was therefore lawful, and the seized bag of shabu weighing 999.43 grams was admissible in evidence as the fruit of the crime.

• Forensic Sampling and Chemical Analysis — There is no law or rule of evidence requiring the forensic chemist to test the entire quantity of seized drugs; the standard procedure in the PNP Crime Laboratory is to test only samples, and a sample taken from a package may be logically presumed to be representative of the whole contents. Chemical analysis is not an indispensable prerequisite to establishing that a substance offered in evidence is a prohibited drug. The defense bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the chemist's findings were erroneous; absent such proof, the positive results are accepted as conclusive.

• Penalty for Delivery of Shabu Under RA 6425, as Amended by RA 7659 — Sec. 20, Art. IV of The Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, provides that the penalty in Sec. 15, Art. III, shall be applied if the dangerous drug involved is, in the case of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride, 200 grams or more. Although the quantity involved (999.43 grams) exceeded that threshold, the Court refrained from imposing capital punishment and reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua, with an increased fine of P2,000,000.00.

• "The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the exception, the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of the arrest." — States the ratio for delimiting a search incident to a lawful arrest, the doctrinal core of the decision.
• "We therefore hold that the search in Unit 122 and the seizure therein of some 5,578.68 grams of shabu do not fall within the exception, hence, were illegal for being violative of one's basic constitutional right and guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures." — The operative holding on the inadmissibility of the bulk of the drugs seized.
• "As a consequence of the illegal search, the things seized on the occasion thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. They are regarded as having been obtained from a polluted source, the 'fruit of a poisonous tree.'" — Canonical formulation of the exclusionary rule as applied to evidence obtained through an illegal search.
• "A sample taken from a package may be logically presumed to be representative of the whole contents of the package." — Defines the forensic sampling doctrine sustaining the sufficiency of the laboratory examination of representative samples.

• People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 106213, 23 September 1994, 236 SCRA 689 — Cited for the rule that a search incident to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the arrestee to the permissible area or surroundings within his immediate control.
• People vs. Catan, G.R. No. 92928, 21 January 1992, 205 SCRA 235 — Cited in Santos as authority on the permissible area of a search incident to a lawful arrest.
• People vs. Liquen, G.R. No. 97952, 6 August 1992, 212 SCRA 288 — Cited in Santos for the same rule on the scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest.
• Espano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120431, 1 April 1998, 288 SCRA 558 — Cited in support of the proposition that the inner portion of a house beyond the arrestee's reach or immediate control is not a permissible area for a warrantless search.
• Nolasco vs. Paño, G.R. No. 69803, 8 October 1985, 139 SCRA 152 (Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Cuevas) — Cited for the requirement that a warrantless search be contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the place of arrest.
• People vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, 27 January 1997, 266 SCRA 607 — Cited for the rule that the testimony of a police informant in an illegal drug case is not essential to conviction, being merely corroborative and cumulative.
• People vs. Lising, G.R. No. 125510, 21 July 1997, 275 SCRA 804 — Cited for the same rule on the non-essential character of the informant's testimony.
• People vs. Blas, G.R. No. 97930, 27 May 1992, 209 SCRA 339 — Cited for the presumption that law enforcers have regularly performed their duty in the absence of proof to the contrary.
• People vs. Tang Wai Lan, G.R. Nos. 118736-37, 23 July 1997, 276 SCRA 24 — Cited for the rule that a sample taken from a package may be presumed representative of the whole contents.
• People vs. Bandin, G.R. No. 104494, 10 September 1993, 226 SCRA 299 — Cited for the rule that chemical analysis is not an indispensable prerequisite to establishing that a substance is a prohibited drug.
• People vs. Borja, G.R. No. 71838, 26 February 1990, 182 SCRA 581 — Cited for the presumption that the forensic chemist regularly performed her official duty in conducting the laboratory tests.

• Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 Constitution — Guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Court invoked this provision in holding the search of Unit 122 illegal.
• Sec. 3(2), Art. III, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Applied to exclude the 5,578.68 grams of shabu seized from Unit 122.
• Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules on Criminal Procedure — Authorizes the warrantless search of a person lawfully arrested for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. The Court construed this exception strictly and held it inapplicable to the search of Unit 122.
• Sec. 15, Art. III, RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) — Penalizes the sale, administration, dispensation, delivery, transportation, and distribution of regulated drugs. This was the provision under which the accused was convicted in Crim. Case No. 96-8932.
• Sec. 16, Art. III, RA 6425 — Penalizes the possession or use of regulated drugs without the corresponding license or prescription. This was the provision charged in Crim. Case No. 96-8933, on which the accused was acquitted.
• Sec. 20, Art. IV, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659 — Provides the penalties for offenses under Secs. 15 and 16 according to the quantity of the dangerous drug involved, the penalty in Sec. 15, Art. III applying where the shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride involved is 200 grams or more. The Court cited this provision in reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Sec. 12, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Provides that a witness may be considered unwilling or hostile only if so declared by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified reluctance to testify, or having misled the party into calling him to the witness stand. Cited in connection with Mabel Cheung Mei Po's having turned hostile.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.